Guest guest Posted November 29, 2007 Report Share Posted November 29, 2007 I am really confused about why we think, as IBCLCs that it is our responsibility to proselytize for the AAP. I am not a pediatrician. I do not have any obligation to follow AAP "guidelines" For God's sake, very few peds follow them, except when the guidelines align with own personal beliefs. This is why so many are apathetic about the proven dangers of AF, while jumping on the anti-co-sleeping bandwagon. When are we going to act like a profession unto ourselves and come to our own conclusions about these things, based upon the best interests of the baby? Human infants were never, ever meant to sleep alone. Period. We have designed worlds that are not easy for them--just as someone mentioned, we have had to contrive ways for them to be safe in cars, and in cities and shopping malls and parks and so many other places that their biology never anticipated. The family bed is less of a stretch than any of those, yet the prevailing winds dictate isolated sleep and we give it credibility with our efforts to placate the peds. I don't care to placate them--their own biases are directing their position, not science. The science says babies need their mothers--24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Babies are not getting anything near this in our culture--they sure ought to be getting their mommies at night. IMO, we have a responsibility to be protectors of the physiologic norm and nothing else is more important. Tow, IBCLC, CT, USA Intuitive Parenting Network LLC Tow, IBCLC, CT, USA Intuitive Parenting Network LLC More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 29, 2007 Report Share Posted November 29, 2007 Wow! . Thanks for speaking up and opening our minds and eyes. Ellen Simpson, BS, IBCLC Private Practice Lactation Consultant Tampa, Florida, USA From: [mailto: ] On Behalf Of IParentLLC@... Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 11:05 AM To: Subject: Re: [bUSTED??? I am really confused about why we think, as IBCLCs that it is our responsibility to proselytize for the AAP. I am not a pediatrician. I do not have any obligation to follow AAP " guidelines " For God's sake, very few peds follow them, except when the guidelines align with own personal beliefs. This is why so many are apathetic about the proven dangers of AF, while jumping on the anti-co-sleeping bandwagon. When are we going to act like a profession unto ourselves and come to our own conclusions about these things, based upon the best interests of the baby? Human infants were never, ever meant to sleep alone. Period. We have designed worlds that are not easy for them--just as someone mentioned, we have had to contrive ways for them to be safe in cars, and in cities and shopping malls and parks and so many other places that their biology never anticipated. The family bed is less of a stretch than any of those, yet the prevailing winds dictate isolated sleep and we give it credibility with our efforts to placate the peds. I don't care to placate them--their own biases are directing their position, not science. The science says babies need their mothers--24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Babies are not getting anything near this in our culture--they sure ought to be getting their mommies at night. IMO, we have a responsibility to be protectors of the physiologic norm and nothing else is more important. Tow, IBCLC, CT, USA Intuitive Parenting Network LLC Tow, IBCLC, CT, USA Intuitive Parenting Network LLC Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 30, 2007 Report Share Posted November 30, 2007 At 11:05 AM 11/29/2007 -0500, you wrote: >I am really confused about why we think, as IBCLCs that it is our >responsibility to proselytize for the AAP. >I am not a pediatrician. I do not have any obligation to follow AAP > " guidelines " For God's sake, very few peds follow >them, except when the guidelines align with own personal beliefs. This is >why so many are apathetic about the proven >dangers of AF, while jumping on the anti-co-sleeping bandwagon. When are >we going to act like a profession unto ourselves >and come to our own conclusions about these things, based upon the best >interests of the baby? Human infants were never, >ever meant to sleep alone. Period. We have designed worlds that are not >easy for them--just as someone mentioned, we >have had to contrive ways for them to be safe in cars, and in cities and >shopping malls and parks and so many other places >that their biology never anticipated. The family bed is less of a stretch >than any of those, yet the prevailing winds dictate isolated >sleep and we give it credibility with our efforts to placate the peds. I >don't care to placate them--their own biases are directing >their position, not science. The science says babies need their >mothers--24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Babies are not getting >anything near this in our culture--they sure ought to be getting their >mommies at night. IMO, we have a responsibility to be >protectors of the physiologic norm and nothing else is more important. > Tow, IBCLC, CT, USA >Intuitive Parenting Network LLC Man, that was awesome, ! :-) I definitely couldn't have said it better. Sincerely, Dianne Oliver, IBCLC Simi Valley, CA ______________________ Holistic Lactation " Guiding the natural breastfeeding relationship.... " www.holisticlactation.