SET LACTNET NOMAIL


---Automatic digest processor <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> ATTACHMENT part 1 message/rfc822
>
> There are 12 messages totalling 359 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics in this special issue:
>
>   1. educating Ezzo
>   2. nursing or breastfeeding or what?
>   3. Indian Women
>   4. NIH Lactation Project
>   5. Smokers
>   6. Babies Who Won't Breastfeed, Can't Breastfeed; Wolf and Glass
>   7. Supplementation reason and rates question (repeat?)
>   8. Workplace Discrimination
>   9. confusing biological differences with cultural identity
>  10. Noonan's syndrome
>  11. ankloglossia
>  12. Annonymous post
>
>
> To post a note  to the 2000+ subscribers of  LACTNET, send your note
to
>                           [log in to unmask]
> To change your subscription options as in those listed below, send
computer
> commands listed below, via e-mail to:
>                            [log in to unmask]
>
>         To leave LACTNET----        UNSUBSCRIBE LACTNET
>      To temporarily stop your subscription------    SET LACTNET NOMAIL
>      To restart mail after being nomail -------------- SET LACTNET
MAIL
>         For Information on other commands------------    HELP
>               For Information on Search Functions-------------
INFO REFCARD
> Don't Know How To "Work" Lactnet? Send e-mail to
[log in to unmask]
> with message reading: Get Lactnet Welcome
>
>    LACTNET WWW Archives :
http://library.ummed.edu/lsv/archives/lactnet.html
>
> For further help, write to Lactnet Listmoms at:
> Kathleen B. Bruce BSN, IBCLC [log in to unmask]
> Kathleen G. Auerbach Ph.D, IBCLC [log in to unmask]
> [log in to unmask]
>
> ATTACHMENT part 2 message/rfc822
>
> << He also recommends stretching the intervals of the daytime
feedings,
>  lest the "baby's stomach gets conditioned to being fed small amounts
>  frequently, instead of waiting at least two hours between feedings at
>  birth, and at least four hours by 4 months of age."   This combines
with
>  a statement that "By 4 months, about 90% of infants sleep more than
>  eight consecutive hours without feeding.  Normal children of this age
>  (and premature babies who have reached 11 pounds) do not need any
>  calories during the night to remain healthy."
>
> Would somebody influential and respected in the US, preferably an
alpha
> male from an impeccable Christian background recognised as such by the
> brand of religion Mr. Ezzo espouses,  please take time to go and talk
> kindly and respectfully to Mr and Mrs Ezzo and carefully explain to
them
> about the interaction between breast storage capacity, infant stomach
> capacity, and needed frequency of feeding, a la Peter Hartmann's work?
> Quite clearly Mrs had ample breast tissue and thinks every other
woman can
> produce in just the way she did. These are not people I'd want to
have as
> friends (controlling types who can't see women and their babies as
> individuals rarely are.) However, they are or are believed to be
"good"
> people and I would first take time to meet them and talk seriously
to them
> about the science of lactation before writing them off as malevolent
and to
> be shunned or flamed or worked against. they are ignorant. It is a
> value-free and remediable condition in most humans, though not, I
grant
> you, in all. Perhaps this has been tried and failed?  I am happy to
send
> them a copy of the new BFM when it returns from the printers if
someone
> will send me a snail-mail address for them...
>
> Maureen Minchin, IBCLC. Christ Church Vicarage, 14 Acland St.,
St.Kilda,
> Vic. 3182 Australia. tel/fax: 61 3 9537 2640
> "Taking paths of least resistance is what makes rivers - and people -
> crooked." poster in Palmerston North NZ bookshop...
>
> ATTACHMENT part 3 message/rfc822
>
> >I believe that our continual use of any term with "feeding"
> in it, devalues almost everything else that is going on between that
mother
> and baby.<
>
> Nancy, what would you suggest then? We write breastfeeding as one word
> because it is a unique and special action involving breasts
nutrition and
> and nurture. there is simply no such thing as non-nutritive suckling
in
> abreast-fed baby: it's nutritive in many ways and via many means. I
prefer
> "breastfeeding" infinitely more than "nursing" as in "nursing homes",
> nursing journals, nursing a grudge, and the rest. If we are to use any
> other word, it needs to be better than breastfeeding.
>
> Maureen Minchin, IBCLC. Christ Church Vicarage, 14 Acland St.,
St.Kilda,
> Vic. 3182 Australia. tel/fax: 61 3 9537 2640
> "Taking paths of least resistance is what makes rivers - and people -
> crooked." poster in Palmerston North NZ bookshop...
>
> ATTACHMENT part 4 message/rfc822
>
> Indian women are not Asian in US terms but they are in UK terms. I
seem to
> recall that in US terminology Asian refers to far eastern peoples,
e.g. Chinese,
> Japanese, am I right?  In the UK Asian usually refers to people from
the Indian
> sub-continent.
