Debby wrote:
>"...well meaning "purists" who force  moms to learn
>complicated things like suck training (Please
>whoever came up with that annoying invasive and
>threatening idea substantiate the proceedure) ..."

Egads. I feel age spots sprouting all over me. Has the
LC profession gotten so "old" that one of the seminal
works of the field is now unknown? Whether or not
one believes suck training is a valid treatment
"these days" I think it says a lot about the lack of
comprehensive LC education when we have to ask for
references for this technique! All professions are built
on the foundation of those who came before, and
those who build on top of the early foundation have a
responsibility to know what is the substance of that
foundation.  "Training neonates to suck correctly, MCN
9:401-7, 1984" by Chele Marmet and Ellen Shell
should be required reading for all LCs (IMO). Whether
one agrees with the technique, or not, I think we need
to know what the original article taught. Unless one
has that basic knowledge, agreeing or disagreeing
with the technique is pointless. It is, in fact, the way by
which "mythology" finds life and, by consequence, our
profession is weakened.

I'm not picking on you, Debby. Your comment was
simply the one that pushed me to respond. I often see
discussions -- pro and con -- in this forum about
techniques where it is clear the writer has not read the
original research. Using techniques without
understanding the basis is much worse than asking
for references for procedures one does not
understand or agree with. Argument and criticism
demand a sound knowledge of the facts, otherwise it
is like sword fighting empty air.

Margery Wilson, IBCLC