Kathleen B replied to my post re objective data: >Judy, I agreewith you that lactation consultants need firm research to back >up techniques and practices. What I find most interesting however, is the >fact that other health professionals sometimes do not feel this need.. Kathleen, I thought, after I hit the send button, I should have mentioned that most physicians also rely entirely too much on ritual and what they remember from med school a hundred years ago, without anything to back them up, but that doesn't alter the fact that objective data can be helpful. And the truth is, we all love to hear those researchers (i.e., James McKenna--isn't he wonderful!) who can show us proof that what we believe in our hearts is true. >I remember Jack Newman saying that although research is a good thing,....none >of us should bow down to the God of the double bind study. You're absolutely right. I don't think we should have blind faith in scientific evidence any more than in our intuition. Any study may be disproven the day after it's published by someone else's study. And it certainly behooves all of us to know how to read studies with a critical eye for strengths and weaknesses before we incorporate the results into practice. Then, too, even if a study is determined to be valid, studies look at groups of people, not at individuals, so there's always a need for flexiblity and sensitivity in applying the results to a particular client. LC's practice an art at least as much as a science. >Breastfeeding >needs no defense. (I get tired of providing it also....can you tell ? : ) >.Amen.... And amen. Judy D in WV (a pragmatic foot soldier in the battle for breastfeeding, who seldom wanders into the realm of the abstract, and who promises not to do it again soon. Now, back to the trenches.)