>
> Racially Indians, Pakistanis and Bangladeshis are very similar.
Indeed, many
> Pakistanis born before 1947 will have migrated to Pakistan at the
time of the
> Partition, Bengalis at that time going to Bangladesh (was East
Pakistan).  the
> Partition was along religious lines, not racial ones.
>
> Magda Sachs
> The Breastfeeding Network (UK)
>
> ATTACHMENT part 5 message/rfc822
>
> Dear Attie:
> Yes, you may share this with your client.  This is public knowledge.
> She may also wish to contact the NIH lactation consultant or the
project officer
> for more information (for NIH, and extension that is 61105 is
301-496-1105).
> She may also wish to visit the WEB site.
> Thanks for your interest.
> Take care.
> Frank
>
> ATTACHMENT part 6 message/rfc822
>
> I wanted to comment on the thread re smokers and BF.  I function as a
> Childbirth Educator, Lactation Consultant, and Certified
Hypnotherapist.  In
> these three areas I see the smokers too, and could easily get really
angry
> (and have) at the pregnant and nursing women (and don't forget their
often
> smoking spouses).  But...after doing many hypnosis stop smoking
programs,
> (for pregnant and non-pregnant alike), I have learned a great deal
about the
> true physiological, psychological, social, and emotional trauma
these people
> go through with this addictive terrible habit. I am a non-smoker,
but lived
> with a smoker, my husband, who died ten  years ago of cancer at a
very young
> age, and I was as close as one could get without actually smoking. I
hate
> smoking for all the reasons you all know.
>
> My point is:  I became much more understanding of all the issues
stated above
> that smokers deal with, and no more do I get angry.  Instead, I use
positive
> suggestions,reinforcement,information...whatever, to hopefully "get
through"
> to anyone who smokes and is interested in considering quitting...but
> especially to the pregnant and lactating ones whose precious little
one is
> unable say no.
>
> Linda Pincus, RN, BS, FACCE, IBCLC, CH
>
> ATTACHMENT part 7 message/rfc822
>
> Barbara,
>
> Thanks for your reply to my questions re bubble palate in pointing me
> back to Wolf and Glass.  I will plan to get back into the book.  I got
> bogged down in the anatomy and physiology section, which I know I
need,
> but didn't have time to study at the time.  I will try for small
bits as
> you suggest.  I learned a great deal from Wolf and Glass as well as
from
> Marjorie Palmer at the conferences.  I hope I never have to miss the
> annual Albuquerque conference as I always learn so much.
>
> You write that, "The only babies who won't breastfeed, can't
> breastfeed."  You appear to discount nipple confusion and flow
> preference as reasons for breastfeeding difficulties, although I'm not
> sure that was your intent.  Did you mean that these aren't the only
> reasons why babies don't breastfeed?  If so, I couldn't agree with you
> more.  I have seen babies who won't breastfeed because of a cardiac
> defect (no stamina), respiratory distress, reflux, or a stuffy nose.
> I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons which I either can't
remember
> or didn't recognize.
>
> However, I see lots of babies whose only or primary problem with
> breastfeeding seems to be that they were bottlefed before
breastfeeding
> was well established.  These babies refuse to root at the breast, to
> open their mouths wide, and/or to suck when the breast is in their
> mouths.  If they suck at all, they often come off the breast
repeatedly
> because of the small volume of the breast milk or colostrum (which has
> usually been further decreased by the mother's lack of stimulation
when
> the baby was being bottlefed in the nursery and the mother had no
nipple
> stimulation or breast emptying.
>
> With regard to Marjorie Palmer's lecture, I have found the information
> very helpful.  However, I am not sure that sucking bursts of 5-9 sucks
> are indicative of neurologic damage in the first few days of life in
> breastfeeding babies.  I see lots of babies who appear normal in every
> way who fit into this category in early feeds.  I think it may have to
> do with the low milk volume at this time.  What do you think?
>
> Bonnie Jones, RN, ICCE, IBCLC
> from the sunny S.W. USA
>
> ATTACHMENT part 8 message/rfc822
>
> I thought I posted this before but have had no response.  I was NOMAIL
> and may have forgotten to mention this fact.
>
> Does anyone have statistics as to a "reasonable" supplementation rate
> for breastfeeding babies.  I have seen the statement "rarely
necessary"
> but would like percentages from WHO, Baby Friendly Hospitals, etc.
>
> We are doing Performance Improvement studies (previously known as
> quality assurance or quality improvement) on breastfeeding
> supplementation rates during hospitalization on the maternity unit
> (typically 1-2 day stays for vaginal births and 3-4 day stays for
> Cesarean births).  We have set our goal (benchmark) that no more that
> 25% of babies will be supplemented with formula.  I know this is a
lot,
> but we are having difficulty meeting this goal.
