Jan Barger asks:

>
>Where does the documented evidence come from (and how did we just move from
>10% to 6-7%?), and from what sorts of babies with what types of births does
>this documented evidence eminate?  If they are looking at normal babies with
>no birth interventions, then perhaps this is good evidence -- but is the
>documentation taking into consideration the interventions?  I think not....


Hear hear.... what's so great about birthweight, anyway?

Here's a few of the things that makes the exact spot on the scale a
baby is at when he is born pretty arbitrary:

* whether he has passed mec before, during or just after birth
* ditto pee
* mother induced/given a section before baby has been fully 'cooked'
* mother given IV fluids
* accuracy of the weigher, and the scales
* innaccuracy of translation from metric to imperial (an issue here
in the UK where both systems are used side by side and where
mistranslations are if not common, far from unknown - I bet they
happen more than we think, too)


>
>Please folks, look at the BABIES!  Assess the FEEDS!!  Look at the mom/infant
>dynamics!!  Don't, please don't, just look at the numbers.  We are trying to
>teach mothers to breastfeed their babies, not the clock.  Well, we need to
>heed our own advice and treat babies, not scales.

Yes, yes!! And when treatment (that is, fixing of the bf, if
necessary) is needed, let's make sure it really is the baby and the
bf we are treating, and not the anxiety of the professional caregiver.

Heather Welford Neil
NCT bfc Newcastle upon Tyne UK

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