KD says:
> I would be
>worried about this baby.

This contradicts the tenor of my post in repsonse to the original,  but on
reflection, Kathy, I would agree this baby, and her family, might well need
further support and enquiry.

>One wonders if the
>baby doesn't have an undiagnosed condition such as a heart defect or
>perhaps mosaic Down Syndrome or something else that causes babies to sleep
>way too much, for too long at a time.

However, is this not a baby who is far more likely to be simply showing an
unusually early day-night pattern (given her behaviour, her growth and
development, all more than adequate)?  Clearly, a three-week old baby who
was sleeping a lot in any other period of the day or night *as well as this
one*  is way off beam...and there wouldn't be any time in the day to feed
the baby adequately, either. Sleepy babies need investigating - no
question.   But one period of seven hours, at night, in the absence of any
other signs? Isn't it far more likely the baby is fine? Isn't the doctor
being alarmist, and worse, actually incorrect,  when he suggests this may
lead to hypoglycaemia?

As you suggest, it's likely to be temporary anyway. I strongly agree that
parents need to have  co-sleeping presented to them as the physiological,
safe, loving  norm for our species;  sleeping apart needs to be explained
as a mere cultural preference and not deserving of a medal.

But I am eating a morsel of humble pie, here,  Kathy, as I think cautious
observation, as well as lots of support for the mother, would be
appropriate with this baby.

I still think hypoglycaemia is the very unlikeliest of the issues,
nevertheless.

Heather Welford Neil
NCT bfc Newcastle upon Tyne

             ***********************************************
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