Monday 7 April 2008
Psys respectful of Attachment parenting
Full list available on "health professionals we know" under "files" on forum. Available to members only.
Working Attachment Mothers. Making the break. MF's story.
Working Attachment Moms - Making the Break
Hello all of you
If you remember I polluted few weeks ago the forum with my real fear about my dry symptom which could be caused by an auto-immune desease. I just think I should let you know that I have made a decisoin. I am about stop to working outside the home. I have few more days left to work in may. I have to let my nanny go for beginning of June (legal delay) and I have just said no to two more job offers I got just after making my decision. My husband is not very happy with it (he would prefer me working) but has accepted my choice to start something new as a way of life for myself and for my family
This is a big step for me (moreover a "rupture" with a family pattern) and I just know all the exchange I have had here with attached parents helped me a lot in doing this !
Apparantly we are 2.5 million “mères au foyer” in France. You can't imagine how happy I am to think that I am about to join you in ET meetings or at ANPA meetings !
Much love
M.F.
ps : about my dry symptom, it is better (2 applications of lansinoh morning and at night are enough) but I have to keep drinking a lot and brushing my teeth like a maniac because dry mouth causes cavities (my dentist has just discovered one) I really had to become sick to make something peace with myself !
So good to hear good news from you M.F.
I was happy to see you at the meeting the other day and hear the good news you told
me then about quitting your job.
I admire you for making such a difficult decision, mothering full time versus career.
I need to make a similar one at the moment, my new job is too much for me and I CANNOT stand being away from R so much. I don't know if I can be a good mother while being away from him so long, I miss him too much and my body keeps on telling me with letdowns all the time.
In this day and here in France, full time mothers are seen negatively, and like a social regression, cf: previous discussions about feminism on this forum. But we need to change that, it's only NATURAL.
It is a big step for you and I wish you and your family lots of happiness in your new life !
Hope to see you soon. Take care,
AB
I think it's amazing what you're doing and discovering. You go, girl!!
AM.
M.F,
I am so happy for you that you are going through this process. I.A. is
a very lucky girl.
You did not however pollute the forum! Sharing is not polluting!! If no one shared, we would have no forum and everyone would continue to feel isolated and in terrible difficulties like nobody else could imagine. (sometimes its true)
Having a sounding board is so important in life. If other parents can bring insight or just comment on your posts, and if that helps, then; goal accomplished. I am so happy you feel you have got something from the input. I'm over the moon with joy that you are giving yourself this opportunity to try another way.
Welcome to 24h a day availablity, no pay, no benefits, no breaks, no holidays. Your rewards will be a smile or a giggle, an occasional emptied plate, a 2 hour siesta once in a while. A first word, first poo in the potty or a pee you didn't miss. Watching your child exchange a toy for another instead of grabbing it from another child.
Life with your child 24/24h is full of rich rewards! You'll love it.
Lots of love,
C.
Hi M.F.
It's not an easy choice becoming a full time mum in our society where status, possessions and careers are so important. Well done for being brave enough to give it a try. I've just spent most of my day with M being attacked by her teddy bear, having raspberries blown on my tummy and watching a tiny little person in a small baby bath flood a bathroom floor. Some people I know would describe that as uninteresting, not challenging enough, put quite simply I do not agree. there may be tough days even terrible moments but being with your child full time is also more joy than i've known before.
Enjoy all those great times ahead of you!
H.
Hello to you all
After recent discussion here about mothering versus jobs/ careers, I was just wondering if any of you had jobs out of the house and had to leave your children.
I know it isn't really the spirit of the forum and I hope it won't be politically incorrect to talk about it. I really need some contact with other mothers who have been through it to see if I can get through it myself. For instance how to do you manage closeness with your baby when you're apart several hours a day ?
I hope this won't shock any of you that I am wondering if having a "career" is compatible with being a good enough mother, and especially being close, bonding, and having a close loving relationship with a young child, yes a lot of closeness indeed.
A.
A. it is not politically incorrect! This is a subject that is
important to you and you are an attachment parent and it is totally valid! There is even a dossier called "staying an attachment parent" or something and somewhere there is either a paper or folder on working attachment parents. It is a common and very important subject.
I cant really offer much to your request because I only went back to work after my firstborn was 3 so it definitely wasn"t difficult. (and anyway I only went back for 3 days a week and he was looked after by his father when he wasn't in the maternel, which was a really bad experience, but that is not the subject)
S. who is now in Japan being a full time mother had a really hard time working full time and putting A in a with a PMI "family" creche (one nounou and 3 charges) for over a year. I have downloaded conversations on the subject. She had a hell of a time.
The only thing I might suggest for long separations during the day would be to sleep with your child but I think you do that already.
I'm sure lots of people here have stuff to suggest. I'll shut up now.
Good night, and keep up your good work parenting. I know you and R are close, I can see it when he is in the wrap and looking so peaceful.
Love C
Hi. Me again.
This is an article I found that I had downloaded a long time ago, only I'm not sure where it is on the forum. It might be of interest to you.
Excerpt from “Whats a Smart Woman Like You Doing at Home?” P 127.
By Linda Burton, Janet Dittmer & Cheri Loveless.
Working part-time away from the home, often while children are at school or when husbands can be with the children, is another way mothers continue in their chosen fields. Katherine Byrne, of Chicago, Illinois, speaks of the many years she spent in part-time persuits: “I am in my seventy-first year now, and am still happy that I stayed at home - but not exclusively. I always had my hand in something besides the tossed salad and the clay for the Cub Scouts’ Christmas gifts. I left the University of Chicago psychometric laboratory on my way to a doctorate, and never got back to it. But I have had the patchwork pleasure of part-time commintment to many intersting connections: writing, teaching, editing, researching; and now I am probably the city’s oldest paralegal.”
Many of today’s mothers are recognizingthat life has its “seasons” ; that the talents and skills they developed prior to motherhood might be utilised in different ways during the nurturing years - then put in full gear later. The mother of grown children who precede us often remind us that we need not accomplish everyting NOW, that we can do things “in sequence”.
Many of them describe deep satisfaction and fulfillment that came from devoting time to their children in the early years and time for career pursuits later on. As a mother of two from Texas explains: “I am a very modern, active, and liberated woman, loving my freedom now that my children are grown because I was with them when they were growing up. I’d be the first to tell any mother she should be proud to be a mother and homemaker. There’ll probably be plenty of time later for other pursuits! And a mother who stays home with her family now will enjoy her free time later much more, secure in the knowledge that she was there when the children needed a mother.”
Though many today claim that temporarily dropping out of the work force to nurture a familyh can be detrimental to a career, a mother from Castro Valley, California offers this hopeful message: “After college and a successful business career, I took thirty years off to raise four beautiful children. I can truly say that no job is as important, challenging, hard, or fulfilling as guiding a child to adulthood. I might also add that, after the last one was off to college and the nest was empty, despite the views of the media, there was no problem in re-entering the business world without need for re-training or aplogies.”
Mothers who desire to keep up skills or earn money at home are finding ways to do it, realising that nurturing a family does not have to mean the end of an outside career. Lynne Rasmussen, a mother from California who enjoyed a succesful sales career in the electronics and computer fields and now runs her own crafts business while rearing her children at home, expresses a feeling many mothers can recognise: “I’ve gone from feeling “I could never do that” to “maybe I could try it” to “I can do it” to “I can do anything!” It feels great.”
Thank you C. My mind (life?) is a mess at the moment and I really need help ... but no one can decide for me I know.
Yes R sleeps with us and I love that closeness. In addition his father takes care of him when I'm gone so it's an "ideal" caretaker, for the moment.
I've decided to give myself until the end of May to see if I want to pursue my job or not, and why. Between all the holidays and long week ends there is only one full week for me in the month. I hope I will last that long. I'm afraid to just give up too fast and be sorry in a little while.
The article you sent is very interesting and that's exacly my problem : this is what I would have wanted BEFORE I became a mother, I would have given almost anything to get this particular job, but R wasn't around yet.
Now I have to figure out how to use my skills and my job which I do love (although I've had to make some adjustments mentally) now that I am a mother. It is such an adjustment to become a mother !
Thank you for your support.
Warmly, A
L.L, I don't know what to say ... I read your email when I came
home last night and I've just been reading it over and over and over. Thank you SO much for taking the time and energy to answer at such length. I can tell you wrote with your heart, and I'm really grateful.
I too try to enjoy those moments of closeness in the bathtub, in bed, cuddling with R, and when I'm away at my new job that's all I can think of, him. I wonder constantly what I'm doing here instead of being with my son and enjoying some of those magical moments.
I don't know what in the world crossed my mind when I applied for this job back in September, it was a day when I was feeling down, feeling that I was a terrible mother because it was just "one of those days" and I saw this ad in a well known center and I would have never thought they'd actually hire me. I don't know if it's my dream job now, but a few years ago it definitely would have been, I would have given almost anything to have it. But that was before R was around.
Everything you said rings a bell, especially the guilt and feeling of inadequacy part. I know I need to live for myself also, not just for my child. I need "my space", and I thought I'd have that if I took up this new job, but I think I was wrong in that. There must be other ways to fulfill my life and show an example of an accomplished woman for my son other than having a "career".
I think the hard part for me is to accept that I'm not the same person now that I've become a mother and that what I want now is different then what wanted a few years ago. I need to listen to that
little voice, you're right.
Yes I'd love to read some of those life stories.
Thank you again for your support, reading you has done me a world of good.
Take care. Warm wishes,
A
Hi A,
I've been struggling with this dilemma myself, and I don't think that there's any real answer.
I managed to finish my dissertation before my W's first birthday (he just turned 2), thanks to a couple of stays at my parents' in the States, where my mother cared for him and came to knock on the door when she didn't have anymore pumped milk to feed him (and thanks to LL, who watched W so that I could revise and defend my dissertation).
I felt lucky to go to work full-time when W was 16 months old, staying home with his father, and me a 10-minute walk away. I thought that being a college professor would give me lots of flexibility and free time, and I imagined coming home for lunch and such (I don't know how M does it), and just feeling so fulfilled by my job that I would have extra energy to give to my family at home. In fact, it's been overwhelming. The work is much more than I had expected even in my most realistic moments; my husband has not been the ideal caregiver, as he's struggled with culture shock, isolation, and depression; if I come home, W won't let me leave again (he stopped crying when I left in the morning only 2 months ago); I'm exhausted from night feedings... I love teaching university-level French language, literature, and culture, but I feel pulled in two opposite directions. And I've just accepted a position at another college for next year.
There are positive aspects, too. I do feel fulfilled on an intellectual level, and I also am very present when I'm with W, which wasn't always the case when I was home with him all day. I teach at a college for women, and they have seen me nurse all over campus, and W has attended many events (I've pushed the limits of where I can take him, including class and a meeting--those two were less successful than the college happy hour). Most of them find his presence inspiring and don't really mind when he sings along with the chorale, for example. W has had contact with many people who look out for him and has been part of a community.
It's just not easy, as childbearing and career-building years overlap, but with a bit of flexibility, creativity, and support, we can certainly figure out a solution for ourselves and our children. I'm still struggling myself to find one that makes sense to me and feels
right.
Thanks for bringing this up, and best wishes for a decision that brings you peace.
SD
God I don't know...
When my colleagues or friends ask me "how do you manage" my answer is "I don't" And that's not just a trying to be clever joke -well it is a little.
It's also the plain truth.
My house is in a permanent depressing mess. I cannot invite anyone around because if I clean it the minute I've finished there will be many little arms to throw dirt on the floor, and basiclaly mess everything up. Oh and all the glasses are broken any rate.
SO I don't invite colleagues home which would be the normal thing to do.
I As of my work... yes I perform big time as of classes and books/articles writing.
But.... I have this other colleague in my speciality who's juts been hired as a consultant at the univ of R, who then went to Canada and then again Japan. Obviously that's the type of thing I will never be able to do. I have to do a conference only in Pau, France, at the end of this month and it's been hell organising everything (my second daughter will stay at her friend's, I'm taking the three boys, so I had to hire a baby-sitter there and to book an extra room in the hotel, and other train tickets, all this at my expense naturally). Every time I go somewhere I take them. It's cute. People smile. But some of them obviously think "what a mental case !" or "who does she think she is bringing kids in such a place ?!" All right they are jerks. Still it does affect my carreer no point trying to pretend it does not. So I have to prove more than others that I'm competent by drowning them with my publications (I've published more, much more, at my age -soon to be 44- than most of my retired colleagues). But there's a price to pay for this too : exhaustion as S puts it. I never had a real maternity leave. Always worked my ass off till the very last minute before and started a few days, sometimes when lucky weeks after.
And probably absolutely no time for oneself.
Right this second I'm stealing time from work and my baby who's "aheu-ing" on the mattress that I'v installed in the office.
Now my office is a caricature of what I do : it's an office, with thousands of books and files, two computers, phones, etc. But there's a baby bed (not used for him :; it's where I put his clothes) and two mattresses on which we both sleep. Also there are little cars that T, aged 3, left, biscuits I had to hide from N, aged 8, because he eats them all at once if I'm not careful, a toy he's given the baby, pictures they've all drawn.... photos of them, LLL posters....
Basically I live there in a totally weird work/family mix.... and all right baby boy I'll pick you up and end your misery...
M.
Hello all of you
If you remember I polluted few weeks ago the forum with my real fear about my dry symptom which could be caused by an auto-immune desease. I just think I should let you know that I have made a decisoin. I am about stop to working outside the home. I have few more days left to work in may. I have to let my nanny go for beginning of June (legal delay) and I have just said no to two more job offers I got just after making my decision. My husband is not very happy with it (he would prefer me working) but has accepted my choice to start something new as a way of life for myself and for my family
This is a big step for me (moreover a "rupture" with a family pattern) and I just know all the exchange I have had here with attached parents helped me a lot in doing this !
Apparantly we are 2.5 million “mères au foyer” in France. You can't imagine how happy I am to think that I am about to join you in ET meetings or at ANPA meetings !
Much love
M.F.
ps : about my dry symptom, it is better (2 applications of lansinoh morning and at night are enough) but I have to keep drinking a lot and brushing my teeth like a maniac because dry mouth causes cavities (my dentist has just discovered one) I really had to become sick to make something peace with myself !
So good to hear good news from you M.F.
I was happy to see you at the meeting the other day and hear the good news you told
me then about quitting your job.
I admire you for making such a difficult decision, mothering full time versus career.
I need to make a similar one at the moment, my new job is too much for me and I CANNOT stand being away from R so much. I don't know if I can be a good mother while being away from him so long, I miss him too much and my body keeps on telling me with letdowns all the time.
In this day and here in France, full time mothers are seen negatively, and like a social regression, cf: previous discussions about feminism on this forum. But we need to change that, it's only NATURAL.
It is a big step for you and I wish you and your family lots of happiness in your new life !
Hope to see you soon. Take care,
AB
I think it's amazing what you're doing and discovering. You go, girl!!
AM.
M.F,
I am so happy for you that you are going through this process. I.A. is
a very lucky girl.
You did not however pollute the forum! Sharing is not polluting!! If no one shared, we would have no forum and everyone would continue to feel isolated and in terrible difficulties like nobody else could imagine. (sometimes its true)
Having a sounding board is so important in life. If other parents can bring insight or just comment on your posts, and if that helps, then; goal accomplished. I am so happy you feel you have got something from the input. I'm over the moon with joy that you are giving yourself this opportunity to try another way.
Welcome to 24h a day availablity, no pay, no benefits, no breaks, no holidays. Your rewards will be a smile or a giggle, an occasional emptied plate, a 2 hour siesta once in a while. A first word, first poo in the potty or a pee you didn't miss. Watching your child exchange a toy for another instead of grabbing it from another child.
Life with your child 24/24h is full of rich rewards! You'll love it.
Lots of love,
C.
Hi M.F.
It's not an easy choice becoming a full time mum in our society where status, possessions and careers are so important. Well done for being brave enough to give it a try. I've just spent most of my day with M being attacked by her teddy bear, having raspberries blown on my tummy and watching a tiny little person in a small baby bath flood a bathroom floor. Some people I know would describe that as uninteresting, not challenging enough, put quite simply I do not agree. there may be tough days even terrible moments but being with your child full time is also more joy than i've known before.
Enjoy all those great times ahead of you!
H.
Hello to you all
After recent discussion here about mothering versus jobs/ careers, I was just wondering if any of you had jobs out of the house and had to leave your children.
I know it isn't really the spirit of the forum and I hope it won't be politically incorrect to talk about it. I really need some contact with other mothers who have been through it to see if I can get through it myself. For instance how to do you manage closeness with your baby when you're apart several hours a day ?
I hope this won't shock any of you that I am wondering if having a "career" is compatible with being a good enough mother, and especially being close, bonding, and having a close loving relationship with a young child, yes a lot of closeness indeed.
A.
A. it is not politically incorrect! This is a subject that is
important to you and you are an attachment parent and it is totally valid! There is even a dossier called "staying an attachment parent" or something and somewhere there is either a paper or folder on working attachment parents. It is a common and very important subject.
I cant really offer much to your request because I only went back to work after my firstborn was 3 so it definitely wasn"t difficult. (and anyway I only went back for 3 days a week and he was looked after by his father when he wasn't in the maternel, which was a really bad experience, but that is not the subject)
S. who is now in Japan being a full time mother had a really hard time working full time and putting A in a with a PMI "family" creche (one nounou and 3 charges) for over a year. I have downloaded conversations on the subject. She had a hell of a time.
The only thing I might suggest for long separations during the day would be to sleep with your child but I think you do that already.
I'm sure lots of people here have stuff to suggest. I'll shut up now.
Good night, and keep up your good work parenting. I know you and R are close, I can see it when he is in the wrap and looking so peaceful.
Love C
Hi. Me again.
This is an article I found that I had downloaded a long time ago, only I'm not sure where it is on the forum. It might be of interest to you.
Excerpt from “Whats a Smart Woman Like You Doing at Home?” P 127.
By Linda Burton, Janet Dittmer & Cheri Loveless.
Working part-time away from the home, often while children are at school or when husbands can be with the children, is another way mothers continue in their chosen fields. Katherine Byrne, of Chicago, Illinois, speaks of the many years she spent in part-time persuits: “I am in my seventy-first year now, and am still happy that I stayed at home - but not exclusively. I always had my hand in something besides the tossed salad and the clay for the Cub Scouts’ Christmas gifts. I left the University of Chicago psychometric laboratory on my way to a doctorate, and never got back to it. But I have had the patchwork pleasure of part-time commintment to many intersting connections: writing, teaching, editing, researching; and now I am probably the city’s oldest paralegal.”
Many of today’s mothers are recognizingthat life has its “seasons” ; that the talents and skills they developed prior to motherhood might be utilised in different ways during the nurturing years - then put in full gear later. The mother of grown children who precede us often remind us that we need not accomplish everyting NOW, that we can do things “in sequence”.
Many of them describe deep satisfaction and fulfillment that came from devoting time to their children in the early years and time for career pursuits later on. As a mother of two from Texas explains: “I am a very modern, active, and liberated woman, loving my freedom now that my children are grown because I was with them when they were growing up. I’d be the first to tell any mother she should be proud to be a mother and homemaker. There’ll probably be plenty of time later for other pursuits! And a mother who stays home with her family now will enjoy her free time later much more, secure in the knowledge that she was there when the children needed a mother.”
Though many today claim that temporarily dropping out of the work force to nurture a familyh can be detrimental to a career, a mother from Castro Valley, California offers this hopeful message: “After college and a successful business career, I took thirty years off to raise four beautiful children. I can truly say that no job is as important, challenging, hard, or fulfilling as guiding a child to adulthood. I might also add that, after the last one was off to college and the nest was empty, despite the views of the media, there was no problem in re-entering the business world without need for re-training or aplogies.”
Mothers who desire to keep up skills or earn money at home are finding ways to do it, realising that nurturing a family does not have to mean the end of an outside career. Lynne Rasmussen, a mother from California who enjoyed a succesful sales career in the electronics and computer fields and now runs her own crafts business while rearing her children at home, expresses a feeling many mothers can recognise: “I’ve gone from feeling “I could never do that” to “maybe I could try it” to “I can do it” to “I can do anything!” It feels great.”
Thank you C. My mind (life?) is a mess at the moment and I really need help ... but no one can decide for me I know.
Yes R sleeps with us and I love that closeness. In addition his father takes care of him when I'm gone so it's an "ideal" caretaker, for the moment.
I've decided to give myself until the end of May to see if I want to pursue my job or not, and why. Between all the holidays and long week ends there is only one full week for me in the month. I hope I will last that long. I'm afraid to just give up too fast and be sorry in a little while.
The article you sent is very interesting and that's exacly my problem : this is what I would have wanted BEFORE I became a mother, I would have given almost anything to get this particular job, but R wasn't around yet.
Now I have to figure out how to use my skills and my job which I do love (although I've had to make some adjustments mentally) now that I am a mother. It is such an adjustment to become a mother !
Thank you for your support.
