This is such an interesting point - about why mothers and/or paediatricians
use/prescribe colic drops, "It is advertised to the Peds too. And they find
it easier to tell mom to give the drops than to admit that they haven't any
idea what is causing the baby to have gas pains. I wonder how many mothers
tell the ped that the sugary stuff didn't help the gas pains."

I see so many moms who assume that whenever the baby cries s/he must have
"wind", or "gas" or "tummy cramps".  But why should the baby have gas pains
if s/he is being fed a perfect liquid?  Sure, babies who are receiving
gallons of milk do seem to have explosive stools as a result of all that
lactose fermenting in the gut, but the majority of them don't have a problem
with it and I'm not talking about over-supply and lactose-intolerane colic,
which happens of course, but not that often.  If we think about this
logically, why should having a pocket of air in the stomach or the
intestine, cause *pain*?

It's the constant interpretation of the cause of the crying as *pain* from
"gas" or "wind" that bothers me.  When babies are in pain, they cry.  But
when babies are upset for any other reason (if they are lonely, or bored, or
hungry or frustrated) they also cry.  For all these reasons they start to
wriggle and kick, and arch, beat the fists around, and cry.  When I ask a
mother what makes her think the baby has "wind", she always answers me in
shocked tones, "But, he's drawing his legs up!" as if I should know that
this is a cardinal sign. Is it? Don't they *all* kick and struggle whenever
they are not happy for any reason at all?

In the vast majority of cases, offering the breast again (for the
twenty-second time ..) will comfort the baby sufficiently to make him stop
crying and incidentally provide the cuddle, the comfort, the half-ounce
extra hindmilk that he probably needed.  Yet, when a mother interprets the
crying as "gas pains", she sits the baby up, pats him frantically on the
back, and (most importantly) *withholds the breast*, in case feeding him
more, gives more "gas". You see this on every movie and every TV show,
whenever there is a baby, too, which helps to perpetuate the "gas" myth.

I see a lot of low-weight-gain, or actual failure-to-thrive babies.  Often
the mom has interpreted all the crying as "gas" and not what it actually is
- hunger.  The baby spends less and less time at the breast and more and
more time being "burped", to the point that his milk intake falls far below
what he needs to grow and thrive.  All because the mother is misinterpreting
his hunger cues as "wind".  It's such a shame!  Where did all this "gas"
thing come from?
Nowadays, if I see the mom-baby pair early enough I tell them:

1) *not* to burp the baby after feeding at all (feed the baby long enough so
he can go to sleep at the breast, and then hold at an angle of 45 degrees,
with the baby's spine straight, for 10 minutes or so, if they are *really*
worried about "burping"),
2) not to worry about "gas" being passed from the baby's rear end, to
interpret this as a sign of a baby getting a good dose of the special sugar
found in mother's milk,
3) most importantly - if the baby fusses after breastfeeding, for any
reason, to interpret this as the baby wanting more milk, and to *feed the
baby again*!

Of course, this only works until she gets home from the hospital and
*everyone*, from grandma to the postman, starts telling her that the reason
the baby is crying is - you guessed it - "gas"!

Pamela Morrison IBCLC, Zimbabwe
mailto:[log in to unmask]

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