Maria Parlapiano very concisely made some points that I'd like to take up.
Maria, like Rachel, you have really taken up the point about breastfeeding
being about more than "just the milk", and being dynamic. This is such an
important point. You mentioned that the "quantifying and qualifying, while
it may be scientific" ... and from your use of "while" I sense that you are
not really convinced that it is. I'm oversimplifying here, but there is good
science and bad science. Sometimes harmful or useless practices are passed
off as "scientific" because the weighing and measuring and timing involved
makes them look "scientific". The process looks impressive and isn't
questioned.
As I said in one of my theses, "measurement and timing masquaraded as
'science' " in the 20th century for the advocates of "scientific mothering".
The trouble was, the weighing and timing and measuring was not based on
evidence, but on assumptions. For instance, it was assumed that all
breastfeeds were equal in volume and so if one of the smaller feeds in the
day happend to be the one "test feed" in the 24 hours, where the baby was
weighed before and after, and then multiplied by the number of feeds, the
mother was informed that she had an under supply. (One example of many.)
Various designs of "anti-colic" teats (nipples) have come and gone, most
seemingly without research, but plenty of development. Between the two World
Wars there were double-ended banana-shaped bottles with a valve; even older
designs had pins or valves (swallowing hazards); the Maws' cherry-shaped
teat was advertised as "anti-colic" for years in the 1950s; awkwardly shaped
"orthodontic" models were the next to be promoted as prevention colic: and
so the list goes on. What will be the next one!
As a more recent example, bottle teats that are examined with sophisticated
technology have been advocated to suggest that they "mimic" breastfeeding -
once they are in a baby's mouth. The big "but" in this is that the testing
or measurement isn't started at the very beginning of the process of
feeding. What *isn't* tested is the interesting bit, i.e. what went before
(or should have gone before). There is a whole difference in a) the baby's
mouth action in drawing in some of the mother's breast, along with her
nipple, and forming it into a "teat", and b) the infant's acceptance of a
very rigid, very long, pre-formed object - yes, one that s/he doesn't have
to form.
Exactly what is measured is the important thing - is it relevant? If the
wrong aspect or only part of a process is measured, it seems to me that is
isn't rigorous eough - but it is great for marketing, whether of commencial
objects (an expensive nipple) or ideas ("scientific mothering").
Yes, breastfeeding is a dynamic process between two participants.
Virginia
Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2011 23:09:15 -0500
From: " RN, IBCLC" <>
Subject:
Well put Rachel! I share your fears. Breastfeeding is a dynamic process.
That's the beauty of it! The quantifying and qualifying, while it may be
scientific, just feeds into our control-obsessed, perfectionist-based
culture, that is anxiety ridden as a result. As we (professionals) may find
the information interesting or reaffirming -companies will use it
inappropriately to market & sell their products, not to mention, giving
moms one more thing to obsess about.
Maria Parlapiano RN IBCLC
Chatham, NJ
***********************************************
Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome
|