Warmly, A
L.L, I don't know what to say ... I read your email when I came
home last night and I've just been reading it over and over and over. Thank you SO much for taking the time and energy to answer at such length. I can tell you wrote with your heart, and I'm really grateful.
I too try to enjoy those moments of closeness in the bathtub, in bed, cuddling with R, and when I'm away at my new job that's all I can think of, him. I wonder constantly what I'm doing here instead of being with my son and enjoying some of those magical moments.
I don't know what in the world crossed my mind when I applied for this job back in September, it was a day when I was feeling down, feeling that I was a terrible mother because it was just "one of those days" and I saw this ad in a well known center and I would have never thought they'd actually hire me. I don't know if it's my dream job now, but a few years ago it definitely would have been, I would have given almost anything to have it. But that was before R was around.
Everything you said rings a bell, especially the guilt and feeling of inadequacy part. I know I need to live for myself also, not just for my child. I need "my space", and I thought I'd have that if I took up this new job, but I think I was wrong in that. There must be other ways to fulfill my life and show an example of an accomplished woman for my son other than having a "career".
I think the hard part for me is to accept that I'm not the same person now that I've become a mother and that what I want now is different then what wanted a few years ago. I need to listen to that
little voice, you're right.
Yes I'd love to read some of those life stories.
Thank you again for your support, reading you has done me a world of good.
Take care. Warm wishes,
A
Hi A,
I've been struggling with this dilemma myself, and I don't think that there's any real answer.
I managed to finish my dissertation before my W's first birthday (he just turned 2), thanks to a couple of stays at my parents' in the States, where my mother cared for him and came to knock on the door when she didn't have anymore pumped milk to feed him (and thanks to LL, who watched W so that I could revise and defend my dissertation).
I felt lucky to go to work full-time when W was 16 months old, staying home with his father, and me a 10-minute walk away. I thought that being a college professor would give me lots of flexibility and free time, and I imagined coming home for lunch and such (I don't know how M does it), and just feeling so fulfilled by my job that I would have extra energy to give to my family at home. In fact, it's been overwhelming. The work is much more than I had expected even in my most realistic moments; my husband has not been the ideal caregiver, as he's struggled with culture shock, isolation, and depression; if I come home, W won't let me leave again (he stopped crying when I left in the morning only 2 months ago); I'm exhausted from night feedings... I love teaching university-level French language, literature, and culture, but I feel pulled in two opposite directions. And I've just accepted a position at another college for next year.
There are positive aspects, too. I do feel fulfilled on an intellectual level, and I also am very present when I'm with W, which wasn't always the case when I was home with him all day. I teach at a college for women, and they have seen me nurse all over campus, and W has attended many events (I've pushed the limits of where I can take him, including class and a meeting--those two were less successful than the college happy hour). Most of them find his presence inspiring and don't really mind when he sings along with the chorale, for example. W has had contact with many people who look out for him and has been part of a community.
It's just not easy, as childbearing and career-building years overlap, but with a bit of flexibility, creativity, and support, we can certainly figure out a solution for ourselves and our children. I'm still struggling myself to find one that makes sense to me and feels
right.
Thanks for bringing this up, and best wishes for a decision that brings you peace.
SD
God I don't know...
When my colleagues or friends ask me "how do you manage" my answer is "I don't" And that's not just a trying to be clever joke -well it is a little.
It's also the plain truth.
My house is in a permanent depressing mess. I cannot invite anyone around because if I clean it the minute I've finished there will be many little arms to throw dirt on the floor, and basiclaly mess everything up. Oh and all the glasses are broken any rate.
SO I don't invite colleagues home which would be the normal thing to do.
I As of my work... yes I perform big time as of classes and books/articles writing.
But.... I have this other colleague in my speciality who's juts been hired as a consultant at the univ of R, who then went to Canada and then again Japan. Obviously that's the type of thing I will never be able to do. I have to do a conference only in Pau, France, at the end of this month and it's been hell organising everything (my second daughter will stay at her friend's, I'm taking the three boys, so I had to hire a baby-sitter there and to book an extra room in the hotel, and other train tickets, all this at my expense naturally). Every time I go somewhere I take them. It's cute. People smile. But some of them obviously think "what a mental case !" or "who does she think she is bringing kids in such a place ?!" All right they are jerks. Still it does affect my carreer no point trying to pretend it does not. So I have to prove more than others that I'm competent by drowning them with my publications (I've published more, much more, at my age -soon to be 44- than most of my retired colleagues). But there's a price to pay for this too : exhaustion as S puts it. I never had a real maternity leave. Always worked my ass off till the very last minute before and started a few days, sometimes when lucky weeks after.
And probably absolutely no time for oneself.
Right this second I'm stealing time from work and my baby who's "aheu-ing" on the mattress that I'v installed in the office.
Now my office is a caricature of what I do : it's an office, with thousands of books and files, two computers, phones, etc. But there's a baby bed (not used for him :; it's where I put his clothes) and two mattresses on which we both sleep. Also there are little cars that T, aged 3, left, biscuits I had to hide from N, aged 8, because he eats them all at once if I'm not careful, a toy he's given the baby, pictures they've all drawn.... photos of them, LLL posters....
Basically I live there in a totally weird work/family mix.... and all right baby boy I'll pick you up and end your misery...
M.
Working Attachment Mothers. S & A's story.
My working/breastfeeding life
At 6:30, my day starts. My daughter and my husband are still sleeping. Outside it is still dark. I lie down next to my little daughter who is about four months old. I caress her gently and she looks for my breast. She finds it and starts to eat. The day breaks most peacefully and joyfully. She drops off to sleep again. I get myself ready for work. She is still asleep. I come to her side and I take her into my arms gently. She gradually wakes up. I wash and dry her and put her clean clothes on. I put on my Pagne Parisien wrap. I have to prepare breakfast now. I try to be with her for a maximum of time. The wrap helps me. I can be with her even while I am doing house keeping. My hands are free even as I am with her all the time.
Just before leaving I breastfeed her again. It's time to go. She is comfortable inside the wrap. No coldness can touch her. She is well protected. As soon as the front door closes behind us, she asks to nurse. She knows she can. The way to the nanny's place takes 20 minutes. She is on my breast all the way. She is filled. I say good bye to my little daughter.
I miss her so much already. In the morning, I pump my breast milk at 10:30 for 10 to 15 minutes. No problem. I think of my daughter. I feel connected with her even though we are physically separated. At 12:00, I go to the nanny's place. I put on the wrap and go out with her. She looks for my breasts. She is hungry. She eats peacefully inside the wrap. I buy my lunch and eat it with my friends. She continues to drink, drink, and sleep.... I feel so happy being with her. In the afternoon, I pump my milk at 14:00 and 17:30. Totally, each day I pump from 220 to 300 mls. At 18:30, I pick up my daughter. I put the wrap on. She immediately looks for my breast. She wants to sleep. She is tired. She drinks and sleeps while I am walking and doing some shopping for tonight. She is calm. Nobody knows that I am breast feeding. The wrap is a nest for her. It's the place where she can be fed and comforted. Warm and full of milk. When I get home, I prepare dinner with her inside the wrap. I breastfeed her but I am free. She is in the wrap safely. My husband does not like the wrap. He thinks it's too much work. He does not want to put it on. It's a shame. He does not understand breastfeeding either. He thought all mothers pump their milk and give it to their babies in a bottle. I laughed at the idea. I have tried to help him understand breastfeeding but haven’t been successful. His efforts go somewhere else. I think breastfed babies are much happier. My baby doesn't cry so much because we can communicate somehow by breast feeding. I can feel what she wants and without thinking about it, I am reacting to it. The wrap helps me too.
I find she is better fed with the wrap because I can do so many things while breast feeding so I have much more time to feed her. She has gained much more weight and she has grown more in length too. I wish I had used the wrap a long time ago. I bought it before her birth but I did not go to the workshop and it was bit difficult for me to master it alone. I still have to learn how to use it better I’m sure, but for a next baby, I will have fewer problems and more confidence in breastfeeding.
S.H. Paris, France. Oct. 2005
At 6:30, my day starts. My daughter and my husband are still sleeping. Outside it is still dark. I lie down next to my little daughter who is about four months old. I caress her gently and she looks for my breast. She finds it and starts to eat. The day breaks most peacefully and joyfully. She drops off to sleep again. I get myself ready for work. She is still asleep. I come to her side and I take her into my arms gently. She gradually wakes up. I wash and dry her and put her clean clothes on. I put on my Pagne Parisien wrap. I have to prepare breakfast now. I try to be with her for a maximum of time. The wrap helps me. I can be with her even while I am doing house keeping. My hands are free even as I am with her all the time.
Just before leaving I breastfeed her again. It's time to go. She is comfortable inside the wrap. No coldness can touch her. She is well protected. As soon as the front door closes behind us, she asks to nurse. She knows she can. The way to the nanny's place takes 20 minutes. She is on my breast all the way. She is filled. I say good bye to my little daughter.
I miss her so much already. In the morning, I pump my breast milk at 10:30 for 10 to 15 minutes. No problem. I think of my daughter. I feel connected with her even though we are physically separated. At 12:00, I go to the nanny's place. I put on the wrap and go out with her. She looks for my breasts. She is hungry. She eats peacefully inside the wrap. I buy my lunch and eat it with my friends. She continues to drink, drink, and sleep.... I feel so happy being with her. In the afternoon, I pump my milk at 14:00 and 17:30. Totally, each day I pump from 220 to 300 mls. At 18:30, I pick up my daughter. I put the wrap on. She immediately looks for my breast. She wants to sleep. She is tired. She drinks and sleeps while I am walking and doing some shopping for tonight. She is calm. Nobody knows that I am breast feeding. The wrap is a nest for her. It's the place where she can be fed and comforted. Warm and full of milk. When I get home, I prepare dinner with her inside the wrap. I breastfeed her but I am free. She is in the wrap safely. My husband does not like the wrap. He thinks it's too much work. He does not want to put it on. It's a shame. He does not understand breastfeeding either. He thought all mothers pump their milk and give it to their babies in a bottle. I laughed at the idea. I have tried to help him understand breastfeeding but haven’t been successful. His efforts go somewhere else. I think breastfed babies are much happier. My baby doesn't cry so much because we can communicate somehow by breast feeding. I can feel what she wants and without thinking about it, I am reacting to it. The wrap helps me too.
I find she is better fed with the wrap because I can do so many things while breast feeding so I have much more time to feed her. She has gained much more weight and she has grown more in length too. I wish I had used the wrap a long time ago. I bought it before her birth but I did not go to the workshop and it was bit difficult for me to master it alone. I still have to learn how to use it better I’m sure, but for a next baby, I will have fewer problems and more confidence in breastfeeding.
S.H. Paris, France. Oct. 2005
Working Attachment Mothers. Marji. Excerpt from Whats a smart woman like you doing at home? By Linda Burton Janet Dittmer & Cheri Loveless
Re-entering the work force
Excerpt from “Whats a Smart Woman Like You Doing at Home?” P 127.
By Linda Burton, Janet Dittmer & Cheri Loveless.
Working part-time away from the home, often while children are at school or when husbands can be with the children, is another way mothers continue in their chosen fields. Katherine Byrne, of Chicago, Illinois, speaks of the many years she spent in part-time persuits: “I am in my seventy-first year now, and am still happy that I stayed at home - but not exclusively. I always had my hand in something besides the tossed salad and the clay for the Cub Scouts’ Christmas gifts. I left the University of Chicago psychometric laboratory on my way to a doctorate, and never got back to it. But I have had the patchwork pleasure of part-time commintment to many intersting connections: writing, teaching, editing, researching; and now I am probably the city’s oldest paralegal.”
Many of today’s mothers are recognizingthat life has its “seasons” ; that the talents and skills they developed prior to motherhood might be utilised in different ways during the nurturing years - then put in full gear later. The mother of grown children who precede us often remind us that we need not accomplish everyting NOW, that we can do things “in sequence”.
Many of them describe deep satisfaction and fulfillment that came from devoting time to their children in the early years and time for career pursuits later on. As a mother of two from Texas explains: “I am a very modern, active, and liberated woman, loving my freedom now that my children are grown because I was with them when they were growing up. I’d be the first to tell any mother she should be proud to be a mother and homemaker. There’ll probably be plenty of time later for other pursuits! And a mother who stays home with her family now will enjoy her free time later much more, secure in the knowledge that she was there when the children needed a mother.”
Though many today claim that temporarily dropping out of the work force to nurture a familyh can be detrimental to a career, a mother from Castro Valley, California offers this hopeful message: “After college and a successful business career, I took thirty years off to raise four beautiful children. I can truly say that no job is as important, challenging, hard, or fulfilling as guiding a child to adulthood. I might also add that, after the last one was off to college and the nest was empty, despite the views of the media, there was no problem in re-entering the business world without need for re-training or aplogies.”
Mothers who desire to keep up skills or earn money at home are finding ways to do it, realising that nurturing a family does not have to mean the end of an outside career. Lynne Rasmussen, a mother from California who enjoyed a succesful sales career in the electronics and computer fields and now runs her own crafts business while rearing her children at home, expresses a feeling many mothers can recognise: “I’ve gone from feeling “I could never do that” to “maybe I could try it” to “I can do it” to “I can do anything!” It feels great.”
Excerpt from “Whats a Smart Woman Like You Doing at Home?” P 127.
By Linda Burton, Janet Dittmer & Cheri Loveless.
Working part-time away from the home, often while children are at school or when husbands can be with the children, is another way mothers continue in their chosen fields. Katherine Byrne, of Chicago, Illinois, speaks of the many years she spent in part-time persuits: “I am in my seventy-first year now, and am still happy that I stayed at home - but not exclusively. I always had my hand in something besides the tossed salad and the clay for the Cub Scouts’ Christmas gifts. I left the University of Chicago psychometric laboratory on my way to a doctorate, and never got back to it. But I have had the patchwork pleasure of part-time commintment to many intersting connections: writing, teaching, editing, researching; and now I am probably the city’s oldest paralegal.”
Many of today’s mothers are recognizingthat life has its “seasons” ; that the talents and skills they developed prior to motherhood might be utilised in different ways during the nurturing years - then put in full gear later. The mother of grown children who precede us often remind us that we need not accomplish everyting NOW, that we can do things “in sequence”.
Many of them describe deep satisfaction and fulfillment that came from devoting time to their children in the early years and time for career pursuits later on. As a mother of two from Texas explains: “I am a very modern, active, and liberated woman, loving my freedom now that my children are grown because I was with them when they were growing up. I’d be the first to tell any mother she should be proud to be a mother and homemaker. There’ll probably be plenty of time later for other pursuits! And a mother who stays home with her family now will enjoy her free time later much more, secure in the knowledge that she was there when the children needed a mother.”
Though many today claim that temporarily dropping out of the work force to nurture a familyh can be detrimental to a career, a mother from Castro Valley, California offers this hopeful message: “After college and a successful business career, I took thirty years off to raise four beautiful children. I can truly say that no job is as important, challenging, hard, or fulfilling as guiding a child to adulthood. I might also add that, after the last one was off to college and the nest was empty, despite the views of the media, there was no problem in re-entering the business world without need for re-training or aplogies.”
Mothers who desire to keep up skills or earn money at home are finding ways to do it, realising that nurturing a family does not have to mean the end of an outside career. Lynne Rasmussen, a mother from California who enjoyed a succesful sales career in the electronics and computer fields and now runs her own crafts business while rearing her children at home, expresses a feeling many mothers can recognise: “I’ve gone from feeling “I could never do that” to “maybe I could try it” to “I can do it” to “I can do anything!” It feels great.”
Working Attachment Mothers. Marji. Excerpt from Immaculate Deception 2. By Suzanne Arms
Marji.
Exerpt from “Immaculate Deception 2” Myth, Magic & Birth.
By Suzanne Arms.
Marji is a physician instructor at a family practice residency program in New York. When she made the decision to breastfeed, as a full time working mother, it was partly because both she and her husband had been bottle fed babies and both of them had a history of allergies. Breastfeeding her baby made her life much more complicated since she had to find a way to do it while continuing her teaching schedule. She has breastfed all four of her children throughout their infancy.
My husband and I used to call it demand feeding. Mommy demands that baby eat according to mommy’s schedule. Luckily some kids will tolerate being put on someone else’s routine. I arranged for a baby sitter who lived near the hospital, and she would either bring my baby to me for feeding or I’d go to her house, -depending on whether I had a lunch meeting or not. I would feed the baby in the morning before I left for the hospital. She’d give him a bottle of breast milk in the middle of the day, then I would feed him again around six, and again later in the evening.
Residents saw me teaching and nursing a baby at the same time. Sometimes I also had to give additional seminars around the six o’clock feeding. It became accepted around here that nursing babies could be part of the program.
My last kid was only four pounds at birth and could not adapt to my schedule. She really needed to nurse every one and a half to two hours. So I brought her to work with me. I always asked patients’ permission when I was in the clinic. to have her there. Almost no one objected. My daughter was in a bassinet in my office for several months, until she was able to tolerate an extended period of time between feedings.
I would not recommend this ordinarily, but in order to work - which I needed to do- and feed my child the way she needed, I had no choice. It would have been very difficult to do this in a hospital that didn’t support me.
I had many patients, teenage girls especially, who commented that seeing me talk to them while I breastfed made them see how important breastfeeding is and that it didn’t need to tie you down. At that point I wasn’t even thinking of the positive impact it might have on patients. I was just surviving.
Most of my collegues were just glad to have me back seeing patients, even if it was in a slightly preposterous capacity. I think it made a big difference here. Within the department, people now often bring their older kids to work, especially for lunchtime or evening meetings. They bring young children and they breastfeed their babies. It’s accepted. But I didn’t do it to make people change. I had a life to lead and kids to feed, and I wasn’t willing to make compromises about the well-being of my kids.
Exerpt from “Immaculate Deception 2” Myth, Magic & Birth.
By Suzanne Arms.
Marji is a physician instructor at a family practice residency program in New York. When she made the decision to breastfeed, as a full time working mother, it was partly because both she and her husband had been bottle fed babies and both of them had a history of allergies. Breastfeeding her baby made her life much more complicated since she had to find a way to do it while continuing her teaching schedule. She has breastfed all four of her children throughout their infancy.
My husband and I used to call it demand feeding. Mommy demands that baby eat according to mommy’s schedule. Luckily some kids will tolerate being put on someone else’s routine. I arranged for a baby sitter who lived near the hospital, and she would either bring my baby to me for feeding or I’d go to her house, -depending on whether I had a lunch meeting or not. I would feed the baby in the morning before I left for the hospital. She’d give him a bottle of breast milk in the middle of the day, then I would feed him again around six, and again later in the evening.
Residents saw me teaching and nursing a baby at the same time. Sometimes I also had to give additional seminars around the six o’clock feeding. It became accepted around here that nursing babies could be part of the program.
My last kid was only four pounds at birth and could not adapt to my schedule. She really needed to nurse every one and a half to two hours. So I brought her to work with me. I always asked patients’ permission when I was in the clinic. to have her there. Almost no one objected. My daughter was in a bassinet in my office for several months, until she was able to tolerate an extended period of time between feedings.
I would not recommend this ordinarily, but in order to work - which I needed to do- and feed my child the way she needed, I had no choice. It would have been very difficult to do this in a hospital that didn’t support me.
I had many patients, teenage girls especially, who commented that seeing me talk to them while I breastfed made them see how important breastfeeding is and that it didn’t need to tie you down. At that point I wasn’t even thinking of the positive impact it might have on patients. I was just surviving.
Most of my collegues were just glad to have me back seeing patients, even if it was in a slightly preposterous capacity. I think it made a big difference here. Within the department, people now often bring their older kids to work, especially for lunchtime or evening meetings. They bring young children and they breastfeed their babies. It’s accepted. But I didn’t do it to make people change. I had a life to lead and kids to feed, and I wasn’t willing to make compromises about the well-being of my kids.
Periods and Fertility
PERIODS and Fertility
WHEN IS IT "NORMAL" TO GET THEM AGAIN?
hi, I am taking a contraceptive pill to avoid having a period. I think that having a period, breast feeding, working full time, and housework will make me dead. I have heard that if I am breast feeding, I will not have any periods. Is it true? Is there any recommendation for a period while breast feeding. I imagine that's very tiring...
Thank you. S.
Hi,
That's exactly what happened to me. I had one period and then have not had any since. My daughter is 15 months old and still breastfeeds frequently. SH
I read in the Womanly Art of Breastfeeding that it's normal to
get a first period after giving birth and then not to have one again for awhile or not to have them regularly for awhile. Can anyone attest to this?...
JD
I had my baby 9 months ago today and haven't had a period yet. He nurses frequently.
A breastfeeding friend of mine had her first period 15 months after childbirth. Hope this helps.
S.
I still have not got my period and I am nursing my 10-month-old daughter. I nurse at night; I am not sure how many times (I think twice at least) because I sleep well - for the moment. I also started feeding her solids but she doesn’t eat much. I think all this together explains why I haven't got my period. She is often at the breast. With my son L it was different. I got my period when he was 9 months old, But at that time he was in crèche because I was working. Although I went back to work when he was 6 months old, I think I still hadn't got my period because I was putting him to the breast during the day since my babysitter would bring him to work for me and I would nurse there. Once he was in crèche, he was off the breast from 8am - 4pm. Even pumping my milk, things were not the same. I think C can elaborate more on the period issue.
