Katherine,

Once again, thanks for the historical review of the origin of "so called"
incapability of lactation by 5% of all women.  Perhaps those who see
problems day after day occasionally miss the bigger picture.  I have heard
MA N. speak on this issue; it was clear to me she believes her data is
representative of the population (beyond her own).

The New Zealand study could have been replicated in USA.  Having had baby
 #1 in 1960 (Boston) where the routine was 1 minute/breast q4hr for
first day -adding 1-2 minutes/feed q d thereafter I now know why my first
experience was not successful.  TB Brazelton brought pump (Gomco) to
bedside and wrote orders for q3hr feeds (I think he was doing his drug studies
then); since I was zonked on Scopolamine & Demerol our daughter was
certainly a potential subject.  She lost 1 pound first week; all I remember
is that she slept and when awake (I learned) was supplemented by nurses.
 Happily I got smarter with babies # 2 and 3 (CA).  No longer was I incapable of
breastfeeding.  Enough disclosure.  Just a little reminder that
medicalization of birth has been going on for quite a while...I feel rather
ancient conversing with those of you who have babes in arms to nurse!

References much appreciated.

Martha (who wishes she had joined LACTNET months ago & soon must go through
withdrawal for 10+ weeks)


In message Mon, 14 Aug 1995 00:00:00 -0400,
  Automatic digest processor <[log in to unmask]>  writes:

> There is one message totalling 63 lines in this issue.
>
> Topics of the day:
>
> 1. That pesky 5% figure
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date:    Sun, 13 Aug 1995 22:08:34 -0500
> From:    "katherine a. dettwyler" <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: That pesky 5% figure
>
> Once again, to misc.kids and misc.kids.breastfeeding.  Rachael also
> mentioned the issue of how many women physiologically are incapable of
> lactating.  The 5% figure was bandied about in the press the summer of
> 1994. Where did this come from?  I don't have the references on this
> topic here at home, but I can tell you the tale, and you can check it out
> for yourselves.
> The Wall Street Journal published an article on July 22 or 23, 1994, which
> mentioned the 5% figure of modern women who could not produce enough milk
> for their infants.  When questioned, they said they got this figure from
> Mary Ann Neifert, who runs a breastfeeding clinic in Denver.  She deals
> with women who are already having problems, and of course the vast
> majority of women have no problems, so she never sees them.  She said 5%
> of her clinic population seem unable to produce enough milk.  She also
> said this was true of the general population, however, and referred
> inquirers to one of Dana Raphael's books (she has written several on
> breastfeeding, including "The Tender Gift" and "Only Mothers Know" and
> I'm not sure which book was cited in this context.  Anyway, if you go to
> Raphael's discussion of this, SHE cites a study in New Zealand that found
> 5% of mothers in a hospital study couldn't produce enough milk.  If you
> go read the New Zealand hospital study, which was done in the 1950s, it
> turns out that the study had mothers nursing their newborns for one
> minute on each side every 4 hours the first day of life, for 2 minutes on
> each side every 4 hours the second day of life, for 3 minutes on each
> side every 4 hours the third day of life, and so on.  What is amazing is
> that ANY of these women produced significant amounts of milk, given the
> infrequency of feeding and the short duration of each feed.  And yet 95%
> were producing at least some milk.         The scientific literature
> shows conclusively that the more often the infant nurses, the greater the
> mother's milk supply (assuming the baby is latched on properly) AND the
> higher the fat content of her milk.  Michael Woolridge of England has
> published extensively on this topic, and his research shows that children
> allowed to nurse on cue regulate their own intake in terms of quantity
> and fat content to be just what they need. Scheduled feedings and
> limiting the duration of the child on the breast at a feed are sure-fire
> ways to reduce milk supply.  For a fascinating perspective on the history
> of the medical profession's love-affair with scheduled feedings, see the
> article by A.V. Millard in the journal Social Science and Medicine,
> 31(2):211-221.  The title of the article is "The Place of the Clock in
> Pediatric Advice," and it was published in 1990.         Many, many women
> are told by their pediatricians to nurse only so many times a day, and to
> limit the duration of the baby's nursing sessions. The baby doesn't
> remove enough milk, so less and less is made (breast milk production is a
> demand-driven system) and the baby seems more fussy and fails to gain
> weight properly.  The mother is told by her doctor that "She doesn't have
> enough milk" and must supplement.  The supplements interfere even more
> with the nursing, and soon the baby is completely weaned.  The baby's
> health is the loser, as is the mother's self-confidence and self-esteem.
> The winners?  The infant formula industry, and, indirectly, the
> pediatrician, who now gets to treat more ear infections, more allergies,
> more diarrhea, etc. etc. etc.
> Katherine A. Dettwyler, Ph.D.
> Associate Professor of Anthropology
> Texas A&M University
> co-editor of "Breastfeeding: Biocultural Perspectives" and specialist in
> infant feeding and growth
> e-mail to [log in to unmask]
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of LACTNET Digest - 13 Aug 1995
> ***********************************
>
Martha Pitzer, RN, PhD, CLE
Columbus, Ohio
[log in to unmask]