Lisa Marasco wrote,
<There seems to be a common misnomer that AP is almost >synonymous with
parental self-neglect, but it is not.

Why do we assume that meeting the needs of our babies means not meeting
our own?
How in the world does putting a baby or even two babies on a schedule
help us to meet our own needs better than responding to their cues? We
know that by scheduling a baby we run many risks: poor supply,
slow-gaining baby, cranky baby who doesn't learn to trust that his cues
are being communicated. The risks are more than doubled with multiples.
A cue-based approach to BF twins means breastfeeding them together
sometimes and alone sometimes, depending on whether they happen to be
awake and hungry at the same time or not. Regardless of the choice of
scheduling, simultaneous or separate feeds, or AP, there is no guarantee
of a mother getting enough rest. Feeding the babies at the same time
certainly doesn't guarantee it -- how many singletons sleep from one
feed to the next? What are the chances of two of them doing it? If a
mother is comfortable at night, with one baby at a time latched on and
dozing throughout, how is she getting less sleep than if she has to sit
up, get her pillow out, latch both babies on and wait until they both
fall asleep?
Please don't suggest to mothers of multiples that if they don't schedule
they are neglecting their own needs. Would you tell a mother that having
a second child means her sleep needs can't possibly be met? AP makes for
experimentation and creative solutions.
Jo-Anne, using her 2 X 2 as fodder for the research mill.

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html