I think the housework, working and commuting in public transport, can be very tiring. But I think breastfeeding makes things so much easier. I often get comments from friends on how tiring it must be to still be nursing. I think of so many other things that are tiring but not nursing. I can actually take a break when I do it and fall asleep. IT calms and prevents my daughter from getting cranky.
Plus with time it only gets easier because you don't have to deal with full breast as in the beginning and there is no dripping to deal with. People who haven't breastfed beyond the first couple of months only have in their memory that experience and it is at the beginning when it is most difficult (cracked nipples, too much milk or not enough). AV
Hi S,
A is almost 9 months also & I myself haven't had my period yet. I breastfeed all the time as well so I guess there's really nothing to worry about. S.
With my son, I got my first peried when he was 21 months. I still haven't had a period yet with my daughter and she is 17 months.
T
J is 8 months old and I still haven't had my period. He still nurses pretty much every hour. L.L.
For both my sons, my periods did not come back until, very exactly and identically 16 months and 20 days.
I've known a blessed woman who did not have them for 30 months !
M.
I lost blood for the first time when my baby was 4 month old and I was very disappointed, then I got regular periods from 6 months onwards, despite breastfeeding all the time! My gynecologist said that I was ovulating from an echography at the time, so I have to be cautious not to get pregnant again. My periods have really been regular since then, and I still breastfeed during the day mostly with my one year old baby girl. Thank you for sprecifying the iron problem that I may have because I feel tired. Should I take iron in supplement, do you think?
C.
I don't know if I have written on this subject yet.
Anyway I got my periods after about 15 months but these were not like real periods (not aching). I was b-feeding day and night quite frequently.
I took the pill from maybe 6 - 9 months but stopped as I kept forgetting to take it! I had no periods anyway.
The periods got heavier after a few months but from charting my temperature I noticed there wasn't always a shift mid cycle (indicating I wasn't always ovulating ie fertile; This is according to what I understood from Taking Charge Of Your Fertility author : Toni Weschler) . However my gynocologist said this didn't mean I wasn't ovulating, Hmm...)
The Lactational ammenorhea cotraceptive method (LAM) works for most women but is not 100% reliable (nor is the pill). A has a friend who got pregnant really quickly despite bfeeding all the time!
I've decided after reading "Taking charge of your fertility"* that I'll not take the pill again. I think it can mess up your natural hormonal balance, and I wish I hadn't taken it for so many years (I had a lot of trouble conceiving, no periods for months before I eventually got pregnant).
Lack of periods is a good side effect of breastfeeding especially as it stops your body losing iron in the blood. Some women get anaemic after their periods return if they are still breastfeeding. Attention to diet is required to balance their needs.
R
Interesting comments R -
I recently stopped taking the pill, I kept forgetting too! I had been taking it for years, both before and after pregnancy. I got pregnant one month after stopping the pill in 2002 ! But I agree, I do feel like it messed up my hormonal balance, and I'm already feeling different (it's been two weeks).
This is a very different subject, maybe my experience will help someone else to decide about contraception ? I decided to get an IUD (no hormones kind), which my OB/GYN put in ten days ago, during my period. The procedure was a bit painful, but very short lived. She told me to expect some spot bleeding over the next few months, and that would eventually disappear. So I had fairly heavy bleeding the first 3-4 days, and some lingering crampy pain. Day before yesterday, I was still having quite a bit of pain, and started searching the net to find out if that was normal or not - and according to the web sites I saw, it's not normal to still be in pain 10 days after - could be an infection.
So - called the dr's "cabinet" yesterday. Just my luck, she's closed on vacation until the end of the month ! So I frantically called several other OB/GYN's in town, and couldn't get a single dr. on the phone to answer my questions .... I do want more children later, and I was freaking out about having an infection that could block my tubes .... ended up in emergency gynecology at the hospital on my lunch break today since I couldn't seem to get a phone conversation or even an urgent appointment anywhere.
So - to make a long story short, everything is actually ok - no infection, the IUD is 'parfaitement en place'. Apparently my uterus is still adjusting, the pain should go away. I admit I didn't expect things to turn out this way.
- L (delurking)
Like R, I find Toni Weschler's book TCOYF to be a wealth of
information. A childhood friend who's now a physician (certified in allopathy and naturopathy) recommended it to me and I, like all of the other people she recommeded it to, became pregnant on my first try (after successfully using the book to avoid pregnancy for 18 months). Sleeping with baby helps, but the book does say that after 6 months, introducing solids and such, LAM is less effective. It's also hard to chart temperatures if you're not sleeping profoundly through a large part of the night (which is the case if you're sleeping with your baby!). I wonder when you started charting temperatures, R?
Since basal body temperatures are only one indicator of fertility, the method can still work. But my friend recommends barrier contraception if you really aren't willing to have another baby.
R, you said “I've decided after reading "Taking charge of your fertility that I'll not take the pill again. I think it can mess up your natural hormonal balance, and I wish I hadn't taken it for so many years (I had a lot of trouble conceiving, no periods for months before i eventually got pregnant).”
I have to say that I felt much better after stopping the pill, thanks in part to this book. It made me feel more in tune to my body, which in turn influenced my successful homebirth.
I, too, bled several times (after stopping the pill) without actually ovulating, though the ob/gyn didn't believe this to be true. But you can definitely tell the difference between ovulating and not from other fertility signs!
Funny how many health professionals seem to doubt this method and be stuck on the pill, though. When I stopped taking the pill in France years ago and inquired about other forms of contraception, my ob/gyn (who I ditched) suggested that by stopping the pill I was indicating an unconscious desire to become pregnant and that any "natural" birth control method was sure to lead to conception. She also told me that my recurrent yeast infections were not related to the pill (I've since determined that they were).
Who can know your body better than you?
S
WHEN IS IT "NORMAL" TO GET THEM AGAIN?
hi, I am taking a contraceptive pill to avoid having a period. I think that having a period, breast feeding, working full time, and housework will make me dead. I have heard that if I am breast feeding, I will not have any periods. Is it true? Is there any recommendation for a period while breast feeding. I imagine that's very tiring...
Thank you. S.
Hi,
That's exactly what happened to me. I had one period and then have not had any since. My daughter is 15 months old and still breastfeeds frequently. SH
I read in the Womanly Art of Breastfeeding that it's normal to
get a first period after giving birth and then not to have one again for awhile or not to have them regularly for awhile. Can anyone attest to this?...
JD
I had my baby 9 months ago today and haven't had a period yet. He nurses frequently.
A breastfeeding friend of mine had her first period 15 months after childbirth. Hope this helps.
S.
I still have not got my period and I am nursing my 10-month-old daughter. I nurse at night; I am not sure how many times (I think twice at least) because I sleep well - for the moment. I also started feeding her solids but she doesn’t eat much. I think all this together explains why I haven't got my period. She is often at the breast. With my son L it was different. I got my period when he was 9 months old, But at that time he was in crèche because I was working. Although I went back to work when he was 6 months old, I think I still hadn't got my period because I was putting him to the breast during the day since my babysitter would bring him to work for me and I would nurse there. Once he was in crèche, he was off the breast from 8am - 4pm. Even pumping my milk, things were not the same. I think C can elaborate more on the period issue.
I think the housework, working and commuting in public transport, can be very tiring. But I think breastfeeding makes things so much easier. I often get comments from friends on how tiring it must be to still be nursing. I think of so many other things that are tiring but not nursing. I can actually take a break when I do it and fall asleep. IT calms and prevents my daughter from getting cranky.
Plus with time it only gets easier because you don't have to deal with full breast as in the beginning and there is no dripping to deal with. People who haven't breastfed beyond the first couple of months only have in their memory that experience and it is at the beginning when it is most difficult (cracked nipples, too much milk or not enough). AV
Hi S,
A is almost 9 months also & I myself haven't had my period yet. I breastfeed all the time as well so I guess there's really nothing to worry about. S.
With my son, I got my first peried when he was 21 months. I still haven't had a period yet with my daughter and she is 17 months.
T
J is 8 months old and I still haven't had my period. He still nurses pretty much every hour. L.L.
For both my sons, my periods did not come back until, very exactly and identically 16 months and 20 days.
I've known a blessed woman who did not have them for 30 months !
M.
I lost blood for the first time when my baby was 4 month old and I was very disappointed, then I got regular periods from 6 months onwards, despite breastfeeding all the time! My gynecologist said that I was ovulating from an echography at the time, so I have to be cautious not to get pregnant again. My periods have really been regular since then, and I still breastfeed during the day mostly with my one year old baby girl. Thank you for sprecifying the iron problem that I may have because I feel tired. Should I take iron in supplement, do you think?
C.
I don't know if I have written on this subject yet.
Anyway I got my periods after about 15 months but these were not like real periods (not aching). I was b-feeding day and night quite frequently.
I took the pill from maybe 6 - 9 months but stopped as I kept forgetting to take it! I had no periods anyway.
The periods got heavier after a few months but from charting my temperature I noticed there wasn't always a shift mid cycle (indicating I wasn't always ovulating ie fertile; This is according to what I understood from Taking Charge Of Your Fertility author : Toni Weschler) . However my gynocologist said this didn't mean I wasn't ovulating, Hmm...)
The Lactational ammenorhea cotraceptive method (LAM) works for most women but is not 100% reliable (nor is the pill). A has a friend who got pregnant really quickly despite bfeeding all the time!
I've decided after reading "Taking charge of your fertility"* that I'll not take the pill again. I think it can mess up your natural hormonal balance, and I wish I hadn't taken it for so many years (I had a lot of trouble conceiving, no periods for months before I eventually got pregnant).
Lack of periods is a good side effect of breastfeeding especially as it stops your body losing iron in the blood. Some women get anaemic after their periods return if they are still breastfeeding. Attention to diet is required to balance their needs.
R
Interesting comments R -
I recently stopped taking the pill, I kept forgetting too! I had been taking it for years, both before and after pregnancy. I got pregnant one month after stopping the pill in 2002 ! But I agree, I do feel like it messed up my hormonal balance, and I'm already feeling different (it's been two weeks).
This is a very different subject, maybe my experience will help someone else to decide about contraception ? I decided to get an IUD (no hormones kind), which my OB/GYN put in ten days ago, during my period. The procedure was a bit painful, but very short lived. She told me to expect some spot bleeding over the next few months, and that would eventually disappear. So I had fairly heavy bleeding the first 3-4 days, and some lingering crampy pain. Day before yesterday, I was still having quite a bit of pain, and started searching the net to find out if that was normal or not - and according to the web sites I saw, it's not normal to still be in pain 10 days after - could be an infection.
So - called the dr's "cabinet" yesterday. Just my luck, she's closed on vacation until the end of the month ! So I frantically called several other OB/GYN's in town, and couldn't get a single dr. on the phone to answer my questions .... I do want more children later, and I was freaking out about having an infection that could block my tubes .... ended up in emergency gynecology at the hospital on my lunch break today since I couldn't seem to get a phone conversation or even an urgent appointment anywhere.
So - to make a long story short, everything is actually ok - no infection, the IUD is 'parfaitement en place'. Apparently my uterus is still adjusting, the pain should go away. I admit I didn't expect things to turn out this way.
- L (delurking)
Like R, I find Toni Weschler's book TCOYF to be a wealth of
information. A childhood friend who's now a physician (certified in allopathy and naturopathy) recommended it to me and I, like all of the other people she recommeded it to, became pregnant on my first try (after successfully using the book to avoid pregnancy for 18 months). Sleeping with baby helps, but the book does say that after 6 months, introducing solids and such, LAM is less effective. It's also hard to chart temperatures if you're not sleeping profoundly through a large part of the night (which is the case if you're sleeping with your baby!). I wonder when you started charting temperatures, R?
Since basal body temperatures are only one indicator of fertility, the method can still work. But my friend recommends barrier contraception if you really aren't willing to have another baby.
R, you said “I've decided after reading "Taking charge of your fertility that I'll not take the pill again. I think it can mess up your natural hormonal balance, and I wish I hadn't taken it for so many years (I had a lot of trouble conceiving, no periods for months before i eventually got pregnant).”
I have to say that I felt much better after stopping the pill, thanks in part to this book. It made me feel more in tune to my body, which in turn influenced my successful homebirth.
I, too, bled several times (after stopping the pill) without actually ovulating, though the ob/gyn didn't believe this to be true. But you can definitely tell the difference between ovulating and not from other fertility signs!
Funny how many health professionals seem to doubt this method and be stuck on the pill, though. When I stopped taking the pill in France years ago and inquired about other forms of contraception, my ob/gyn (who I ditched) suggested that by stopping the pill I was indicating an unconscious desire to become pregnant and that any "natural" birth control method was sure to lead to conception. She also told me that my recurrent yeast infections were not related to the pill (I've since determined that they were).
Who can know your body better than you?
S
Night weaning and nutrition. Vitamin D for breastfed infants?
Vitamin D for breastfed infants?
CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) --
The American Academy of Pediatrics says all exclusively breast-fed infants should receive vitamin D supplements to prevent rickets, a bone-weakening disease doctors fear may be becoming more common.
Breast-fed infants should receive vitamin supplements beginning at 2 months of age and until they begin taking at least 17 ounces daily of vitamin D-fortified milk, the academy says in a new policy statement. The academy recommends multivitamin supplements containing 200 international units of vitamin D, available as over-the-counter liquid drops or tablets. Supplements containing only vitamin D generally are too concentrated to be safe for routine use, it says.
The new recommendation also applies to:
• Infants who aren't breast-fed but who don't drink at least 17 ounces of fortified formula or milk daily.
• Children and adolescents who don't drink that much fortified milk, who don't get regular sunlight exposure or who don't already take multiple vitamins with at least 200 international units of vitamin D.
Breast milk contains small quantities of vitamin D and doctors used to think babies could get adequate amounts if they also spent time in sunlight, which stimulates the body to produce vitamin D.
However, growing concerns about skin cancer and recommendations that youngsters wear sunscreen and avoid excessive sun exposure may be putting some children at risk for vitamin D deficiency and rickets, said Dr. Nancy Krebs, head of the academy's nutrition committee. The new recommendation, being published Monday in April's Pediatrics, was prompted by reports of dozens of cases of rickets nationwide in recent years.
"We really hope that this is a way to optimize the health of breast-fed infants and not in any way to discourage breast-feeding," Krebs said. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention highlighted concerns about rickets in a 2001 report about several Georgia youngsters hospitalised with the disease. They included breast-fed infants who did not receive vitamin D supplements.
Although reports are rising, it's not clear if the actual incidence of rickets has risen since there are no national statistics on the ailment, said CDC epidemiolog ist Kelley Scanlon.
Most recent cases of rickets have affected black children, whose skin does not absorb as much sunlight. Youngsters who spend a lot of time indoors, perhaps because of parents' long work hours or safety concerns, also are at increased risk. Symptoms include high fever and seizures in infants, and bone pain, delayed walking, small stature and bowed legs in toddlers. Youngsters can be deficient in vitamin D months before symptoms are obvious. Blood tests can diagnose the disease.
Rickets can be treated with adequate vitamin D and sometimes braces or surgery, but short stature and bone deformities may be permanent if not corrected while children are still growing.
From K:
The latest issue of Mothering magazine had a great article on this new troubling recommendation. Vitamin D isn't really a vitamin at all, it is a hormone that is synthesized
naturally when the skin is exposed to sunlight. The amount of sunlight required for a Caucasian infant is approximately two hours per week fully clothed with bare head, or about 30 minutes per week in only a diaper. Darker-skinned babies need slightly more sunlight. The time of exposure can be early morning or evening, when sunburn is less likely. The natural way for humans to acquire vitamin D is through sun exposure, not through diet.
Throughout our evolutionary history, vitamin D has NOT been a part of our traditional diet -- it is only since the very recent fortification of milk with vitamin D (to prevent rickets) that the majority of people get a substantial portion of their vitamin D through dietary means in addition to manufacturing it themselves. Vitamin D does occur naturally in some other foods (fish oils such as cod liver oil and salmon, for instance), but the body does not need to consume ANY Vitamin D in the diet in order to avoid rickets. Rickets and vitamin D deficiency are symptoms not of dietary deficiency but of lack of sufficient sun exposure. The myriad reasons why some people do not have adequate exposure to sunlight include indoor daycare and indoor work environments, unsafe neighborhoods, living at higher latitudes, living in urban areas with pollution and/or buildings that block sunlight, sunscreen use, covering much or all of the body when outside (due to custom, cold climate, fear of skin cancer). These risk factors are more likely to affect people with darker skin pigmentation, who require somewhat more sun exposure than Caucasions to synthesize adequate vitamin D.
What is wrong with proposing that breastfed infants be given vitamin D supplements? Well, here are just a few reasons:
1. Recommending that breastfed, but not formula-fed, infants need certain supplements undermines breastfeeding by suggesting that breastmilk is deficient, lacking, or inferior to formula in at least one way. There is already such a huge world-wide perception that breastfeeding and formula-feeding are roughly equivalent, and even that formula-feeding is superior. This recommendation by the AAP perpetuates the myth that technology and science are needed to complement and improve breastmilk.
2. What are the possible dangers of giving multi-vitamins to infants? Study after study shows that infants do best when given NOTHING orally except breastmilk during their first 4-6 months of life. Supplements of any kind can increase risk of allergy, change gut flora and pH, irritate the gastro-intestinal tract, and increase susceptibility to infection. In addition to vitamin D, multi-vitamin drops (the kind recommended by the AAP) contain other vitamins most certainly NOT needed by infants (and potentially harmful to them), as well as other ingredients such as sugar, preservatives, and natural and artificial flavors. It is unknown what effect supplementation of vitamins that infants don't need has on their long-term growth and development. Vitamin toxicity in the infant is possible, if mothers give more than the recommended dose or if certain infants have metabolic disorders preventing them from metabolizing and/or excreting vitamins.
3. The recommendation that all mothers give their breastfed babies vitamin drops does not address the fundamental underlying issue: that the health of some mothers and their children is at risk because they are not being exposed to adequate sunlight. Addressing the cultural, sociological, economic and political factors that make this fact a reality is much less straightforward than recommending vitamin drops for all babies. Rather, recommending vitamins gives the appearance of solving a complex public health problem while distracting us from the real issues that need to be addressed.
4. A recent study showed that Infants born to mothers with adequate vitamin D levels during pregnancy have enough stored vitamin D at birth to meet their needs for approximately eight weeks, with no supplements, even in the absence of sun exposure. I assume that the AAP recommendation to begin vitamin supplementation at two months is based on this research. However, for those babies born to mothers who did not have adequate vitamin D during pregnancy, administering supplemental vitamins beginning at the age of two months is too late -- the neonate would have been vitamin D deficient from birth (as well as in utero). It is likely that the risk factors for vitamin D deficiency apply equally to mothers and their children: dark skin pigmentation, long hours indoors because of parents' work hours, cultural or religious traditions (or simply weather) that require covering much of the skin, etc. Those infants who are most at risk for vitamin D deficiency, therefore, were probably born to mothers who were vitamin D deficient during pregnancy, and beginning supplementation at 2 months of age is not an effective treatment for those children. Those infants who are not vitamin D deficient during their first two months of life (because their mothers had sufficient vitamin D stores during pregnancy) are unlikely to need supplementation at two months or at any age. It therefore seems that an across-the-board vitamin supplementation recommendation starting at two months not only foists vitamins supplements on babies who don't need it, but fails to solve the vitamin D deficiencies of those who are truly in need: vitamin D deficient mothers, and their unborn and newborn children.
Conclusions:
A universal recommendation for multi-vitamin supplementation in breastfed babies beginning at two months of age is ineffective at targeting those babies who are most at risk, sends a negative message about breastfeeding, foists an unnecessary cost onto breastfeeding mothers, and exposes infants to (as yet unknown) risks that may be associated with vitamin supplementation. In the absence of further research, such a recommendation is clearly unwarranted and even counterproductive.
A more effective recommendation by AAP would be to urge people to exposure themselves and their children to moderate amounts of sunlight on a regular basis. Pediatricians, family doctors, gynecologists, midwives, and other practitioners who come into contact with pregnant women and children would reinforce this recommendation and, when indicated, recommend vitamin drops only to those individuals most at risk for vitamin D deficiency.
CHICAGO, Illinois (AP) --
The American Academy of Pediatrics says all exclusively breast-fed infants should receive vitamin D supplements to prevent rickets, a bone-weakening disease doctors fear may be becoming more common.
Breast-fed infants should receive vitamin supplements beginning at 2 months of age and until they begin taking at least 17 ounces daily of vitamin D-fortified milk, the academy says in a new policy statement. The academy recommends multivitamin supplements containing 200 international units of vitamin D, available as over-the-counter liquid drops or tablets. Supplements containing only vitamin D generally are too concentrated to be safe for routine use, it says.
The new recommendation also applies to:
• Infants who aren't breast-fed but who don't drink at least 17 ounces of fortified formula or milk daily.