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 1, 2007 Report Share Posted December 1, 2007 Hi Dianne, Could you clarify your response please? Do you really believe that unless we tell every mom we meet that they should bed-share that we are not doing our duty as an LC? I really do mean that I'd like a clarification. And I'd like to clarify her post as well. Inferences are not helpful. Please just say what you mean. I told everyone what it sounded like to me and you respond with another 's post was so helpful. Sorry, but I don't see how you could think that unless you agree with her inferences. I have my own private practice with a boutique and pump rental station. I don't work for any pediatrician. I've toyed with the idea and I may at some point, but I don't at the present. I've worked in the hospital and I quit that exactly because I don't want to have to say what I'm told to say whether I agree or not. So I do believe that we are on the same page of music as far as not wanting to have to cater to anyone. But that doesn't mean I'm going to look down on anyone who can and does work in that environment, and I'm sorry but that is what (to me, at least) it sounds like yours and 's posts are doing. My use of the word "harsh" was to describe a response to a post (if it was a response to Ann's post) that basically tells the LC that she is catering to the Peds if she doesn't stand up and tell them that she will advise all moms to bed-share because that is the way nature intended it and it doesn't matter what they (the peds) believe. As well as inferring that she is not doing her duty as an LC if she does not. I call that harsh and unhelpful. So you think it is helpful? How, exactly? If this is a list on which standing on a soapbox and beating our collective chests as to the idiocy of anyone who doesn't believe as we do is hailed as brilliant and "oh that's just what I'd say"... I don't know, I guess this isn't the place I thought it was. I rather thought it was a list where one could get help for questions that arise in our practices. If I want "truth" posts I can get those from Lactnet any day. There's always someone there who knows so much more than anyone else and has all the ethical questions down pat and doesn't hesitate to tell everyone else just what that "truth" is. Dianne, do you realize that you did this in your post below when you said, "Not every one of us has the inclination or clarity to call it as it is, but it's vitally important for our collective cause of promoting and protecting breastfeeding that people like speak out the truth such as she did." Do you realize how arrogant and patronizing you sound? Apparently you and know the TRUTH (as from on high) and feel it is your duty to convert those on this list who lack the "clarity or inclination" to see it as such. Again, the ultimate in arrogance. If you don't agree with or Dianne you lack clarity or inclinication to see the truth. WOW. #1) No one that I can see has stated that they don't believe babies should sleep with their moms, so who exactly are you trying to convert? Or is the real issue about the lily-livered LC's who reside on the "maintain the status quo" side of the spectrum... about how they might be acceptable, but perhaps it is just because they haven't "seen the light" and you feel it is your duty to enlighten them? Or maybe it is that those who fall on that misguided side of the spectrum are not really doing as much for the collective cause of breastfeeding as those who "rattle chains". After all, they are on the ones who are going to effect change. Please, tell us like it is #2) I was not aware that this list is about the "collective cause of promoting and protecting breastfeeding". There are a few email groups on yahoo specifically for that purpose. And if I'm wrong and that's the purpose of this list, I wish the listowner would enlighten me, so that I can promptly unsubscribe. I'm already subscribed to Lactnet for the breastfeeding promotion. I certainly don't need to be on another list to do the same thing. I joined this list to get and hopefully give help to other PP LCs. I thought this list was a place to exchange PP questions in a safe environment. My request to this list is that we try to HELP each other -- respect each other as having the wit and intelligence to recognize our own TRUTH, and not make offensive and belittling statements as in the post below while trying to convert others to your view of the world, no matter how TRUE it is in your own eyes. Regards, Cindi Swisher Re: Re: [bUSTED???Hi All,I debated attempting a response to the posts below, as I wasn't sure I could verbalize what it is I want to express. But I feel compelled to give it a shot, so here goes... :-)Just as background, I do a small amount of private practice work. I go to moms' homes. I do not work in a pediatrician's office (or any medical office). I can only imagine the potential conflict of interests that must come up working in a medical setting. At least I know they would come up for me.My two cents is this: 's email at bottom may be harsh to some (although I don't see it that way) but I believe that it is helpful. She's saying what is, in fact, the truth. Not every one of us has the inclination or clarity to call it as it is, but it's vitally important for our collective cause of promoting and protecting breastfeeding that people like speak out the truth such as she did. And that she and any of the rest of us who find it within ourselves continue to do so.FWIW, Cindi's first post (not listed below) in response to Ann's request for suggestions struck me as a response that would likely not rattle any chains, allow for a cooperative exchange between the LC and ped., and maintain the status quo in Ann's working environment. And that's o.k. And it's entirely understandable and necessary that a group of us in the breastfeeding advocacy world fall on that area of the spectrum.But it's equally understandable and necessary that a faction fall on the outer edges of the spectrum when speaking about breastfeeding- the end of the spectrum that *is* likely to rattle chains and upset the equilibrium. The end of the spectrum that leaves people feeling uncomfortable and even seems harsh. Because it is when things feel uncomfortable that people are forced to look at and reassess their views and biases and only then there is hope for change.'s post might ruffle feathers (excuse all the figures of speech! :-), and that's good! And 's argument that we as LC's should maintain our obligation to the dictates of our own profession is a really lucid point and, to my mind, a logical off-shoot to Ann's original concern. It may not give Ann a direct answer for her ped. BUT it can't help but assist Ann (and the rest of us) in clarifying our positions as breastfeeding advocates.Sincerely,Dianne Oliver, IBCLCSimi Valley, CAAt 08:21 PM 11/29/2007 -0800, you wrote:>We all know that babies are meant to sleep with their moms. That's a >given. No one here said they weren't. Someone DID ask for input on how >to handle a situation, though.