Debby wrote: >"...well meaning "purists" who force moms to learn >complicated things like suck training (Please >whoever came up with that annoying invasive and >threatening idea substantiate the proceedure) ..." Egads. I feel age spots sprouting all over me. Has the LC profession gotten so "old" that one of the seminal works of the field is now unknown? Whether or not one believes suck training is a valid treatment "these days" I think it says a lot about the lack of comprehensive LC education when we have to ask for references for this technique! All professions are built on the foundation of those who came before, and those who build on top of the early foundation have a responsibility to know what is the substance of that foundation. "Training neonates to suck correctly, MCN 9:401-7, 1984" by Chele Marmet and Ellen Shell should be required reading for all LCs (IMO). Whether one agrees with the technique, or not, I think we need to know what the original article taught. Unless one has that basic knowledge, agreeing or disagreeing with the technique is pointless. It is, in fact, the way by which "mythology" finds life and, by consequence, our profession is weakened. I'm not picking on you, Debby. Your comment was simply the one that pushed me to respond. I often see discussions -- pro and con -- in this forum about techniques where it is clear the writer has not read the original research. Using techniques without understanding the basis is much worse than asking for references for procedures one does not understand or agree with. Argument and criticism demand a sound knowledge of the facts, otherwise it is like sword fighting empty air. Margery Wilson, IBCLC