• Children and adolescents who don't drink that much fortified milk, who don't get regular sunlight exposure or who don't already take multiple vitamins with at least 200 international units of vitamin D.
Breast milk contains small quantities of vitamin D and doctors used to think babies could get adequate amounts if they also spent time in sunlight, which stimulates the body to produce vitamin D.
However, growing concerns about skin cancer and recommendations that youngsters wear sunscreen and avoid excessive sun exposure may be putting some children at risk for vitamin D deficiency and rickets, said Dr. Nancy Krebs, head of the academy's nutrition committee. The new recommendation, being published Monday in April's Pediatrics, was prompted by reports of dozens of cases of rickets nationwide in recent years.
"We really hope that this is a way to optimize the health of breast-fed infants and not in any way to discourage breast-feeding," Krebs said. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention highlighted concerns about rickets in a 2001 report about several Georgia youngsters hospitalised with the disease. They included breast-fed infants who did not receive vitamin D supplements.
Although reports are rising, it's not clear if the actual incidence of rickets has risen since there are no national statistics on the ailment, said CDC epidemiolog ist Kelley Scanlon.
Most recent cases of rickets have affected black children, whose skin does not absorb as much sunlight. Youngsters who spend a lot of time indoors, perhaps because of parents' long work hours or safety concerns, also are at increased risk. Symptoms include high fever and seizures in infants, and bone pain, delayed walking, small stature and bowed legs in toddlers. Youngsters can be deficient in vitamin D months before symptoms are obvious. Blood tests can diagnose the disease.
Rickets can be treated with adequate vitamin D and sometimes braces or surgery, but short stature and bone deformities may be permanent if not corrected while children are still growing.
From K:
The latest issue of Mothering magazine had a great article on this new troubling recommendation. Vitamin D isn't really a vitamin at all, it is a hormone that is synthesized
naturally when the skin is exposed to sunlight. The amount of sunlight required for a Caucasian infant is approximately two hours per week fully clothed with bare head, or about 30 minutes per week in only a diaper. Darker-skinned babies need slightly more sunlight. The time of exposure can be early morning or evening, when sunburn is less likely. The natural way for humans to acquire vitamin D is through sun exposure, not through diet.
Throughout our evolutionary history, vitamin D has NOT been a part of our traditional diet -- it is only since the very recent fortification of milk with vitamin D (to prevent rickets) that the majority of people get a substantial portion of their vitamin D through dietary means in addition to manufacturing it themselves. Vitamin D does occur naturally in some other foods (fish oils such as cod liver oil and salmon, for instance), but the body does not need to consume ANY Vitamin D in the diet in order to avoid rickets. Rickets and vitamin D deficiency are symptoms not of dietary deficiency but of lack of sufficient sun exposure. The myriad reasons why some people do not have adequate exposure to sunlight include indoor daycare and indoor work environments, unsafe neighborhoods, living at higher latitudes, living in urban areas with pollution and/or buildings that block sunlight, sunscreen use, covering much or all of the body when outside (due to custom, cold climate, fear of skin cancer). These risk factors are more likely to affect people with darker skin pigmentation, who require somewhat more sun exposure than Caucasions to synthesize adequate vitamin D.
What is wrong with proposing that breastfed infants be given vitamin D supplements? Well, here are just a few reasons:
1. Recommending that breastfed, but not formula-fed, infants need certain supplements undermines breastfeeding by suggesting that breastmilk is deficient, lacking, or inferior to formula in at least one way. There is already such a huge world-wide perception that breastfeeding and formula-feeding are roughly equivalent, and even that formula-feeding is superior. This recommendation by the AAP perpetuates the myth that technology and science are needed to complement and improve breastmilk.
2. What are the possible dangers of giving multi-vitamins to infants? Study after study shows that infants do best when given NOTHING orally except breastmilk during their first 4-6 months of life. Supplements of any kind can increase risk of allergy, change gut flora and pH, irritate the gastro-intestinal tract, and increase susceptibility to infection. In addition to vitamin D, multi-vitamin drops (the kind recommended by the AAP) contain other vitamins most certainly NOT needed by infants (and potentially harmful to them), as well as other ingredients such as sugar, preservatives, and natural and artificial flavors. It is unknown what effect supplementation of vitamins that infants don't need has on their long-term growth and development. Vitamin toxicity in the infant is possible, if mothers give more than the recommended dose or if certain infants have metabolic disorders preventing them from metabolizing and/or excreting vitamins.
3. The recommendation that all mothers give their breastfed babies vitamin drops does not address the fundamental underlying issue: that the health of some mothers and their children is at risk because they are not being exposed to adequate sunlight. Addressing the cultural, sociological, economic and political factors that make this fact a reality is much less straightforward than recommending vitamin drops for all babies. Rather, recommending vitamins gives the appearance of solving a complex public health problem while distracting us from the real issues that need to be addressed.
4. A recent study showed that Infants born to mothers with adequate vitamin D levels during pregnancy have enough stored vitamin D at birth to meet their needs for approximately eight weeks, with no supplements, even in the absence of sun exposure. I assume that the AAP recommendation to begin vitamin supplementation at two months is based on this research. However, for those babies born to mothers who did not have adequate vitamin D during pregnancy, administering supplemental vitamins beginning at the age of two months is too late -- the neonate would have been vitamin D deficient from birth (as well as in utero). It is likely that the risk factors for vitamin D deficiency apply equally to mothers and their children: dark skin pigmentation, long hours indoors because of parents' work hours, cultural or religious traditions (or simply weather) that require covering much of the skin, etc. Those infants who are most at risk for vitamin D deficiency, therefore, were probably born to mothers who were vitamin D deficient during pregnancy, and beginning supplementation at 2 months of age is not an effective treatment for those children. Those infants who are not vitamin D deficient during their first two months of life (because their mothers had sufficient vitamin D stores during pregnancy) are unlikely to need supplementation at two months or at any age. It therefore seems that an across-the-board vitamin supplementation recommendation starting at two months not only foists vitamins supplements on babies who don't need it, but fails to solve the vitamin D deficiencies of those who are truly in need: vitamin D deficient mothers, and their unborn and newborn children.
Conclusions:
A universal recommendation for multi-vitamin supplementation in breastfed babies beginning at two months of age is ineffective at targeting those babies who are most at risk, sends a negative message about breastfeeding, foists an unnecessary cost onto breastfeeding mothers, and exposes infants to (as yet unknown) risks that may be associated with vitamin supplementation. In the absence of further research, such a recommendation is clearly unwarranted and even counterproductive.
A more effective recommendation by AAP would be to urge people to exposure themselves and their children to moderate amounts of sunlight on a regular basis. Pediatricians, family doctors, gynecologists, midwives, and other practitioners who come into contact with pregnant women and children would reinforce this recommendation and, when indicated, recommend vitamin drops only to those individuals most at risk for vitamin D deficiency.
Night weaning and nutrition. Too busy to nurse vs self weaning
Too Busy to Nurse vs Self Weaning.
First of all, an apology to S - I'm afraid my message probably wasn't all that helpful. There must be nothing worse than sending out an SOS because your baby is screaming, only to hear that someone else's baby doesn't do that... I think all we first time mothers go through so much soulsearching about whether we're doing things right. It does help to eliminate (if you can) people from your entourage who tell you that your baby is crying too much. I had someone come to help me when A was a few months old and crying quite a bit, and who told me that there was something wrong with my baby and we needed to go to the emergency room because she was crying so much.
Well, the fact was that when I held A, she didn't cry - but that woman made me extremely unsure of myself. After two days, I told her things were just not working out and I can't tell you the relief I felt not to hear someone telling me I was doing things wrong. On the subject of showers and what have you - A is almost always in whatever room I'm in, whether the shower, the toilet, whatever. I'm lucky, however, in that she no longer needs to be held 24 hours a day. Which brings me to my question and my anxiety.
As you all have probably gathered, A is much more independant then I ever expected a baby to be. She's intensly curious about everything, fascinated by new noises, new sights, new physical sensations (and yes it's confirmed - she's walking at not even 8 1/2 months) and new foods... My problem is that I am quite concerned that A is going to wean too early. Getting her to nurse during the day is an incredible challenge. I already talked to you about this in December, H, but since then it's gotten even more difficult. I've tried everything I can think of - always nursing before meals rather than after, offering her my breasts whenever possible (she'll usually nurse for about 30 seconds, almost as though she's doing me a favour - if I can get to 5 minutes I consider it a triumph!) nursing in a darkened room so there are no distractions... I carry her quite a bit in the wrap but she's always been adamant about not wanting to nurse in it. She's never had anything else to drink - no bottles of juice or water. I'm getting thankful for those nighttime nursing sessions because at least I know she's getting my milk then. Even at night she nurses very quickly - in 10 minutes she's emptied both breasts so maybe she's getting more than I think during the day? On days when she is particularly uninterested in nursing, I tend to add some pumped milk to her food to be sure she's getting some. Is this all normal? Or is this a problem? Is there something I should be doing differently? Or is this the angst of a new mother who's not sure of herself?
It's so hard to know what is normal and when I hear everyone talk about their babies nursing all the time, I think I must surely be doing something wrong...
Of course, it's a triumph that she's even nursing at all, since she hysterically refused my breast for the first five weeks of her life and maybe this is all linked... Okay, I'm going to stop burbling and send this out... Thanks for any input!
Bises,
A
Dear A,
Thankyou for your other message by the way (I replied to it but it somehow didn't get sent properly and then it was lost....)
It's so exciting that A is walking!!
I'm more and more convinced that babies are all SO different, nothing is NORMAL. What is normal for A is not normal for another baby.
It seems to me you've always followed A's lead. In the beginning she got huge amounts of "peau à peau" and carrying. And you've followed her lead in putting her down (letting her get mobile, not surprisingly she's walking very early (like R) You began feeding her solids when SHE was interested. You even worked out she preferred not to be sleeping too near you. You worked out she needed to suck but she didn't want to suck on your breast. All this actually came as a surprise for you as it went against what you had expected and perhaps even dreamed of (having read all the attachment parenting-type books that we know so well).
If you had NOT followed her lead it would have been as crazy as scheduled feeding, letting her cry to sleep or all the other unnatural practices people sometimes use to make babies "conform" to their idea of what a baby should be. You allowed your daughter to be the "mode d'emploi" and she has not turned out to be the kind of 8 month-old who needs 24-hour a day carrying and non-stop nursing. Some babies are like that but some aren't.
This ties in with something you mentioned in your other message about the label "attatchment parent", which I had written to you in the message that got lost. The label is a bit misleading in that the
"attachment" bit of it refers to the needs of newborn babies to create an attachment (on-going from that within the womb).
Parents who permit this attachment, so the theory goes, give their child a sense of security which in a healthy parent-child relationship will eventually and very gradually give way to autonomy and detachment. So after a while the term "attachement parent" becomes a bit redundant. If "attachment parenting" is to be a worthwhile thing, it surely doesn't mean forcing you baby to do what she doesn't want to do. Eg. carrying her when she would rather be romping around getting hold of things, or nursing her exclusively when she obviously wants to get other food into her mouth. Or making her sleep with you when she clearly has more restful sleep if she's in her own bed.
I don't think prolonged nursing, co-sleeping, carrying etc (what some might consider to be part of the attachement parenting tool-kit) are ends in themselves, rather they are ways you can respond to your child's needs (at the same time as making life easier for yourself). If a child clearly doesn't want these things it would be absurd to force these on her.
From what you have told us you are doing everything you can to get her to nurse, it sounds like it's been like this for some time now. Her lack of interest may be, as you suggested to me once, that she didn't get used to the breast as a comforter in the early weeks.
Maybe the trauma she had at the clinic which seemed to put her off the breast in the first place did contribute to that. We will never know. But maybe it has nothing to do with that. Maybe she is just moving on in her own time to other things. Maybe she will get interested in it again. I don't think this lack of daytime nursing means she will wean soon. She may, she may not. Child-led weaning is just that. Following her lead. (Reminding her occasionally just in case she's forgotten, doesn't count as forcing, I would add! So go for it!)
Putting your milk in her food is a great idea, and you can even try and add some in on days she's nursing satisfactorily. This is a way of keeping your milk supply bountiful (pumping) as there is always the danger she could wean simply because the milk flows less ("dries up" as some people say). Since their is an advantage to keeping breastmilk in the child's diet for as long as possible, this is a justifiable way of tricking her into drinking more of it!
I knew one mother who, when her second child was born started to pump her milk to give her older child (aged about 2) in a cup even though she was already weaned. She was convinced it was helping maintain her child's health.
Anyway it sounds like those night feeds are a blessing : just think if you had night weaned her? She probably would be virtually weaned by now.
It is important that when we hear other mothers talking about what is normal for their babies we don't immediately assume something is wrong with ours (or with us). It's true whether it's about "doing her nights" or how many feeds she has a day (there's no rule). Trust you baby.
lots of love
R
Hi,
You do not need any applogies to me. All mother's experience can enrich me and encourage me. Before I was so fragile. I thought of myself being a bad mother. Why does she cry even in my arms now since I am participating this forum, I can say to myself, “well my baby is quite demanding but it's good because I can bond with her stronger through all difficulties and problems.” In doing so, I gain more confidence.
Thank you for your story. Hearing your experience keeps me going.
Being a mother is not as easy as lots of people may think.
S
Initially my baby was always on my breast. Almost 24 hours a day, right up to three months. She has started to decrease that frequency recently. Now she just drinks for about 5 minutes!! I have the same feeling, that she does not drink enough but I guess she must be getting enough.
I understand your feeling quite well. I am sometimes frustrated because my baby refuses to drink my milk. At the same time, I see that she is growing well. She still loves my breast, I think. I am sometimes scared too that she might stop taking my breast.
Sorry I cannot be of any help, but I guess if your bb is developping well, then you should not worry about it so much. 20% of bbs get weaned before the age of 1 year in Japan. I hope it will not happen to me.
S
I had lots of breast-feeding issues when F was teeny and spoke to L.C. quite a lot (as my lactation consultant), and one of the interesting things she told me was that babies become more and more efficient nursers, so that around 8 or 9 months they can indeed drain a breast in 5 minutes. I don't think that's anything to worry about! Your rapid nursers are just growing up! F hardly nurses at all during the day, usually, but makes up for it at night.
M.M.J.
I just wanted to say that this is quite a common age for bbs to be "just too busy to nurse right now mummy". I've heard A LOT of (non attachment) mothers saying that their bbs "self weaned" at around this age.
Everything that everyone has said so far is totally right. Its just that the majority of people are not aware of attachment parenting, natural parenting, etc. so they think that this phase is "self weaning"
Self weaning doesn't happen until after the age of 2. I mean, real self weaning, not nipple preference.
What a lot of parents think is self weaning is "just too busy...." or a nursing strike, or getting bottles instead of cups, or pacifiers.. so a lot of parents just stop offering. As they don't or haven't night fed for a long time, that huge window is also eliminated.
Up to 60% of a baby's needs are taken in night feedings...
Everything you have mentioned tells me you are hitting all angles that you could hit!
I agree with you and everyone else. Don't worry. I'm not worried for you, I have a very strong feeling you are totally following her lead, and even if it means that she's taking in a lot in 5 minutes and or getting 60% at night, you are totally ensuring her needs.
R made an important point : reminding her from time to time is not force feeding.
Thats a good idea to take her into a quiet place with fewer distractions too. I remember when A was at this same phase. The wrap helped a lot for me during that phase. It was just about the only time he was bored enough to nurse.
Pumping and making sure she gets your milk in food is a great idea. The only thing I would say is to watch out for is giving stuff (your milk or anything else) in a bottle as opposed to cups, due to risk of nipple preference.
Good for your for your perseverance and sensitivity.
Lots of love, C.
It might not help but...
My bb does not like to feed horizontally now. Before, when she was tiny, yes but not anymore. Now, each time its time to nurse, she is busy interested in other things and she refuses to feed but she needs to be fed! When my instinct tells me that she is hungry now, I put myself in a sofa, I sit down and I put her on my lap. She sits face to face, looking at me. I show her my breast and offer, “would you like some? She is interested, she touches it and puts it her in mouth, and gives it a try, I win!!!! She looks away now and then, so she does not feed continuously, but off and on ; 30 seconds, 10 seconds, 20 seconds, 1 minute, 10 seconds, then she has finished!
Also when she wakes up, she is still half sleep, so she is not yet interested in other things so I can feed her uniterupted. When she is half sleep, she accepts the breasts easily.
During the night, she feeds a lot mostly, but some nights, she does not feed a lot (twice or three times). That makes me worried, but at night I imagine she is getting enough. I sleep with her. I do not know how many times my bb drinks at night, I don't count. I sleep and she helps herself. Everyone keeps asking me how many times, how many times? Is that so important? I ask myself. Anyhow, I think she is getting enough. According to one book, as long as she moves around, she is active, then I should not worry.
S
Between jetlag, teething and his newfound capacities at flipping around and scooting to places, J in the last 2-3 days has decided he doesn't want to nurse more than a minute or so at a time during the day. He then goes on to marathon bouts during at night. Is this enough to keep up a milk supply? How much do babies need to nurse to keep up a good supply and do they need to be doing it at regular intervals? I must be blind, but couldn't find any answers in Motherly art of breastfeeding. Thanks for any info you may have.
L.L.
As long as you are your baby's ONLY supply of nourishment it doesn't matter whether he nurses less during the day than at night. Obviously if you are giving him botlles whether it's, water, juice, formula or whatever then your supply could decrease with the decreased frequency of nursing. Try reading Dr Sears The Baby Book for more info or ask a LLL leader such as C.
J.B.
Hi. So sorry you are going through this. It is fairly common though.
you'll find it under... Nursing strikes, page 142 in the latest edition; (the seventh).
In fact, it describes exactly your situations, with varying scenarios of course, and also describes exactly S's "plan of attack" plus
more techniques that may or may not be feasible for everyone (such as nursing in a swimming pool).
Basically, it signals that something is wrong. (for a nursing strike) O.K. I know, you're saying "YES, I KNOW, SO WHAT IS WRONG?!" which of course I can't tell you. Neither can your friendly family doctor.
In short, at under a year, if bb is nightfeeding which can make up 60% of a bb's intake, any short sucks during the day stimulate, so I suppose even if a bb fed only 3 times in a day but was feeding at night, the breasts would figure it out.
Breasts and our hormones are amazing. Even if there is total "weaning" for a short period (up to 40 days) it is not considered relactating, just building up a milk supply when you start up again. Milk is totally absorbed after 40 days of no demand whatsoever. Then it is considered relactating.
Lots of love, C.
First of all, an apology to S - I'm afraid my message probably wasn't all that helpful. There must be nothing worse than sending out an SOS because your baby is screaming, only to hear that someone else's baby doesn't do that... I think all we first time mothers go through so much soulsearching about whether we're doing things right. It does help to eliminate (if you can) people from your entourage who tell you that your baby is crying too much. I had someone come to help me when A was a few months old and crying quite a bit, and who told me that there was something wrong with my baby and we needed to go to the emergency room because she was crying so much.
Well, the fact was that when I held A, she didn't cry - but that woman made me extremely unsure of myself. After two days, I told her things were just not working out and I can't tell you the relief I felt not to hear someone telling me I was doing things wrong. On the subject of showers and what have you - A is almost always in whatever room I'm in, whether the shower, the toilet, whatever. I'm lucky, however, in that she no longer needs to be held 24 hours a day. Which brings me to my question and my anxiety.
As you all have probably gathered, A is much more independant then I ever expected a baby to be. She's intensly curious about everything, fascinated by new noises, new sights, new physical sensations (and yes it's confirmed - she's walking at not even 8 1/2 months) and new foods... My problem is that I am quite concerned that A is going to wean too early. Getting her to nurse during the day is an incredible challenge. I already talked to you about this in December, H, but since then it's gotten even more difficult. I've tried everything I can think of - always nursing before meals rather than after, offering her my breasts whenever possible (she'll usually nurse for about 30 seconds, almost as though she's doing me a favour - if I can get to 5 minutes I consider it a triumph!) nursing in a darkened room so there are no distractions... I carry her quite a bit in the wrap but she's always been adamant about not wanting to nurse in it. She's never had anything else to drink - no bottles of juice or water. I'm getting thankful for those nighttime nursing sessions because at least I know she's getting my milk then. Even at night she nurses very quickly - in 10 minutes she's emptied both breasts so maybe she's getting more than I think during the day? On days when she is particularly uninterested in nursing, I tend to add some pumped milk to her food to be sure she's getting some. Is this all normal? Or is this a problem? Is there something I should be doing differently? Or is this the angst of a new mother who's not sure of herself?
It's so hard to know what is normal and when I hear everyone talk about their babies nursing all the time, I think I must surely be doing something wrong...
Of course, it's a triumph that she's even nursing at all, since she hysterically refused my breast for the first five weeks of her life and maybe this is all linked... Okay, I'm going to stop burbling and send this out... Thanks for any input!
Bises,
A
Dear A,
Thankyou for your other message by the way (I replied to it but it somehow didn't get sent properly and then it was lost....)