>
> Also, is there a list somewhere of what are considered "medical
> indications" for supplementations.  I could write a list, but it would
> be much more acceptable if it came from a published source, such as
WHO
> or a medical journal.  Can anyone help me out?
> TIA.
>
> Bonnie Jones, RN, ICCE, IBCLC
> from the sunny S.W. USA
>
> ATTACHMENT part 9 message/rfc822
>
> Phyllis,
>
> The mother you described who is experiencing workplace
discrimination should
> report this to the office of Rep Carolyn Maloney who authored the
New Mothers
> Breastfeeding Promotion and Protection Act (HR 3531). Use the e-mail
address
> for her legislative assistant:
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> You and the mother might also wish to write a letter to your
respective
> federal House representative detailing the story and asking that he
or she co-
> sponsor this bill in response to constituent needs. Take advantage
of this
> situation! Be sure to forward any replies to NABA (the National
Alliance for
> Breastfeeding Advocacy) who is tracking the responses of the
legislators. Send
> these to Barbara Heiser at:
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Marsha Walker
> Weston, MA
>
> ATTACHMENT part 10 message/rfc822
>
> Someone writes: I wonder if this is because Indian women are not
Asian, but
> Caucasian. (According to my son-in-law who is East Indian).
>
> I don't wish to start a big debate on LactNet, but the genetic
differences
> between human populations are not sufficient for modern humans to be
divided
> into genetic "races."  There exists no such entity as a "Caucasian"
race or
> an "Asian" race or an "African" race.  People from Nigeria are no more
> similar genetically to people from Zimbabwe than they are to
Norwegians, for
> example.  People from China may be very different genetically from
people
> from Japan.  Even within Japan, the Ainu are very different
genetically from
> other Japanese.
>
> A very limited numbered of external physical traits, along with
cultural
> traits, are used by people to classify themselves and others into
different
> ethnic categories -- but this is a very different issue.  Most
Indian women
> would not identify themselves as either "Caucasian" or "Asian" --
they are
> "Indian" or even "of a specific ethnic or religious group within
India."
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> Katherine A. Dettwyler, Ph.D.                         email:
[log in to unmask]
> Anthropology Department                               phone: (409)
845-5256
> Texas A&M University                                    fax: (409)
845-4070
> College Station, TX  77843-4352
> http://www.prairienet.org/laleche/dettwyler.html
>
> ATTACHMENT part 11 message/rfc822
>
> I am working with a mother who has diagnostic history of Noonan's
> syndrome. Although her baby is being put to breast within appropriate
> guidelines concerning frequency and duration of feed, her baby
continues
> to loose weight and stool/wet infrequently.  Baby has a vigorous suck.
> Mother's milk did not come in at the usual time (delayed).
>
> I would appreciate any information concerning Noonan's syndrome and
> lactation.  In particular, it's effect on milk supply.
>
> Thanks,
> Amy gagliardi MA,IBCLC
>
> ATTACHMENT part 12 message/rfc822
>
>    There was a presentation at the aaa annual meeting in San Fran on
> ankloglossia: prevailing opinion regarding management.
>
>     interviewed: otolaryngologists(oto)/ pediatricians, speech
pathologists
> (sp)  and lactation consultants.(lc)
>
>       to determine: functional disabilities/ need for treatment.
>
>        the quesitons asked: incidence/associated feeding and speech
disorders/
> recomoentation for surgical interventions/surgical outcomes.
>
>             68% of the lc report feeding difficulties/ 7% of the
peds and 2%
> of the
> agree!
>          needless to say 51% speech pathologist see correction
helpful to
> speech difficulties!
>
>           conclutions: significance of ankyloglossia as a cause of
speech or
> feeding dificulties is controversial. more objective studies needed.
>
>           Patricia
>
> ATTACHMENT part 13 message/rfc822
>
> I agree with Linda, if baby is having trouble breastfeeding, he is
> likely having trouble in general.  Breastfeeding is not seen as a
> normal infant behaviour.  If a nurse or lactation consultant is
> overly concerned about a baby's difficulty at the breast we are seen
> as fanatics.  "It is only a feeding choice, what's the big deal?
> Yes bf is better but it isn't that important" say some other HCP's.
>
> I think they are missing the point - that baby is having trouble and
> needs to be assessed and watched.  Same goes for ankylglossia, or
> difficulty coordinating suck & swallow, or jaundice.  Breastfeeding
> can be a barometer for how baby is doing in general. A happily
> nursing baby is most often a thriving healthy baby.
>
> How do we get other HCP's to "read" babies like we do?
>
> --
> Janet Vandenberg, RN, BScN,
> (& still waiting for those exam results in Oct)
> Newmarket, Ontario, Canada
> [log in to unmask]
>

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com