It's so exciting that A is walking!!
I'm more and more convinced that babies are all SO different, nothing is NORMAL. What is normal for A is not normal for another baby.
It seems to me you've always followed A's lead. In the beginning she got huge amounts of "peau à peau" and carrying. And you've followed her lead in putting her down (letting her get mobile, not surprisingly she's walking very early (like R) You began feeding her solids when SHE was interested. You even worked out she preferred not to be sleeping too near you. You worked out she needed to suck but she didn't want to suck on your breast. All this actually came as a surprise for you as it went against what you had expected and perhaps even dreamed of (having read all the attachment parenting-type books that we know so well).
If you had NOT followed her lead it would have been as crazy as scheduled feeding, letting her cry to sleep or all the other unnatural practices people sometimes use to make babies "conform" to their idea of what a baby should be. You allowed your daughter to be the "mode d'emploi" and she has not turned out to be the kind of 8 month-old who needs 24-hour a day carrying and non-stop nursing. Some babies are like that but some aren't.
This ties in with something you mentioned in your other message about the label "attatchment parent", which I had written to you in the message that got lost. The label is a bit misleading in that the
"attachment" bit of it refers to the needs of newborn babies to create an attachment (on-going from that within the womb).
Parents who permit this attachment, so the theory goes, give their child a sense of security which in a healthy parent-child relationship will eventually and very gradually give way to autonomy and detachment. So after a while the term "attachement parent" becomes a bit redundant. If "attachment parenting" is to be a worthwhile thing, it surely doesn't mean forcing you baby to do what she doesn't want to do. Eg. carrying her when she would rather be romping around getting hold of things, or nursing her exclusively when she obviously wants to get other food into her mouth. Or making her sleep with you when she clearly has more restful sleep if she's in her own bed.
I don't think prolonged nursing, co-sleeping, carrying etc (what some might consider to be part of the attachement parenting tool-kit) are ends in themselves, rather they are ways you can respond to your child's needs (at the same time as making life easier for yourself). If a child clearly doesn't want these things it would be absurd to force these on her.
From what you have told us you are doing everything you can to get her to nurse, it sounds like it's been like this for some time now. Her lack of interest may be, as you suggested to me once, that she didn't get used to the breast as a comforter in the early weeks.
Maybe the trauma she had at the clinic which seemed to put her off the breast in the first place did contribute to that. We will never know. But maybe it has nothing to do with that. Maybe she is just moving on in her own time to other things. Maybe she will get interested in it again. I don't think this lack of daytime nursing means she will wean soon. She may, she may not. Child-led weaning is just that. Following her lead. (Reminding her occasionally just in case she's forgotten, doesn't count as forcing, I would add! So go for it!)
Putting your milk in her food is a great idea, and you can even try and add some in on days she's nursing satisfactorily. This is a way of keeping your milk supply bountiful (pumping) as there is always the danger she could wean simply because the milk flows less ("dries up" as some people say). Since their is an advantage to keeping breastmilk in the child's diet for as long as possible, this is a justifiable way of tricking her into drinking more of it!
I knew one mother who, when her second child was born started to pump her milk to give her older child (aged about 2) in a cup even though she was already weaned. She was convinced it was helping maintain her child's health.
Anyway it sounds like those night feeds are a blessing : just think if you had night weaned her? She probably would be virtually weaned by now.
It is important that when we hear other mothers talking about what is normal for their babies we don't immediately assume something is wrong with ours (or with us). It's true whether it's about "doing her nights" or how many feeds she has a day (there's no rule). Trust you baby.
lots of love
R
Hi,
You do not need any applogies to me. All mother's experience can enrich me and encourage me. Before I was so fragile. I thought of myself being a bad mother. Why does she cry even in my arms now since I am participating this forum, I can say to myself, “well my baby is quite demanding but it's good because I can bond with her stronger through all difficulties and problems.” In doing so, I gain more confidence.
Thank you for your story. Hearing your experience keeps me going.
Being a mother is not as easy as lots of people may think.
S
Initially my baby was always on my breast. Almost 24 hours a day, right up to three months. She has started to decrease that frequency recently. Now she just drinks for about 5 minutes!! I have the same feeling, that she does not drink enough but I guess she must be getting enough.
I understand your feeling quite well. I am sometimes frustrated because my baby refuses to drink my milk. At the same time, I see that she is growing well. She still loves my breast, I think. I am sometimes scared too that she might stop taking my breast.
Sorry I cannot be of any help, but I guess if your bb is developping well, then you should not worry about it so much. 20% of bbs get weaned before the age of 1 year in Japan. I hope it will not happen to me.
S
I had lots of breast-feeding issues when F was teeny and spoke to L.C. quite a lot (as my lactation consultant), and one of the interesting things she told me was that babies become more and more efficient nursers, so that around 8 or 9 months they can indeed drain a breast in 5 minutes. I don't think that's anything to worry about! Your rapid nursers are just growing up! F hardly nurses at all during the day, usually, but makes up for it at night.
M.M.J.
I just wanted to say that this is quite a common age for bbs to be "just too busy to nurse right now mummy". I've heard A LOT of (non attachment) mothers saying that their bbs "self weaned" at around this age.
Everything that everyone has said so far is totally right. Its just that the majority of people are not aware of attachment parenting, natural parenting, etc. so they think that this phase is "self weaning"
Self weaning doesn't happen until after the age of 2. I mean, real self weaning, not nipple preference.
What a lot of parents think is self weaning is "just too busy...." or a nursing strike, or getting bottles instead of cups, or pacifiers.. so a lot of parents just stop offering. As they don't or haven't night fed for a long time, that huge window is also eliminated.
Up to 60% of a baby's needs are taken in night feedings...
Everything you have mentioned tells me you are hitting all angles that you could hit!
I agree with you and everyone else. Don't worry. I'm not worried for you, I have a very strong feeling you are totally following her lead, and even if it means that she's taking in a lot in 5 minutes and or getting 60% at night, you are totally ensuring her needs.
R made an important point : reminding her from time to time is not force feeding.
Thats a good idea to take her into a quiet place with fewer distractions too. I remember when A was at this same phase. The wrap helped a lot for me during that phase. It was just about the only time he was bored enough to nurse.
Pumping and making sure she gets your milk in food is a great idea. The only thing I would say is to watch out for is giving stuff (your milk or anything else) in a bottle as opposed to cups, due to risk of nipple preference.
Good for your for your perseverance and sensitivity.
Lots of love, C.
It might not help but...
My bb does not like to feed horizontally now. Before, when she was tiny, yes but not anymore. Now, each time its time to nurse, she is busy interested in other things and she refuses to feed but she needs to be fed! When my instinct tells me that she is hungry now, I put myself in a sofa, I sit down and I put her on my lap. She sits face to face, looking at me. I show her my breast and offer, “would you like some? She is interested, she touches it and puts it her in mouth, and gives it a try, I win!!!! She looks away now and then, so she does not feed continuously, but off and on ; 30 seconds, 10 seconds, 20 seconds, 1 minute, 10 seconds, then she has finished!
Also when she wakes up, she is still half sleep, so she is not yet interested in other things so I can feed her uniterupted. When she is half sleep, she accepts the breasts easily.
During the night, she feeds a lot mostly, but some nights, she does not feed a lot (twice or three times). That makes me worried, but at night I imagine she is getting enough. I sleep with her. I do not know how many times my bb drinks at night, I don't count. I sleep and she helps herself. Everyone keeps asking me how many times, how many times? Is that so important? I ask myself. Anyhow, I think she is getting enough. According to one book, as long as she moves around, she is active, then I should not worry.
S
Between jetlag, teething and his newfound capacities at flipping around and scooting to places, J in the last 2-3 days has decided he doesn't want to nurse more than a minute or so at a time during the day. He then goes on to marathon bouts during at night. Is this enough to keep up a milk supply? How much do babies need to nurse to keep up a good supply and do they need to be doing it at regular intervals? I must be blind, but couldn't find any answers in Motherly art of breastfeeding. Thanks for any info you may have.
L.L.
As long as you are your baby's ONLY supply of nourishment it doesn't matter whether he nurses less during the day than at night. Obviously if you are giving him botlles whether it's, water, juice, formula or whatever then your supply could decrease with the decreased frequency of nursing. Try reading Dr Sears The Baby Book for more info or ask a LLL leader such as C.
J.B.
Hi. So sorry you are going through this. It is fairly common though.
you'll find it under... Nursing strikes, page 142 in the latest edition; (the seventh).
In fact, it describes exactly your situations, with varying scenarios of course, and also describes exactly S's "plan of attack" plus
more techniques that may or may not be feasible for everyone (such as nursing in a swimming pool).
Basically, it signals that something is wrong. (for a nursing strike) O.K. I know, you're saying "YES, I KNOW, SO WHAT IS WRONG?!" which of course I can't tell you. Neither can your friendly family doctor.
In short, at under a year, if bb is nightfeeding which can make up 60% of a bb's intake, any short sucks during the day stimulate, so I suppose even if a bb fed only 3 times in a day but was feeding at night, the breasts would figure it out.
Breasts and our hormones are amazing. Even if there is total "weaning" for a short period (up to 40 days) it is not considered relactating, just building up a milk supply when you start up again. Milk is totally absorbed after 40 days of no demand whatsoever. Then it is considered relactating.
Lots of love, C.
Night weaning and nutrition. H's story
Night Weaning H’s Story.
Now, that very interesting. Especially since I am intending to get V and L (5 soon) to sleep in the same bedroom and bed. Anybody has some tips for the first nights please ?
At the moment we are still co-sleeping with little V who has just turned 2. She wakes between 2 and up to 7 times a night. Most
times she latches on without waking me, or if I am soundly asleep with my back to her, her dad asks me to turn round and helps V to find me.
L goes to bed between 9 and 10 usually, she gets very tired
towards the evening. Whereas it is impossible to get V to sleep before I go to bed and crash out with her. Even if I feed her for a long time, even if its for 1 hour 1/2, if I get up, she will wake up immediately. Which means we end up both going to bed at about midnight and she wakes up between 10 and 12 in the morning. Interestingly, she doesn't mind being on her own in the bed from 8 am onwards.
Now what annoys me is that if I get up to go for pee in the middle of the night, she will kick up a huge fuss, most of time and protest vehemently. Whatever I try, I doesn't work, she will still keep making a fuss until I come back.
I really have trouble understanding this. She is a very secure little girl, very confident. She is with me all the time, she even came to University with me until she was 15 months. She started accompanying me to university when she was 5 weeks old. So I must say I have a positive experience of close natural parenting with V whilst getting on with my activies as a student and a professional.
Lots of love to everybody and my best wishes for the New Year
H, Montpellier
Mother of L, soon 5 and V 2
Now, that very interesting. Especially since I am intending to get V and L (5 soon) to sleep in the same bedroom and bed. Anybody has some tips for the first nights please ?
At the moment we are still co-sleeping with little V who has just turned 2. She wakes between 2 and up to 7 times a night. Most
times she latches on without waking me, or if I am soundly asleep with my back to her, her dad asks me to turn round and helps V to find me.
L goes to bed between 9 and 10 usually, she gets very tired
towards the evening. Whereas it is impossible to get V to sleep before I go to bed and crash out with her. Even if I feed her for a long time, even if its for 1 hour 1/2, if I get up, she will wake up immediately. Which means we end up both going to bed at about midnight and she wakes up between 10 and 12 in the morning. Interestingly, she doesn't mind being on her own in the bed from 8 am onwards.
Now what annoys me is that if I get up to go for pee in the middle of the night, she will kick up a huge fuss, most of time and protest vehemently. Whatever I try, I doesn't work, she will still keep making a fuss until I come back.
I really have trouble understanding this. She is a very secure little girl, very confident. She is with me all the time, she even came to University with me until she was 15 months. She started accompanying me to university when she was 5 weeks old. So I must say I have a positive experience of close natural parenting with V whilst getting on with my activies as a student and a professional.
Lots of love to everybody and my best wishes for the New Year
H, Montpellier
Mother of L, soon 5 and V 2
Night weaning and nutrition. Formula Follies
TASTE COMMENTARY
The Formula Follies
Is not breastfeeding your baby the equivalent of smoking cigarettes?
BY JENNIFER GRAHAM
The Merchants of Death in Christopher Buckley's novel "Thank You for Smoking" are spokesmen for the most vilified industries in Washington: alcohol, tobacco and firearms. A lobbyist for baby formula may have to join them in a sequel. Proponents of breast-feeding, emboldened by studies that trumpet human milk's superiority to its supermarket substitutes, are abandoning platitudes like "Breast Is Best" in favor of aggressive campaigns designed to portray formula feeding as not merely inferior but dangerous.
A startling television ad in a government breast-feeding campaign likened feeding an infant formula to being thrown from a mechanical bull while heavily pregnant. Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin has proposed mandatory warning labels for formula cans. Breast-feeding advocates are pushing legislation to stop hospitals from giving free formula to new mothers. A new book calls formula feeding "deviant behavior" that should occur only as an "emergency nutrition intervention to prevent starvation and death." "There's not so much talk now about the benefits of breast-feeding," says Katy Lebbing of La Leche League International, "but the risks of not breast-feeding."
Formula, its critics say, makes children sicker, fatter and dumber. Its inability to match the antibodies of breast milk is implicated in a range of maladies, including ear infections and diabetes. It is not yet the new cigarette; few suggest that formula actually kills babies, except in rare cases when powdered formula is mixed with tainted water, for example.
But formula, once seen as the perfectly engineered health food, has become the TV dinner of infant feeding: seductively easy, nutritionally challenged and oh-so-1950s. And the campaign against it has made strange cribfellows: liberals who demand accommodation in the workplace and open-shirt nursing in the public square and conservatives who believe that young children are best cared for in their homes by mothers free to nurse on demand. Pity the bewildered new mother who wants to nurse but can't because of physical problems or her job. She is offered an astonishing array of high-tech, vitamin-rich formula but lives in a nation that exhorts choice and free will except in the baby-food aisle.
The resurgence of breast-feeding follows a buildup of research confirming benefits to mother and child that formula manufacturers have been unable to duplicate. It also closely parallels the rise of La Leche, an organization formed in 1956 by seven Chicago-area women who wanted a network of nursing mothers to support one another in what was then considered radical behavior. At that time, less than 29% of mothers were nursing their week-old infants. The percentage would eventually dip to 25% in 1971 before climbing to 70% today.
La Leche, which promotes breast-feeding through meetings and telephone support, originally appealed to "young hippies," says spokeswoman Mary Lofton. "There had been this love affair with technology, thinking if something was made in a lab, it was better. But when the back-to-nature movement came along, we were there." And, Mrs. Lofton maintains, "all of the ideas we promoted--to breast-feed right after delivery, to do it frequently . . . these were revolutionary ideas at the time, but every single one of those things is accepted pediatric practice today."
La Leche's influence is such that when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) launched a breast-feeding campaign in June 2004, La Leche trained the counselors who answered the government's hotlines. The goal of that continuing campaign is to get 75% of American mothers to breast-feed initially and 50% to breast-feed exclusively for at least six months. Using the catch phrase "babies are born to be breast-fed," the campaign distributes ads for television, radio and the print media. The mechanical-bull ad drew some complaints but was effective, claims Christina Pearson, an HHS spokeswoman.
While one government agency is promoting breast-feeding, however, another is handing out formula. The Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program, administered by the Department of Agriculture, gives states grants to provide free formula, food and breast-feeding support to low-income women. Nearly half of all infants in the U.S. are enrolled, and 54% of infant formula in the U.S. is distributed through WIC.
Since the late 1980s, states have negotiated contracts with formula manufacturers, who returned rebates to the states totaling $1.64 billion in 2004, the last year for which statistics are available. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 29% of WIC recipients are breast-feeding at six months, compared with 46% of women who are eligible for WIC but don't receive the aid and 47% of ineligible women.
The result, says James Akre, the author of "The Problem With Breastfeeding" (a new book that takes issue with some of the popular aversion to breast-feeding) is that, by handing out more formula than breast pumps, the government is encouraging "deviant behavior" and "billions of dollars are going to provide poor children with food based on an alien food source"--the alien being a cow.
Mr. Akre, a resident of Geneva, Switzerland, and a retired official of the World Health Organization, believes that, as in the case of seatbelts and tobacco, a society's attitude toward breast-feeding can change in a generation. "It's not women who breast-feed, after all. It's cultures and societies as a whole," he says.
Until the late 1800s, women had little choice but to breast-feed. The only question was whether the child's mother would do it or someone else--a paid wet nurse or a slave. Every culture tried substitutes (sugared water or cow's or goat's milk early on, evaporated milk and Karo syrup more recently), but experimentation sometimes killed babies. Swiss pharmacist Henri Nestlé produced the first formula in the 1860s, saving the life of an orphaned baby and launching an $8 billion world-wide market in which Nestlé is still the leader.
The marketing of baby formula is tricky for manufacturers, which must admit on their labels that breast-milk is superior. To compensate, they rely heavily on coupons and formula samples offered through hospitals. New mothers typically leave American hospitals with a gift bag supplied by a formula manufacturer. Breast-feeding advocates want to end the practice.
Earlier this year, Massachusetts enacted the first ban on the gift bags, but it was killed by Gov. Mitt Romney, who cited the need for choice. The debate over breast-feeding simmers with political tension because it encapsulates the larger question of personal freedom versus social good. In likening formula to current public-health pariahs, breast-feeding advocates hope to send formula down a similar dark path.
The Massachusetts Breastfeeding Coalition announced plans for a nationwide "Ban the Bags" campaign at the International Lactation Consultant Association meeting in Philadelphia last week. Dr. Melissa Bartick, the coalition's chairwoman, has promised that formula marketing in hospitals won't last. She adds: "We'd never tolerate the thought of hospitals giving out coupons for Big Macs on the cardiac unit." So baby formula is not yet the new cigarette. But it's already the new Big Mac.
Ms. Graham is a writer and editor in the suburbs of Boston.
The Formula Follies
Is not breastfeeding your baby the equivalent of smoking cigarettes?
BY JENNIFER GRAHAM
The Merchants of Death in Christopher Buckley's novel "Thank You for Smoking" are spokesmen for the most vilified industries in Washington: alcohol, tobacco and firearms. A lobbyist for baby formula may have to join them in a sequel. Proponents of breast-feeding, emboldened by studies that trumpet human milk's superiority to its supermarket substitutes, are abandoning platitudes like "Breast Is Best" in favor of aggressive campaigns designed to portray formula feeding as not merely inferior but dangerous.
A startling television ad in a government breast-feeding campaign likened feeding an infant formula to being thrown from a mechanical bull while heavily pregnant. Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin has proposed mandatory warning labels for formula cans. Breast-feeding advocates are pushing legislation to stop hospitals from giving free formula to new mothers. A new book calls formula feeding "deviant behavior" that should occur only as an "emergency nutrition intervention to prevent starvation and death." "There's not so much talk now about the benefits of breast-feeding," says Katy Lebbing of La Leche League International, "but the risks of not breast-feeding."
Formula, its critics say, makes children sicker, fatter and dumber. Its inability to match the antibodies of breast milk is implicated in a range of maladies, including ear infections and diabetes. It is not yet the new cigarette; few suggest that formula actually kills babies, except in rare cases when powdered formula is mixed with tainted water, for example.
But formula, once seen as the perfectly engineered health food, has become the TV dinner of infant feeding: seductively easy, nutritionally challenged and oh-so-1950s. And the campaign against it has made strange cribfellows: liberals who demand accommodation in the workplace and open-shirt nursing in the public square and conservatives who believe that young children are best cared for in their homes by mothers free to nurse on demand. Pity the bewildered new mother who wants to nurse but can't because of physical problems or her job. She is offered an astonishing array of high-tech, vitamin-rich formula but lives in a nation that exhorts choice and free will except in the baby-food aisle.
The resurgence of breast-feeding follows a buildup of research confirming benefits to mother and child that formula manufacturers have been unable to duplicate. It also closely parallels the rise of La Leche, an organization formed in 1956 by seven Chicago-area women who wanted a network of nursing mothers to support one another in what was then considered radical behavior. At that time, less than 29% of mothers were nursing their week-old infants. The percentage would eventually dip to 25% in 1971 before climbing to 70% today.
La Leche, which promotes breast-feeding through meetings and telephone support, originally appealed to "young hippies," says spokeswoman Mary Lofton. "There had been this love affair with technology, thinking if something was made in a lab, it was better. But when the back-to-nature movement came along, we were there." And, Mrs. Lofton maintains, "all of the ideas we promoted--to breast-feed right after delivery, to do it frequently . . . these were revolutionary ideas at the time, but every single one of those things is accepted pediatric practice today."
La Leche's influence is such that when the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) launched a breast-feeding campaign in June 2004, La Leche trained the counselors who answered the government's hotlines. The goal of that continuing campaign is to get 75% of American mothers to breast-feed initially and 50% to breast-feed exclusively for at least six months. Using the catch phrase "babies are born to be breast-fed," the campaign distributes ads for television, radio and the print media. The mechanical-bull ad drew some complaints but was effective, claims Christina Pearson, an HHS spokeswoman.
While one government agency is promoting breast-feeding, however, another is handing out formula. The Women, Infants and Children (WIC) program, administered by the Department of Agriculture, gives states grants to provide free formula, food and breast-feeding support to low-income women. Nearly half of all infants in the U.S. are enrolled, and 54% of infant formula in the U.S. is distributed through WIC.
Since the late 1980s, states have negotiated contracts with formula manufacturers, who returned rebates to the states totaling $1.64 billion in 2004, the last year for which statistics are available. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 29% of WIC recipients are breast-feeding at six months, compared with 46% of women who are eligible for WIC but don't receive the aid and 47% of ineligible women.
The result, says James Akre, the author of "The Problem With Breastfeeding" (a new book that takes issue with some of the popular aversion to breast-feeding) is that, by handing out more formula than breast pumps, the government is encouraging "deviant behavior" and "billions of dollars are going to provide poor children with food based on an alien food source"--the alien being a cow.
Mr. Akre, a resident of Geneva, Switzerland, and a retired official of the World Health Organization, believes that, as in the case of seatbelts and tobacco, a society's attitude toward breast-feeding can change in a generation. "It's not women who breast-feed, after all. It's cultures and societies as a whole," he says.
Until the late 1800s, women had little choice but to breast-feed. The only question was whether the child's mother would do it or someone else--a paid wet nurse or a slave. Every culture tried substitutes (sugared water or cow's or goat's milk early on, evaporated milk and Karo syrup more recently), but experimentation sometimes killed babies. Swiss pharmacist Henri Nestlé produced the first formula in the 1860s, saving the life of an orphaned baby and launching an $8 billion world-wide market in which Nestlé is still the leader.
The marketing of baby formula is tricky for manufacturers, which must admit on their labels that breast-milk is superior. To compensate, they rely heavily on coupons and formula samples offered through hospitals. New mothers typically leave American hospitals with a gift bag supplied by a formula manufacturer. Breast-feeding advocates want to end the practice.
Earlier this year, Massachusetts enacted the first ban on the gift bags, but it was killed by Gov. Mitt Romney, who cited the need for choice. The debate over breast-feeding simmers with political tension because it encapsulates the larger question of personal freedom versus social good. In likening formula to current public-health pariahs, breast-feeding advocates hope to send formula down a similar dark path.
The Massachusetts Breastfeeding Coalition announced plans for a nationwide "Ban the Bags" campaign at the International Lactation Consultant Association meeting in Philadelphia last week. Dr. Melissa Bartick, the coalition's chairwoman, has promised that formula marketing in hospitals won't last. She adds: "We'd never tolerate the thought of hospitals giving out coupons for Big Macs on the cardiac unit." So baby formula is not yet the new cigarette. But it's already the new Big Mac.
Ms. Graham is a writer and editor in the suburbs of Boston.
Night weaning and Nutrition. Diet linked to twin births
BGH to Blame for Rise in Twin Birth?
• Diet Linked to Twin Births
Scientific American, May 22, 2006
Straight to the Source Diet Linked to Twin Births
By
Scientific American, May 22, 2006
http://scientificamerican.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=00094DF5-2CC5-1471-ACC583414B7F0000
Over the last 30 years, the number of twin births has nearly trebled. This rise seems to have followed the introduction of in vitro fertilization and a preference for having children later in life. But in the mid-1990s, doctors began limiting the number of embryos transferred in the course of in vitro fertilization and still the proportion of twin births rose. Now new research seems to show that bovine growth hormone in the food supply may be responsible.
Using data obtained from mothers by way of questionnaire, physician Gary Steinman of the Long Island Jewish Medical Center and his colleagues compared the number of twin births from moms who consumed meat and/or milk and those who consumed no animal products at all. They found that the omnivores and vegetarians were five times more likely to have fraternal twins than the vegans.
In a report published in the current issue of the Journal of Reproductive Medicine, Steinman argues that insulin-like growth factor, a protein released by the liver in response to growth hormone, may be the reason. Studies have shown that the protein increases ovulation and that it persists in the body after entering via digested food, particularly milk. Drinking a glass of milk a day over a 12-week period raised levels of the protein in the body by 10 percent. Vegan women, it turns out, have 13 percent lower concentrations of it in their blood.
Steinman observed in the May 6 issue of The Lancet that although the twinning rate in the U.K.--where bovine growth hormone is banned--rose by 16 percent between 1992 and 2001, it increased by 32 percent in the U.S., where the substance is not banned. Of the new work he says: "This study shows for the first time that the chance of having twins is affected both by heredity and environment or, in other words, by both nature and nurture."
Subject: rBGH MILK MAKES TWINS
MILK FROM COWS INJECTED WITH GENETICALLY ENGINEERED HORMONES MAKES TWINS
New research shows that consumers of hormone-tainted dairy products are five times more likely to have fraternal twins than vegans. In a report published in the current issue of the Journal of Reproductive Medicine, researchers linked recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) with this rise in twin birth rates. The study shows how rBGH, a synthetic growth hormone used to increase milk production in dairy cattle, increases ovulation in humans and persists in the body after entering via digested food, particularly milk. Monsanto's controversial hormone has been banned in almost every industrialized country in the world, due to scientific evidence indicating that the milk from injected cows contains more pus, antibiotic residues, and IGF-1, a potent cancer tumor promoter. Consumers can avoid dairy products that contain rBGH by purchasing organic dairy products or by looking for labels on natural products that say rBGH or rBST-free.
• Diet Linked to Twin Births
Scientific American, May 22, 2006
Straight to the Source Diet Linked to Twin Births
By
Scientific American, May 22, 2006
http://scientificamerican.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=00094DF5-2CC5-1471-ACC583414B7F0000
Over the last 30 years, the number of twin births has nearly trebled. This rise seems to have followed the introduction of in vitro fertilization and a preference for having children later in life. But in the mid-1990s, doctors began limiting the number of embryos transferred in the course of in vitro fertilization and still the proportion of twin births rose. Now new research seems to show that bovine growth hormone in the food supply may be responsible.
Using data obtained from mothers by way of questionnaire, physician Gary Steinman of the Long Island Jewish Medical Center and his colleagues compared the number of twin births from moms who consumed meat and/or milk and those who consumed no animal products at all. They found that the omnivores and vegetarians were five times more likely to have fraternal twins than the vegans.
In a report published in the current issue of the Journal of Reproductive Medicine, Steinman argues that insulin-like growth factor, a protein released by the liver in response to growth hormone, may be the reason. Studies have shown that the protein increases ovulation and that it persists in the body after entering via digested food, particularly milk. Drinking a glass of milk a day over a 12-week period raised levels of the protein in the body by 10 percent. Vegan women, it turns out, have 13 percent lower concentrations of it in their blood.
Steinman observed in the May 6 issue of The Lancet that although the twinning rate in the U.K.--where bovine growth hormone is banned--rose by 16 percent between 1992 and 2001, it increased by 32 percent in the U.S., where the substance is not banned. Of the new work he says: "This study shows for the first time that the chance of having twins is affected both by heredity and environment or, in other words, by both nature and nurture."
Subject: rBGH MILK MAKES TWINS
MILK FROM COWS INJECTED WITH GENETICALLY ENGINEERED HORMONES MAKES TWINS
New research shows that consumers of hormone-tainted dairy products are five times more likely to have fraternal twins than vegans. In a report published in the current issue of the Journal of Reproductive Medicine, researchers linked recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) with this rise in twin birth rates. The study shows how rBGH, a synthetic growth hormone used to increase milk production in dairy cattle, increases ovulation in humans and persists in the body after entering via digested food, particularly milk. Monsanto's controversial hormone has been banned in almost every industrialized country in the world, due to scientific evidence indicating that the milk from injected cows contains more pus, antibiotic residues, and IGF-1, a potent cancer tumor promoter. Consumers can avoid dairy products that contain rBGH by purchasing organic dairy products or by looking for labels on natural products that say rBGH or rBST-free.
Night weaning and nutrition. Cavities and breastfeeding (in french)
Il existe un site qui associe dents et ostéopathie, faire une recherche : dents vivantes.
Allaitement et caries : aucun rapport
Breastfeeding and infant caries : no connection. B Palmer. ABM News and
Views 2000 ; 6(4) : 27.
Mots-clés : caries, santé dentaire, allaitement.
Certains auteurs ont recommandé que l'enfant soit sevré au moment de l'apparition des premières dents de lait, sous prétexte que l'allaitement augmente le risque de caries. Aucune étude n'est venue confirmer le bien-fondé de cette recommandation.
Dans une étude publiée en 1999, Erickson concluait que si les laits industriels étaient cariogènes, ce n'était pas le cas du lait humain. D'autres auteurs ont remis en cause la méthodologie d'études ayant retrouvé un lien entre l'allaitement et la prévalence des caries. Oulis, dans une étude publiée aussi en 1999, constatait qu'un allaitement d'au moins 40 jours
abaissait le risque de caries. Dès 1977, une étude avait constaté que le lait humain permettait in vitro une reminéralisation de l'émail lorsqu'il avait été artificiellement déminéralisé. Les caries sont favorisées par la
colonisation de la cavité buccale par le Streptococcus mutans, et les anticorps du lait humain peuvent inhiber la croissance de ce germe. Des études ont constaté que la prévalence des caries était très basse pendant la préhistoire.
Berkowitz concluait que les caries constituaient une maladie infectieuse rampante, essentiellement liée à la présence dans la bouche d'une souche microbienne particulière, le Streptococcus mutans. Cette bactérie peut être transmise à l'enfant par son entourage. Sa multiplication jusqu'à un seuil où elle devient pathogène serait la conséquence de l'exposition fréquente et prolongée à des substances cariogènes.
Certains ont estimé que le lactose était cariogène, comme le glucose ou le saccharose. Mais le lactose présent dans le lait humain est accompagné de tout un environnement enzymatique et immunologique. Par ailleurs, la lactase agit au niveau de l'estomac. Le lactose est le sucre spécifique du lait, et il est présent dans le lait de quasiment tous les mammifères. Pourquoi les
humains sont-ils les seuls mammifères à présenter un taux significatif de caries ? Pourquoi les caries dentaires ne sont-elles apparues dans l'espèce humaine que depuis 8000 à 10.000 ans ?
L'observation a permis d'identifier divers facteurs qui augmentent le risque de carie :
· Le sucre représente le plus important facteur de risque ; cela inclut le sucre raffiné, mais aussi le sucre caché dans les aliments : jus de fruits, boissons sucrées, fruits secs, céréales sucrées., ainsi que les médicaments contenant du sucre. Il semble que ce n'est pas la quantité de sucre qui constitue le facteur le plus déterminant, mais plutôt la fréquence
d'exposition.
· Le moment d'apparition des premières caries induites par les bactéries dans la bouche de l'enfant, et le nombre de caries.
· La xérostomie (sécrétion salivaire très faible ou inexistante).
· Une maladie ou un stress de la mère ou du fotus pendant la grossesse.
· De mauvaises habitudes alimentaires familiales.
· Une mauvaise hygiène buccale et générale dans la famille.
· Une prédisposition génétique familiale (contribution mineure).
Absolument rien ne permet de penser que l'allaitement puisse favoriser les caries. L'allaitement représente la norme pour notre espèce, y compris en ce qui concerne le développement correct des arches dentaires et des structures faciales dans leur ensemble. Il est temps que les professionnels de santé commencent à éduquer le grand public sur l'importance de l'allaitement en matière de santé dentaire.
Propriétés cariogènes des différents types de lait
Cariogenicity and cariostatic properties for different types of milk - Review. PM Duarte, LC Coppi, PL Rosalen. Arch Latinoam Nutr 2000 ; 50(2) : 113-20. Mots-clés : lait, caries dentaires.
L'objectif des auteurs était de mieux évaluer l'impact des différents laits sur la santé buccale, et en particulier leurs propriétés cariogènes ou cariostatiques. Différentes études ont été menées sur le lait humain et le lait industriel, mais on ignore encore beaucoup de choses.
Le lait de vache frais contient des composants cariostatiques, tels que la caséine, les lipides, et des enzymes antibactériennes, bien qu'il contienne 4% de lactose, sucre supposé cariogène. Des auteurs ont relié l'allaitement à la survenue de caries d'un type spécifiques, dites « caries du biberon », mais des études plus poussées n'ont pas mis en évidence un quelconque impact
cariogène du lait humain. Le lait industriel, couramment donné à de jeunes enfants, reste le moins étudié en ce qui concerne son impact sur la prévalence des caries.
Il serait très intéressant d'étudier les propriétés cariogènes et cariostatiques des différents laits consommés par les enfants, et leur impact sur la prévalence des caries pendant l'enfance et à l'âge adulte.
Allaitement et caries
Investigation of the role of human breast milk in caries development. PR Erickson, E Mazhari. Pediatr Dent 1999 ; 21(2) : 86-90. Mots-clés : lait humain, caries « du biberon », pH buccal, facteurs de risque.
Le but de cette étude était d'évaluer la nature des relations entre l'allaitement et les facteurs de risque pour les caries dites « du biberon ».
Pour ce faire, les auteurs ont mesuré le pH buccal de 18 enfants allaités âgés de 12 à 24 mois avant et après une tétée, afin d'en déterminer les variations. Ils ont aussi cultivé une souche de Streptococcus sobrinus 6715 ayant été incubée pendant 3 heures en présence de lait humain, pour appréciation de la croissance bactérienne et mesure du pH du milieu de culture. De l'émail dentaire réduit en poudre a aussi été incubé pendant 24 heures dans du lait humain, afin de déterminer le taux de solubilité de cet émail en présence de lait humain et en l'absence de bactéries. Les auteurs ont mélangé du lait humain à des doses croissantes d'acide afin d'en mesurer le pouvoir tampon. Enfin, ils ont fait des « trous » dans l'émail dentaire
de prémolaires, les ont colonisées avec du Streptocoque mutant, puis les ont incubées avec du lait humain. Les caries survenues dans ces prémolaires ont été étudiées visuellement et radiologiquement au bout de 12 semaines d'incubation.
Les résultats ont montré que le lait humain n'induisait pas plus de variations du pH buccal qu'un rincage à l'eau claire. Il permettait une croissance modérée du Streptococcus sobrinus. Un dépôt de calcium et de phosphates était observé sur la poudre d'émail après incubation avec le lait humain. Ce dernier avait un pouvoir tampon très faible. Enfin, aucune carie
n'était constatée après incubation dans le lait humain seul, même après 12 semaines ; si par contre on ajoutait dans ce lait humain du saccharose à un taux de 10%, des caries apparaissaient au bout de 3,2 semaines.
Les auteurs concluaient que le lait humain n'induisait pas de caries dentaires.
Caries et allaitement
A systemic overview of the relationship between infant feeding caries and breastfeeding. J Sinton, R Valaitis, C Passarelli et al. Ontario Dentist 1998 ; 75(9) : 23-27. Mots-clés : caries « du biberon », allaitement long.
Les auteurs de cet article ont passé en revue la littérature médicale parue sur les relations entre les caries dites « du biberon » et l'allaitement chez les jeunes enfants. Ils ont passé en revue 151 articles, et ont estimé que 28 d'entre eux étaient pertinents au vu de leur conception et de la population étudiée. Les études de cas cliniques n'ont pas été prise en compte. La fiabilité de ces articles a été définie en fonction d'une échelle préétablie comme étant importante, moyenne, faible et très faible. Aucun article n'était très fiable ; 3 étaient moyennement fiables, 9 étaient peu fiables, et 16 étaient très peu fiables.
Les principaux biais de ces étude étaient méthodologiques. Très peu prenaient en compte les variables démographiques. Les définitions données pour l'allaitement étaient plus ou moins inexistantes, obscures, variables d'une étude à l'autre. Des caractéristiques importantes pour l'allaitement n'étaient pas données. Les 3 articles dont la fiabilité était moyenne retrouvaient tous les 3 une association entre l'existence de caries « dubiberon » et la poursuite de l'allaitement après 12 mois, ou avec l'existence de tétées nocturnes alors que l'enfant avait déjà des dents ; un de ces articles trouvait que les enfants allaités avaient à la fois un risque plus élevé et plus faible de présenter ce type de caries. Les études très peu fiables concluaient à l'existence entre l'allaitement et les caries d'aucune corrélation, ou d'une corrélation positive ou négative.
Les auteurs concluaient que rien dans la littérature médicale existant actuellement ne permet de conclure qu'il y a ou non un rapport entre l'allaitement et le risque de carie. Dans la mesure où l'allaitement long présente de multiples avantages, ils recommandent donc aux professionnels de santé de ne pas utiliser le prétexte d'une augmentation du risque de caries
pour conseiller à une mère de sevrer son enfant. Ils présentent ensuite un certain nombre de mesures de promotion de l'allaitement et de prévention des caries chez les enfants.
Allaitement prolongé et caries
chez des enfants de 18 mois
Dental caries and prolonged breastfeeding in 18-month-old Swedish children.AL Hallonsten, LK Wendt, I Mejàre et al.In J Pediatr Dent 1995 ; 5 : 149-55. B Review 1999 ; 7 : 37.
Cette étude suédoise comportait 2 volets. Une étude épidémiologique a évalué la prévalence des caries et de l'allaitement long chez des enfants de 18 mois. Pour ce faire, 3000 enfants, suivis dans 46 centres de consultation ont été étudiés. 200 de ces enfants ont été enrôlés pour le second volet de l'étude, qui a évalué avec précision les habitudes alimentaires, le brossage
des dents, l'utilisation de fluor, et a effectué une mise en culture de prélèvements buccaux à la recherche de Streptococus mutant et de Lactobacillus. Les enfants ont été répartis en 4 groupes :
· groupe 1 : enfants non allaités et présentant des caries
· groupe 2 : enfants allaités et présentant des caries
· groupe 3 : enfants allaités ne présentant pas de caries
· groupe 4 : enfants non allaités et ne présentant pas de caries
Au total, 2,1% de ces enfants de 18 mois présentaient des caries, et 2% étaient toujours allaités. Parmi les enfants qui étaient toujours allaités, 19,7% présentaient des caries, contre 1,7% des enfants qui n'étaient plus allaités.
Après étude des différents paramètres, il apparaissait que, en dépit de l'importante différence notée ci-dessus, l'allaitement en soi n'avait aucune relation avec la prévalence des caries. Qu'ils soient toujours allaités ou non à 18 mois, les enfants qui souffraient de caries étaient ceux qui consommaient le plus d'aliments cariogènes. 67% des enfants étaient
porteurs du Streptococcus mutans, et 13% étaient porteur du Lactobacillus. Les caries étaient plus fréquentes chez ces enfants, qu'ils soient ou non encore allaités.
Les auteurs concluent que certains enfants développent très tôt des habitudes alimentaires néfastes, qui augmentent nettement le risque de caries précoces. L'allaitement long n'est pas en soi un facteur de risque pour ce type de caries, dans la mesure où les autres aliments pris par l'enfant sont peu cariogènes.
Pratiques de maternage caries dentaires
Child-rearing practices and nursing caries. JR Serwint, R Murgo, VF Negrete, AK Duggan and BM Korsch. Pediatrics, Août 93, 92 : 233-37.
Le terme "caries alimentaire" recouvre un type d'altérations dentaires affectant les incisives centrales et latérales du maxillaire, ainsi que les premières molaires. Dans la littérature, ce type de caries est attribué au don de biberon après l'âge de un an, au don nocturne de biberon, et aux difficultés qu'éprouvent les parents à dire "non" à l'enfant. Cependant, de nouvelles études amènent à penser que cette pathologie a une origine multifactorielle. D'autre part, nombre d'enfants continuent à avoir des biberons passé l'âge de 12 mois, ainsi que des biberons la nuit, sans pour autant présenter des caries. Les auteurs de cette étude se sont posé les questions suivantes :
· Les enfants qui présentent ce type de caries continuent-ils à recevoir des biberons après un an ou la nuit plus souvent que les autres enfants ?
· Ces enfants ont-ils des parents qui ont des difficultés à poser des limites ?
· Existe-t-il des antécédents familiaux sur le plan dentaire ?
L'étude a porté sur 110 enfants âgés de 18 à 36 mois. La mère a été interrogée sur divers facteurs socio-économiques, les pratiques sur le plan de l'alimentation, la façon dont les parents définissaient des limites à l'enfant, les antécédents et pratiques familiales en matière de santé dentaire. Les enfants ont ensuite été examinés, et le nombre, l'emplacement et l'importance des caries éventuelles a été noté.
22 enfants (20%) présentaient des caries. Il n'a pas été retrouvé de différence significative entre ces enfants et les autres quant aux données démographiques et socio-économiques, sauf en ce qui concerne le niveau d'éducation de la mère : l'augmentation de ce dernier était corrélé à une baisse de l'incidence des caries. Presque tous les enfants étudiés recevaient toujours des biberons à 12 et 18 mois. La fréquence des caries était plus élevé chez les enfants qui avaient été allaités (72% contre 46%).
Cependant, la durée de l'allaitement était similaire chez les divers groupes d'enfants. Il n'y avait pas de différence significative entre les enfants pour ce qui est de l'utilisation d'une sucette, de la cuillère ou de "doudous". Il n'y avait pas non plus de différence significative dans les apports quotidiens en lait, en jus de fruit ou en glucides, ni de rapport entre ces apports et la sévérité des caries. Presque tous les enfants recevaient un biberon de lait la nuit à 12 mois, et la plupart d'entre eux en recevaient toujours à 18 mois. Aucun rapport n'a pu être mis en évidence entre la survenue de carie et ce fait, même en prenant en compte le fait que
certains enfants recevaient plus d'un biberon par nuit, qu'il pouvait dormir avec le biberon, et que le biberon pouvait contenir de l'eau. Il n'y avait pas de différence entre les mères quant à leur permissivité. Cependant, les mères dont les enfants avaient des caries étaient plus nombreuses à utiliser le biberon pour amener leur enfant à coopérer avec elles (58% contre 23%).
En fait, le seul facteur qui s'est avéré fortement corrélé à l'apparition de caries chez le bambin a été la présence de caries chez la mère. 55% des mères dont l'enfant souffrait de carie avaient elles-mêmes au moins 8 caries, contre 19% des mères dont les enfants n'avaient pas de caries. Cela avait déjà été mis en évidence dans d'autres études, et il est difficile de savoir dans quelle mesure ce fait est du à des facteurs génétiques ou environnementaux. Aucune différence significative n'a pu être retrouvée dans l'incidence des caries en fonction de la prise éventuelle de fluor, de l'âge auquel avait débuté une supplémentation en fluor, ou de l'âge auquel on avait commencé à brosser les dents de l'enfant.
Contrairement à l'opinion couramment répandue, et à ce qui a été rapporté par certaines autres études, aucune corrélation n'a pu être mise en évidence entre la prévalence des caries et l'utilisation du biberon la nuit et après l'âge de 12 mois. Cette étude a porté sur des enfants venant dans une consultation pédiatrique générale, et non dans une consultation dentaire,
ce qui peut expliquer cette différence de résultat. D'autre part, les enfants ont été vus à des âges différents, leurs apports glucidiques n'on pas pu être appréciés exactement, et les réponses des mères sur le don de biberons pouvaient être approximatives, ce qui est susceptible d'avoir faussé les résultats.
La raison pour laquelle l'incidence des caries était plus élevée chez les enfants allaités est obscure. Certains auteurs attribuent cet état de fait à la poursuite des tétées nocturnes après 2 à 3 ans. Cela ne peut cependant pas être le cas ici, la majorité des mères qui avaient allaité avaient sevré leur enfant vers 5 à 6 mois, avant même la sortie de la première dent. Il est possible que cette corrélation soit due à des biais non encore mis en évidence. Dans cette étude, le pourcentage de mères présentant au moins 8 caries était plus élevé chez les mères qui avaient allaité (72% contre 28%), ce qui, étant donné l'impact important de ce facteur, peut être une explication. 80% des mères étaient d'origine hispanique, et des facteurs
raciaux peuvent avoir une influence.
Les auteurs concluent que l'origine des caries est multifactorielle, et qu'il n'on mis en évidence aucune raison de recommander un sevrage précoce du sein ou du biberon. D'autres études sont nécessaires afin de mieux cerner les causes de ce type de caries.
Allaitement et caries : aucun rapport
Breastfeeding and infant caries : no connection. B Palmer. ABM News and
Views 2000 ; 6(4) : 27.
Mots-clés : caries, santé dentaire, allaitement.
Certains auteurs ont recommandé que l'enfant soit sevré au moment de l'apparition des premières dents de lait, sous prétexte que l'allaitement augmente le risque de caries. Aucune étude n'est venue confirmer le bien-fondé de cette recommandation.
Dans une étude publiée en 1999, Erickson concluait que si les laits industriels étaient cariogènes, ce n'était pas le cas du lait humain. D'autres auteurs ont remis en cause la méthodologie d'études ayant retrouvé un lien entre l'allaitement et la prévalence des caries. Oulis, dans une étude publiée aussi en 1999, constatait qu'un allaitement d'au moins 40 jours
abaissait le risque de caries. Dès 1977, une étude avait constaté que le lait humain permettait in vitro une reminéralisation de l'émail lorsqu'il avait été artificiellement déminéralisé. Les caries sont favorisées par la
colonisation de la cavité buccale par le Streptococcus mutans, et les anticorps du lait humain peuvent inhiber la croissance de ce germe. Des études ont constaté que la prévalence des caries était très basse pendant la préhistoire.
Berkowitz concluait que les caries constituaient une maladie infectieuse rampante, essentiellement liée à la présence dans la bouche d'une souche microbienne particulière, le Streptococcus mutans. Cette bactérie peut être transmise à l'enfant par son entourage. Sa multiplication jusqu'à un seuil où elle devient pathogène serait la conséquence de l'exposition fréquente et prolongée à des substances cariogènes.
Certains ont estimé que le lactose était cariogène, comme le glucose ou le saccharose. Mais le lactose présent dans le lait humain est accompagné de tout un environnement enzymatique et immunologique. Par ailleurs, la lactase agit au niveau de l'estomac. Le lactose est le sucre spécifique du lait, et il est présent dans le lait de quasiment tous les mammifères. Pourquoi les
humains sont-ils les seuls mammifères à présenter un taux significatif de caries ? Pourquoi les caries dentaires ne sont-elles apparues dans l'espèce humaine que depuis 8000 à 10.000 ans ?
L'observation a permis d'identifier divers facteurs qui augmentent le risque de carie :
· Le sucre représente le plus important facteur de risque ; cela inclut le sucre raffiné, mais aussi le sucre caché dans les aliments : jus de fruits, boissons sucrées, fruits secs, céréales sucrées., ainsi que les médicaments contenant du sucre. Il semble que ce n'est pas la quantité de sucre qui constitue le facteur le plus déterminant, mais plutôt la fréquence
d'exposition.
· Le moment d'apparition des premières caries induites par les bactéries dans la bouche de l'enfant, et le nombre de caries.
· La xérostomie (sécrétion salivaire très faible ou inexistante).
· Une maladie ou un stress de la mère ou du fotus pendant la grossesse.
· De mauvaises habitudes alimentaires familiales.
· Une mauvaise hygiène buccale et générale dans la famille.
· Une prédisposition génétique familiale (contribution mineure).
Absolument rien ne permet de penser que l'allaitement puisse favoriser les caries. L'allaitement représente la norme pour notre espèce, y compris en ce qui concerne le développement correct des arches dentaires et des structures faciales dans leur ensemble. Il est temps que les professionnels de santé commencent à éduquer le grand public sur l'importance de l'allaitement en matière de santé dentaire.
Propriétés cariogènes des différents types de lait
Cariogenicity and cariostatic properties for different types of milk - Review. PM Duarte, LC Coppi, PL Rosalen. Arch Latinoam Nutr 2000 ; 50(2) : 113-20. Mots-clés : lait, caries dentaires.
L'objectif des auteurs était de mieux évaluer l'impact des différents laits sur la santé buccale, et en particulier leurs propriétés cariogènes ou cariostatiques. Différentes études ont été menées sur le lait humain et le lait industriel, mais on ignore encore beaucoup de choses.
Le lait de vache frais contient des composants cariostatiques, tels que la caséine, les lipides, et des enzymes antibactériennes, bien qu'il contienne 4% de lactose, sucre supposé cariogène. Des auteurs ont relié l'allaitement à la survenue de caries d'un type spécifiques, dites « caries du biberon », mais des études plus poussées n'ont pas mis en évidence un quelconque impact
cariogène du lait humain. Le lait industriel, couramment donné à de jeunes enfants, reste le moins étudié en ce qui concerne son impact sur la prévalence des caries.
Il serait très intéressant d'étudier les propriétés cariogènes et cariostatiques des différents laits consommés par les enfants, et leur impact sur la prévalence des caries pendant l'enfance et à l'âge adulte.
Allaitement et caries
Investigation of the role of human breast milk in caries development. PR Erickson, E Mazhari. Pediatr Dent 1999 ; 21(2) : 86-90. Mots-clés : lait humain, caries « du biberon », pH buccal, facteurs de risque.
Le but de cette étude était d'évaluer la nature des relations entre l'allaitement et les facteurs de risque pour les caries dites « du biberon ».
Pour ce faire, les auteurs ont mesuré le pH buccal de 18 enfants allaités âgés de 12 à 24 mois avant et après une tétée, afin d'en déterminer les variations. Ils ont aussi cultivé une souche de Streptococcus sobrinus 6715 ayant été incubée pendant 3 heures en présence de lait humain, pour appréciation de la croissance bactérienne et mesure du pH du milieu de culture. De l'émail dentaire réduit en poudre a aussi été incubé pendant 24 heures dans du lait humain, afin de déterminer le taux de solubilité de cet émail en présence de lait humain et en l'absence de bactéries. Les auteurs ont mélangé du lait humain à des doses croissantes d'acide afin d'en mesurer le pouvoir tampon. Enfin, ils ont fait des « trous » dans l'émail dentaire
de prémolaires, les ont colonisées avec du Streptocoque mutant, puis les ont incubées avec du lait humain. Les caries survenues dans ces prémolaires ont été étudiées visuellement et radiologiquement au bout de 12 semaines d'incubation.
Les résultats ont montré que le lait humain n'induisait pas plus de variations du pH buccal qu'un rincage à l'eau claire. Il permettait une croissance modérée du Streptococcus sobrinus. Un dépôt de calcium et de phosphates était observé sur la poudre d'émail après incubation avec le lait humain. Ce dernier avait un pouvoir tampon très faible. Enfin, aucune carie
n'était constatée après incubation dans le lait humain seul, même après 12 semaines ; si par contre on ajoutait dans ce lait humain du saccharose à un taux de 10%, des caries apparaissaient au bout de 3,2 semaines.
Les auteurs concluaient que le lait humain n'induisait pas de caries dentaires.
Caries et allaitement
A systemic overview of the relationship between infant feeding caries and breastfeeding. J Sinton, R Valaitis, C Passarelli et al. Ontario Dentist 1998 ; 75(9) : 23-27. Mots-clés : caries « du biberon », allaitement long.
Les auteurs de cet article ont passé en revue la littérature médicale parue sur les relations entre les caries dites « du biberon » et l'allaitement chez les jeunes enfants. Ils ont passé en revue 151 articles, et ont estimé que 28 d'entre eux étaient pertinents au vu de leur conception et de la population étudiée. Les études de cas cliniques n'ont pas été prise en compte. La fiabilité de ces articles a été définie en fonction d'une échelle préétablie comme étant importante, moyenne, faible et très faible. Aucun article n'était très fiable ; 3 étaient moyennement fiables, 9 étaient peu fiables, et 16 étaient très peu fiables.
Les principaux biais de ces étude étaient méthodologiques. Très peu prenaient en compte les variables démographiques. Les définitions données pour l'allaitement étaient plus ou moins inexistantes, obscures, variables d'une étude à l'autre. Des caractéristiques importantes pour l'allaitement n'étaient pas données. Les 3 articles dont la fiabilité était moyenne retrouvaient tous les 3 une association entre l'existence de caries « dubiberon » et la poursuite de l'allaitement après 12 mois, ou avec l'existence de tétées nocturnes alors que l'enfant avait déjà des dents ; un de ces articles trouvait que les enfants allaités avaient à la fois un risque plus élevé et plus faible de présenter ce type de caries. Les études très peu fiables concluaient à l'existence entre l'allaitement et les caries d'aucune corrélation, ou d'une corrélation positive ou négative.
Les auteurs concluaient que rien dans la littérature médicale existant actuellement ne permet de conclure qu'il y a ou non un rapport entre l'allaitement et le risque de carie. Dans la mesure où l'allaitement long présente de multiples avantages, ils recommandent donc aux professionnels de santé de ne pas utiliser le prétexte d'une augmentation du risque de caries
pour conseiller à une mère de sevrer son enfant. Ils présentent ensuite un certain nombre de mesures de promotion de l'allaitement et de prévention des caries chez les enfants.
Allaitement prolongé et caries
chez des enfants de 18 mois
Dental caries and prolonged breastfeeding in 18-month-old Swedish children.AL Hallonsten, LK Wendt, I Mejàre et al.In J Pediatr Dent 1995 ; 5 : 149-55. B Review 1999 ; 7 : 37.
Cette étude suédoise comportait 2 volets. Une étude épidémiologique a évalué la prévalence des caries et de l'allaitement long chez des enfants de 18 mois. Pour ce faire, 3000 enfants, suivis dans 46 centres de consultation ont été étudiés. 200 de ces enfants ont été enrôlés pour le second volet de l'étude, qui a évalué avec précision les habitudes alimentaires, le brossage
des dents, l'utilisation de fluor, et a effectué une mise en culture de prélèvements buccaux à la recherche de Streptococus mutant et de Lactobacillus. Les enfants ont été répartis en 4 groupes :
· groupe 1 : enfants non allaités et présentant des caries
· groupe 2 : enfants allaités et présentant des caries
· groupe 3 : enfants allaités ne présentant pas de caries
· groupe 4 : enfants non allaités et ne présentant pas de caries
Au total, 2,1% de ces enfants de 18 mois présentaient des caries, et 2% étaient toujours allaités. Parmi les enfants qui étaient toujours allaités, 19,7% présentaient des caries, contre 1,7% des enfants qui n'étaient plus allaités.
Après étude des différents paramètres, il apparaissait que, en dépit de l'importante différence notée ci-dessus, l'allaitement en soi n'avait aucune relation avec la prévalence des caries. Qu'ils soient toujours allaités ou non à 18 mois, les enfants qui souffraient de caries étaient ceux qui consommaient le plus d'aliments cariogènes. 67% des enfants étaient
porteurs du Streptococcus mutans, et 13% étaient porteur du Lactobacillus. Les caries étaient plus fréquentes chez ces enfants, qu'ils soient ou non encore allaités.
Les auteurs concluent que certains enfants développent très tôt des habitudes alimentaires néfastes, qui augmentent nettement le risque de caries précoces. L'allaitement long n'est pas en soi un facteur de risque pour ce type de caries, dans la mesure où les autres aliments pris par l'enfant sont peu cariogènes.
Pratiques de maternage caries dentaires
Child-rearing practices and nursing caries. JR Serwint, R Murgo, VF Negrete, AK Duggan and BM Korsch. Pediatrics, Août 93, 92 : 233-37.
Le terme "caries alimentaire" recouvre un type d'altérations dentaires affectant les incisives centrales et latérales du maxillaire, ainsi que les premières molaires. Dans la littérature, ce type de caries est attribué au don de biberon après l'âge de un an, au don nocturne de biberon, et aux difficultés qu'éprouvent les parents à dire "non" à l'enfant. Cependant, de nouvelles études amènent à penser que cette pathologie a une origine multifactorielle. D'autre part, nombre d'enfants continuent à avoir des biberons passé l'âge de 12 mois, ainsi que des biberons la nuit, sans pour autant présenter des caries. Les auteurs de cette étude se sont posé les questions suivantes :
· Les enfants qui présentent ce type de caries continuent-ils à recevoir des biberons après un an ou la nuit plus souvent que les autres enfants ?
· Ces enfants ont-ils des parents qui ont des difficultés à poser des limites ?
· Existe-t-il des antécédents familiaux sur le plan dentaire ?
L'étude a porté sur 110 enfants âgés de 18 à 36 mois. La mère a été interrogée sur divers facteurs socio-économiques, les pratiques sur le plan de l'alimentation, la façon dont les parents définissaient des limites à l'enfant, les antécédents et pratiques familiales en matière de santé dentaire. Les enfants ont ensuite été examinés, et le nombre, l'emplacement et l'importance des caries éventuelles a été noté.
22 enfants (20%) présentaient des caries. Il n'a pas été retrouvé de différence significative entre ces enfants et les autres quant aux données démographiques et socio-économiques, sauf en ce qui concerne le niveau d'éducation de la mère : l'augmentation de ce dernier était corrélé à une baisse de l'incidence des caries. Presque tous les enfants étudiés recevaient toujours des biberons à 12 et 18 mois. La fréquence des caries était plus élevé chez les enfants qui avaient été allaités (72% contre 46%).
Cependant, la durée de l'allaitement était similaire chez les divers groupes d'enfants. Il n'y avait pas de différence significative entre les enfants pour ce qui est de l'utilisation d'une sucette, de la cuillère ou de "doudous". Il n'y avait pas non plus de différence significative dans les apports quotidiens en lait, en jus de fruit ou en glucides, ni de rapport entre ces apports et la sévérité des caries. Presque tous les enfants recevaient un biberon de lait la nuit à 12 mois, et la plupart d'entre eux en recevaient toujours à 18 mois. Aucun rapport n'a pu être mis en évidence entre la survenue de carie et ce fait, même en prenant en compte le fait que
certains enfants recevaient plus d'un biberon par nuit, qu'il pouvait dormir avec le biberon, et que le biberon pouvait contenir de l'eau. Il n'y avait pas de différence entre les mères quant à leur permissivité. Cependant, les mères dont les enfants avaient des caries étaient plus nombreuses à utiliser le biberon pour amener leur enfant à coopérer avec elles (58% contre 23%).
En fait, le seul facteur qui s'est avéré fortement corrélé à l'apparition de caries chez le bambin a été la présence de caries chez la mère. 55% des mères dont l'enfant souffrait de carie avaient elles-mêmes au moins 8 caries, contre 19% des mères dont les enfants n'avaient pas de caries. Cela avait déjà été mis en évidence dans d'autres études, et il est difficile de savoir dans quelle mesure ce fait est du à des facteurs génétiques ou environnementaux. Aucune différence significative n'a pu être retrouvée dans l'incidence des caries en fonction de la prise éventuelle de fluor, de l'âge auquel avait débuté une supplémentation en fluor, ou de l'âge auquel on avait commencé à brosser les dents de l'enfant.
Contrairement à l'opinion couramment répandue, et à ce qui a été rapporté par certaines autres études, aucune corrélation n'a pu être mise en évidence entre la prévalence des caries et l'utilisation du biberon la nuit et après l'âge de 12 mois. Cette étude a porté sur des enfants venant dans une consultation pédiatrique générale, et non dans une consultation dentaire,
ce qui peut expliquer cette différence de résultat. D'autre part, les enfants ont été vus à des âges différents, leurs apports glucidiques n'on pas pu être appréciés exactement, et les réponses des mères sur le don de biberons pouvaient être approximatives, ce qui est susceptible d'avoir faussé les résultats.
La raison pour laquelle l'incidence des caries était plus élevée chez les enfants allaités est obscure. Certains auteurs attribuent cet état de fait à la poursuite des tétées nocturnes après 2 à 3 ans. Cela ne peut cependant pas être le cas ici, la majorité des mères qui avaient allaité avaient sevré leur enfant vers 5 à 6 mois, avant même la sortie de la première dent. Il est possible que cette corrélation soit due à des biais non encore mis en évidence. Dans cette étude, le pourcentage de mères présentant au moins 8 caries était plus élevé chez les mères qui avaient allaité (72% contre 28%), ce qui, étant donné l'impact important de ce facteur, peut être une explication. 80% des mères étaient d'origine hispanique, et des facteurs
raciaux peuvent avoir une influence.
Les auteurs concluent que l'origine des caries est multifactorielle, et qu'il n'on mis en évidence aucune raison de recommander un sevrage précoce du sein ou du biberon. D'autres études sont nécessaires afin de mieux cerner les causes de ce type de caries.
Hospitalisation. Marina's story from Immaculate Deception 2. By Suzanne Arms.
Marina.
Exerpt from “Immaculate Deception 2” Myth, Magic & Birth.
By Suzanne Arms.
The following true story is representative of a disturbing trend in the United States. Every year thousands of helthy newborn babies are placed in intensive care unit (ICU) nurseries simply for “observation” but they almost always end up undergoing aggressive testing and treatment in the name of “active management”. These healthy babies, who could easily be observed while in their mother’s care, are subjected to the full range of current perinatal testing and technology. Parents are, for the most part, kept ignorant of what is being done, uninformed about the necessity of it, and made unnecessarily anxious. In this case, the parents are aquaintances of mine and the nurse-midwife and obstetrician are people I know to be highly competent. They did their best but were unable to buck the hospital system, in this case a major medical center connected to an internationally renowned medical school.
Marina was born after thirty hours of labour, twenty four of which was “active”. Although long, this was a normal labour, there was continuous confirmation that mom and baby were doing well, consistant progress in dilation of the cervix and considerable progress in the baby’s descent prior to the mother’s pushing. The waters broke spontaneously and copiously near the end and were clear, another sign that all was well.
During the pushing, fetal heart tones remained excellent and Marina came out head first, in a slow controlled delivery. Her mother had no tears. There was no cord around the baby’s neck.
Still, although she was pink and had a normal heart rate, Marina was limp and made only slight attempts to breathe after being laid on her mother’s belly. (This practice has been ducumented to be the best way to keep a baby warm). The attending obstetrician and the nurse-midwife, who’d been with the mother throughout labour both felt there was no reason to worry or panic. The baby was likely to be tired after such a long labour. They would observe her carefully for a minute.
The cord continued to pulse and the obstetrician specifically delayed cutting it to allow Marina more time to get breathing going on her own. (Since the placenta was still attached to her mother’s uterine wall, oxygen continued to flow into Marina’s body from her mother.)
Because of hospital policy, the nurse felt she had to call the neonatal staff. When they arrived, Marina was starting to respond. Nevertheless, the nurse had already taken her away from her mother’s warm skin and put her under an electric warmer, which unfortunately, was not working properly and was cold.
Marina was given several whiffs of oxygen. Her Apgar scores were only 4 and 5 at one and five minutes (on a scale of 10), but at six minutes her muscle tone had greatly improved.
Unfortunately, the decision had already been made, so she was on her way to the ICU when she was just six minutes old. By seven minutes, according to the records, she was crying and had good muscle tone. Her mom and dad were told, “She’s just going to be observed for a few hours, because of her slow start.”
In the ICU a nurse thought she saw Marina’s chest retracting (hollowing) with inhales. Although this was not confimed by another neonatal nurse, because Marina’s birth had been labeled “traumatic” by the neonatal staff (none of whom had been present for any part of it), the wheels were put in motion and she was given standard ICU protocal. Blood was drawn from her veins to be cultured in a lab, an Xray was taken and a spinal tap (a needle inserted into the space alonside the baby’s spinal cord, withdrawing a sample of spinal fluid) was performed. A temperature sesnor and a heart monitor were taped onto her skin. A metal clip was attached to her finger to record blood gas, electrolytes, and blood sugar.
Marina’s parents were not asked permission to perform any of these procedures. Although her father had gone to the nursery with her to comfort her, he felt helpless to stop the flow of events. She lay on her back in a brightly lit room, naked, under a lamp. So the father returned to his wife’s side, and she was wheeled to her room.
The Xray came back showing “streaking”, which was interpreted as possibly meaning fluid in the lungs, a symptom of pneumonia. Pneumonia was the diagnosis. Because the mother had no elevated temperature and no other signs of infection, there should have been no reason to suspect any infection in the baby. Since healthy babies normally don’t get Xrayed, it is impossible to know how many of their lungs might also show some “streaking.”
Rather than wait for more test results, the neonatologist decided to administer two antibiotics immediately. It is standard procedure to begin treatment before any test results are in, “just in case.”
Marina was not held by her mother until the next morning, ten hours after birth. She was not even allowed to nurse because the staff was concerned it might be too tiring for her. when her mother was finally able to put Marina to breast, she nursed well, one more indication of a healthy newborn.
Twenty four hours after the antibiotics had first been givin, the mother was told that Marina’s kidneys had become poisoned and were unable to function properly. (This is a well known side effect of the drug gentamicin that Marina was getting.) The staff then started an IV to run fluids through her kidneys to flush the antibiotics out. They promised the mother that the IV would be taken out as soon as the medication had been flushed. She was only permitted to nurse every four hours, even though most newborn babies would naturally breastfeed about every two hours.
During the night, nurses informed her that, because the baby had urinated only once in the first twenty four hours, they were going to increase the fluid in the IV. (Peeing only once in the twenty four hours after birth is within the range of normal, however. The resident who made this decision either did not know this or ignored it.) The mother was appropriately concerned that if Marina got too much fluid by IV, her desire to breastfeed would diminish. Sure enough, at 6:00 the next morning Marina did not nurse so well; her mother wanted to try again at 8:00 but she was not allowed to come until 10:00 because the medical rounds were beginning.
Meanwhile, preliminary reports came back from blood tests and cultures all came back normal. Marina had been taken off the gentamicin, but was still on another antibiotic. Despite the favourable reports, the IV remained in, apparently due to concern that the drug had not been fully flushed from her system. It takes longer for drugs to clear from newborn’s bodies because their systems are not yet able to handle drugs very well.
At this point, the mother just wanted to take her baby home. The hospital neonatal staff wanted to keep Marina there so that they could keep her on the antibiotics just in case it turned out that she did have an infection. Her private pediatrician felt uncomfortable going against hospital protocol - it is never politically wise for a physician in one speciality to question another - but did tell the parents that their baby was fine and did not need to be in the hospital. The mother thought having Marina come home and be in a normal environement, in her arms, might help them both. She asked if she could take Marina home and bring her to a private pediatricain for shots of the antibiotic, but was told it would be too difficult and that shots were too painful for a baby. She felt guilty for suggesting it.
Test results continued to come back negative throughout the week. A sympathetic nurse lobbied successfully on behalf of Marina’s mother to cut back on the IV fluids so the nursing could go better. Marina’s mother spent all of her time trying to get information about what was being done to her baby, trying to learn the rationale for each procedure, trying to be an advocate for her baby, in addition to trying to hold and nurse Marina as much as possible. The ICU was located nearly a quarter mile from the mother’s room. Because Marina was doing so well she was sent to the “stepdown” nursery, which was located even farther from her mother’s bed.
Five days after the birth the mother began to hemorrage. Her OB wanted to take her into surgery to explore her uterus under anesthesia for possible retained parts of placenta. Heavy bleeding, however is not uncommon right after birth, when a woman is on her feet too much, is under a great deal of stress and is getting too little rest. (One of the best ways to control bleeding is to have the baby nurse frequently.) This mother was told she could not nurse because the doctor had not left orders that she could.
The obstetrician and midwife finally intervened, against the pediatric staff’s orders, and insisted that Marina be brought to the mother to nurse. By the time she came, her mother was not there. She had neen wheeled to the operating room, where she was made to wait outside for the next hour until the anesthesiologist showed up. Just as the mother was taken into the OR, she was told that her baby had been taken back to the ICU for observation due to possible seizures. (It would later turn out that a nurse had seen some movement of an arm and leg she feared might be a seizure.)
There proved to be no seizures, but by the time the midwife arrived at the ICU they were doing a second spinal tap and all the standard procedures for possible meningitis, and Marina had been started on phenobarbital. The father, who was there, asked a resident if the muscle movement could be a side effect of the medication his baby had been on. He was told “definitely not.” The midwife later read in the Physician’s Desk Reference that muscle twitches, even convulsions, are common side effects of the antibiotic gentamicin, especially when the kidneys have shown toxicity.
A CAT scan was strongly recommended, because of “possible cerebral hemorrhage”. It was done. The results were unclear. The neonatal physicians wondered if Marina might have bruising on the brain. They elected to continue the phenobarbital. It made Marina sleepy so she couldn’t nurse.
On Sunday, a week after the birth, the parents finally got up the courage to insist on taking their daughter home, but not before being made to watch a video on infant CPR, which made them doubt their decision. Marina was supposed to be given phenobarbital three times a day by injection. Her parents were told nothing about follow-up-neurological checks. After a week of struggling with nursing and with the growing conviction that Marina was in fact healthy, they sought the support of a second private pediatrician who, after examining the records and Marina, advised them to stop the drug treatment altogether.
Once a baby is in a hospital intensive care nursery, it is condidered the legal property of the nursery. Parent’s wishes do not have to be considered. Because of the aggressive approach to these babies when they are in ICUs, well informed parents and midwives -and some obstetricians- do their best to keep babies out of them altogether. Some parents choose to take their babies and sign out of the hospital AMA (against medical advice). However, you should know that doing this can result in a future investigation by child protective services.
Exerpt from “Immaculate Deception 2” Myth, Magic & Birth.
By Suzanne Arms.
The following true story is representative of a disturbing trend in the United States. Every year thousands of helthy newborn babies are placed in intensive care unit (ICU) nurseries simply for “observation” but they almost always end up undergoing aggressive testing and treatment in the name of “active management”. These healthy babies, who could easily be observed while in their mother’s care, are subjected to the full range of current perinatal testing and technology. Parents are, for the most part, kept ignorant of what is being done, uninformed about the necessity of it, and made unnecessarily anxious. In this case, the parents are aquaintances of mine and the nurse-midwife and obstetrician are people I know to be highly competent. They did their best but were unable to buck the hospital system, in this case a major medical center connected to an internationally renowned medical school.
Marina was born after thirty hours of labour, twenty four of which was “active”. Although long, this was a normal labour, there was continuous confirmation that mom and baby were doing well, consistant progress in dilation of the cervix and considerable progress in the baby’s descent prior to the mother’s pushing. The waters broke spontaneously and copiously near the end and were clear, another sign that all was well.
During the pushing, fetal heart tones remained excellent and Marina came out head first, in a slow controlled delivery. Her mother had no tears. There was no cord around the baby’s neck.
Still, although she was pink and had a normal heart rate, Marina was limp and made only slight attempts to breathe after being laid on her mother’s belly. (This practice has been ducumented to be the best way to keep a baby warm). The attending obstetrician and the nurse-midwife, who’d been with the mother throughout labour both felt there was no reason to worry or panic. The baby was likely to be tired after such a long labour. They would observe her carefully for a minute.
The cord continued to pulse and the obstetrician specifically delayed cutting it to allow Marina more time to get breathing going on her own. (Since the placenta was still attached to her mother’s uterine wall, oxygen continued to flow into Marina’s body from her mother.)
Because of hospital policy, the nurse felt she had to call the neonatal staff. When they arrived, Marina was starting to respond. Nevertheless, the nurse had already taken her away from her mother’s warm skin and put her under an electric warmer, which unfortunately, was not working properly and was cold.
Marina was given several whiffs of oxygen. Her Apgar scores were only 4 and 5 at one and five minutes (on a scale of 10), but at six minutes her muscle tone had greatly improved.
Unfortunately, the decision had already been made, so she was on her way to the ICU when she was just six minutes old. By seven minutes, according to the records, she was crying and had good muscle tone. Her mom and dad were told, “She’s just going to be observed for a few hours, because of her slow start.”
In the ICU a nurse thought she saw Marina’s chest retracting (hollowing) with inhales. Although this was not confimed by another neonatal nurse, because Marina’s birth had been labeled “traumatic” by the neonatal staff (none of whom had been present for any part of it), the wheels were put in motion and she was given standard ICU protocal. Blood was drawn from her veins to be cultured in a lab, an Xray was taken and a spinal tap (a needle inserted into the space alonside the baby’s spinal cord, withdrawing a sample of spinal fluid) was performed. A temperature sesnor and a heart monitor were taped onto her skin. A metal clip was attached to her finger to record blood gas, electrolytes, and blood sugar.
Marina’s parents were not asked permission to perform any of these procedures. Although her father had gone to the nursery with her to comfort her, he felt helpless to stop the flow of events. She lay on her back in a brightly lit room, naked, under a lamp. So the father returned to his wife’s side, and she was wheeled to her room.
The Xray came back showing “streaking”, which was interpreted as possibly meaning fluid in the lungs, a symptom of pneumonia. Pneumonia was the diagnosis. Because the mother had no elevated temperature and no other signs of infection, there should have been no reason to suspect any infection in the baby. Since healthy babies normally don’t get Xrayed, it is impossible to know how many of their lungs might also show some “streaking.”
Rather than wait for more test results, the neonatologist decided to administer two antibiotics immediately. It is standard procedure to begin treatment before any test results are in, “just in case.”
Marina was not held by her mother until the next morning, ten hours after birth. She was not even allowed to nurse because the staff was concerned it might be too tiring for her. when her mother was finally able to put Marina to breast, she nursed well, one more indication of a healthy newborn.
Twenty four hours after the antibiotics had first been givin, the mother was told that Marina’s kidneys had become poisoned and were unable to function properly. (This is a well known side effect of the drug gentamicin that Marina was getting.) The staff then started an IV to run fluids through her kidneys to flush the antibiotics out. They promised the mother that the IV would be taken out as soon as the medication had been flushed. She was only permitted to nurse every four hours, even though most newborn babies would naturally breastfeed about every two hours.
During the night, nurses informed her that, because the baby had urinated only once in the first twenty four hours, they were going to increase the fluid in the IV. (Peeing only once in the twenty four hours after birth is within the range of normal, however. The resident who made this decision either did not know this or ignored it.) The mother was appropriately concerned that if Marina got too much fluid by IV, her desire to breastfeed would diminish. Sure enough, at 6:00 the next morning Marina did not nurse so well; her mother wanted to try again at 8:00 but she was not allowed to come until 10:00 because the medical rounds were beginning.
Meanwhile, preliminary reports came back from blood tests and cultures all came back normal. Marina had been taken off the gentamicin, but was still on another antibiotic. Despite the favourable reports, the IV remained in, apparently due to concern that the drug had not been fully flushed from her system. It takes longer for drugs to clear from newborn’s bodies because their systems are not yet able to handle drugs very well.
At this point, the mother just wanted to take her baby home. The hospital neonatal staff wanted to keep Marina there so that they could keep her on the antibiotics just in case it turned out that she did have an infection. Her private pediatrician felt uncomfortable going against hospital protocol - it is never politically wise for a physician in one speciality to question another - but did tell the parents that their baby was fine and did not need to be in the hospital. The mother thought having Marina come home and be in a normal environement, in her arms, might help them both. She asked if she could take Marina home and bring her to a private pediatricain for shots of the antibiotic, but was told it would be too difficult and that shots were too painful for a baby. She felt guilty for suggesting it.
Test results continued to come back negative throughout the week. A sympathetic nurse lobbied successfully on behalf of Marina’s mother to cut back on the IV fluids so the nursing could go better. Marina’s mother spent all of her time trying to get information about what was being done to her baby, trying to learn the rationale for each procedure, trying to be an advocate for her baby, in addition to trying to hold and nurse Marina as much as possible. The ICU was located nearly a quarter mile from the mother’s room. Because Marina was doing so well she was sent to the “stepdown” nursery, which was located even farther from her mother’s bed.
Five days after the birth the mother began to hemorrage. Her OB wanted to take her into surgery to explore her uterus under anesthesia for possible retained parts of placenta. Heavy bleeding, however is not uncommon right after birth, when a woman is on her feet too much, is under a great deal of stress and is getting too little rest. (One of the best ways to control bleeding is to have the baby nurse frequently.) This mother was told she could not nurse because the doctor had not left orders that she could.
The obstetrician and midwife finally intervened, against the pediatric staff’s orders, and insisted that Marina be brought to the mother to nurse. By the time she came, her mother was not there. She had neen wheeled to the operating room, where she was made to wait outside for the next hour until the anesthesiologist showed up. Just as the mother was taken into the OR, she was told that her baby had been taken back to the ICU for observation due to possible seizures. (It would later turn out that a nurse had seen some movement of an arm and leg she feared might be a seizure.)
There proved to be no seizures, but by the time the midwife arrived at the ICU they were doing a second spinal tap and all the standard procedures for possible meningitis, and Marina had been started on phenobarbital. The father, who was there, asked a resident if the muscle movement could be a side effect of the medication his baby had been on. He was told “definitely not.” The midwife later read in the Physician’s Desk Reference that muscle twitches, even convulsions, are common side effects of the antibiotic gentamicin, especially when the kidneys have shown toxicity.
A CAT scan was strongly recommended, because of “possible cerebral hemorrhage”. It was done. The results were unclear. The neonatal physicians wondered if Marina might have bruising on the brain. They elected to continue the phenobarbital. It made Marina sleepy so she couldn’t nurse.
On Sunday, a week after the birth, the parents finally got up the courage to insist on taking their daughter home, but not before being made to watch a video on infant CPR, which made them doubt their decision. Marina was supposed to be given phenobarbital three times a day by injection. Her parents were told nothing about follow-up-neurological checks. After a week of struggling with nursing and with the growing conviction that Marina was in fact healthy, they sought the support of a second private pediatrician who, after examining the records and Marina, advised them to stop the drug treatment altogether.
Once a baby is in a hospital intensive care nursery, it is condidered the legal property of the nursery. Parent’s wishes do not have to be considered. Because of the aggressive approach to these babies when they are in ICUs, well informed parents and midwives -and some obstetricians- do their best to keep babies out of them altogether. Some parents choose to take their babies and sign out of the hospital AMA (against medical advice). However, you should know that doing this can result in a future investigation by child protective services.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Welcome to the anglophone natural parenting community in France
Beyond Breastfeeding.
The ANPA was created in response to a growing demand for an alternative to parenting organisations and “experts” that encourage artificial feeding, artificial nipples, parent-child separation, vaccines and letting babies cry it out alone, commonly know as “sleep training” and other common trends in parenting practices. We have a forum that is for discerning parents. It is for parents whose babies and children’s and consequentially the family’s well being is priority. The parents on our forum believe that being in contact with like-minded parents is part of the network that promotes conscious, educated parenting.
Our parenting choices are based on the golden standard of real milk, the human kind, and our support extends to parents who share the same standards and want to go beyond. We welcome breastfeeding mothers or mothers who have breastfed until their children wean from the the breast naturally. We believe that offering our breasts as sexual objects is a personal choice, and every woman's right. (not to mention fun) but that feeding babies with breasts is not a question of choice, but of making a stand against the power of marketing over ignorance and isolation. If you think you "can't" breastfeed or "couldn't" please see www.allaitementpourtous.com or any qualified IBCLC or an LLL leader.
This website offers a very small selection of documents and testimonies that are available on the forum PLUS a photo gallerie offering a glimpse into our lives as active parents, free, independant of bottles, (except the champagne kind of course) push chairs, cots, painful front packs and lots more of the expensive equipment that we used to think we needed to be happy parents.
Lots of us have had serious breastfeeding problems, so some of us have a lot of experience with the breast pump kind of equipment, that sometimes is necessary to save a compromised breastfeeding process. (its a bit of a paradox, but we consider the breast pump equipment an investment towards future freedom)
On the forum you will find more documents, and testimonies that can be useful to many stages of parenting, from pregnancy and giving birth to child education.
In our forum you will find real support, with attachment parents, backed by research based information. We know we are definitely the minority in our parenting standards. We know that our parenting choices can trigger guilty feelings, hostility or even aggression from parents, organisations or “experts” that don’t have the same values or education so we recognise that support in our choices is vital to our strength and well being as individual parents and families.
Although there are no rules to natural parenting, there are concepts that we all agree on that are mentioned in the ANPA charter.
To be sure the ANPA is for you, you may ask for a downloadable copy of the charter/quesionnaire. If you do agree with our basic philosophie, please fill it in and send it to astharte@gmail.com
The 25€ annual membership is payable by cheque or paypal. A year's membership, gives you access to the forum, the lending library, the open house dates, meetings, brunch dates, and all the information and support that comes with it.
If you have any questions you can contact ANPAinFrance@gmail.com
All the best to you and your family, and welcome among us.
ANPA members
The ANPA was created in response to a growing demand for an alternative to parenting organisations and “experts” that encourage artificial feeding, artificial nipples, parent-child separation, vaccines and letting babies cry it out alone, commonly know as “sleep training” and other common trends in parenting practices. We have a forum that is for discerning parents. It is for parents whose babies and children’s and consequentially the family’s well being is priority. The parents on our forum believe that being in contact with like-minded parents is part of the network that promotes conscious, educated parenting.
Our parenting choices are based on the golden standard of real milk, the human kind, and our support extends to parents who share the same standards and want to go beyond. We welcome breastfeeding mothers or mothers who have breastfed until their children wean from the the breast naturally. We believe that offering our breasts as sexual objects is a personal choice, and every woman's right. (not to mention fun) but that feeding babies with breasts is not a question of choice, but of making a stand against the power of marketing over ignorance and isolation. If you think you "can't" breastfeed or "couldn't" please see www.allaitementpourtous.com or any qualified IBCLC or an LLL leader.
This website offers a very small selection of documents and testimonies that are available on the forum PLUS a photo gallerie offering a glimpse into our lives as active parents, free, independant of bottles, (except the champagne kind of course) push chairs, cots, painful front packs and lots more of the expensive equipment that we used to think we needed to be happy parents.
Lots of us have had serious breastfeeding problems, so some of us have a lot of experience with the breast pump kind of equipment, that sometimes is necessary to save a compromised breastfeeding process. (its a bit of a paradox, but we consider the breast pump equipment an investment towards future freedom)
On the forum you will find more documents, and testimonies that can be useful to many stages of parenting, from pregnancy and giving birth to child education.
In our forum you will find real support, with attachment parents, backed by research based information. We know we are definitely the minority in our parenting standards. We know that our parenting choices can trigger guilty feelings, hostility or even aggression from parents, organisations or “experts” that don’t have the same values or education so we recognise that support in our choices is vital to our strength and well being as individual parents and families.
Although there are no rules to natural parenting, there are concepts that we all agree on that are mentioned in the ANPA charter.
To be sure the ANPA is for you, you may ask for a downloadable copy of the charter/quesionnaire. If you do agree with our basic philosophie, please fill it in and send it to astharte@gmail.com
The 25€ annual membership is payable by cheque or paypal. A year's membership, gives you access to the forum, the lending library, the open house dates, meetings, brunch dates, and all the information and support that comes with it.
If you have any questions you can contact ANPAinFrance@gmail.com
All the best to you and your family, and welcome among us.
ANPA members