>>Perhaps we should all be careful with the subject lines, as it really does >seem as if this post is in response to Ann's request for suggestions, and >as such could be taken as a slam on anyone who works for a >pediatrician. The inference is that working within the system is >*placating the peds* and that they should quit because it is their >"responsibility to be protectors of the physiologic norm and nothing else >is more important". If that is what is meant, I just have to say that it >is very harsh and not at all helpful.>>I apologize in advance if that is not what is meant. I did feel that I >should let you know how it sounded to me. And I have to add this... I'd >really appreciate it if we could refrain from using the name of God >casually, as in swearing. I will admit that I've used the same phrase >myself, however seeing it in print really brings home how inappropriate it is.>>Respectfully,>>Cindi Swisher>----- Original Message ---->>> >I am really confused about why we think, as IBCLCs that it is our> >responsibility to proselytize for the AAP.> >I am not a pediatrician. I do not have any obligation to follow AAP> >"guidelines" For God's sake, very few peds follow> >them, except when the guidelines align with own personal beliefs. This is> >why so many are apathetic about the proven> >dangers of AF, while jumping on the anti-co-sleeping bandwagon. When are> >we going to act like a profession unto ourselves> >and come to our own conclusions about these things, based upon the best> >interests of the baby? Human infants were never,> >ever meant to sleep alone. Period. We have designed worlds that are not> >easy for them--just as someone mentioned, we> >have had to contrive ways for them to be safe in cars, and in cities and> >shopping malls and parks and so many other places> >that their biology never anticipated. The family bed is less of a stretch> >than any of those, yet the prevailing winds dictate isolated> >sleep and we give it credibility with our efforts to placate the peds. I> >don't care to placate them--their own biases are directing> >their position, not science. The science says babies need their> >mothers--24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Babies are not getting> >anything near this in our culture--they sure ought to be getting their> >mommies at night. IMO, we have a responsibility to be> >protectors of the physiologic norm and nothing else is more important.> > Tow, IBCLC, CT, USA> >Intuitive Parenting Network LLC>>______________________Holistic Lactation"Guiding the natural breastfeeding relationship...."www.holisticlactation.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 2, 2007 Report Share Posted December 2, 2007 In answer to Cindi’s first post: Yes, I intentionally maintained the title on the thread b/c my post was in response to the concerns raised by Ann’s post. My point is that a situation like Ann’s has no good solution and is largely untenable because she (like the rest of us) has no supportive position from our own organizations upon which to rely, in spite of what we know from our experiences and knowledge base. I think it is more than a stretch on Cindi’s part to claim that I am slamming anyone (except perhaps the peds who haul out AAP guidelines only when it serves them and ignore them otherwise). How she could suggest that I implied that anyone should quit her job is even more of a stretch. I cannot imagine how my point could not have been more clear—LCs should have the freedom to educate mothers w/o fear of retribution, or even “gentle admonishment†for that matter. As I see it, this is very much an issue for me as a PP LC. I will not withhold helpful information b/c of uneducated opinions held by anyone, including a ped. It was certainly an issue for Ann who felt that she was between a rock and a hard place in wanting to support the mother, while keeping her job. I in no way diminished suggestions that might have been helpful to Ann in the current situation, but I would rather see a long-term solution to this problem and others like it. I think that position papers that are grounded in the physiologic norm might go a long way toward improving the situation for everyone. My issue has always been that we, as a profession, do not take a stand FOR mothers and babies. As I see it, Ann asked a question and Cindi and others gave her some helpful advice. I saw the problem from another perspective, one I contend with in my own practice frequently (and I believe unnecessarily). I stand by my statement that nothing is more important than protecting the physiologic norm, but as I see it, these are parallel issues, not opposing ones. As to Cindi’s most recent post: I can only guess that there are numerous references within to comments I have made on LN, none of which I regret and none of which apply to my post here. I cannot honestly say that I understand the constant reference to “inferencesâ€â€”I always say exactly what I mean. I mean that ILCA or a similar body should act in the best interests of babies and take steps to place our profession in a position of advocacy for the physiologic norm. That is obviously my opinion. That babies have clearly defined needs which, whether met or not, define their sense of competency, developmental regulation and well-being is not opinion—it is fact. That we are the professionals in the best position to act on behalf of babies seems obvious to me. There is nothing in my post that is “looking down†on anyone. IMO, you have to reach pretty far to make this statement. I do not work for a ped, but I work very closely with several docs, including peds. I do not like to infer any more than you do, but I can only infer from your response that you read into my posts what you chose to see there, not what I wrote or intended. I cannot be responsible for that, nor will I apologize for it. Cindi, what you wrote in this paragraph alone: “If this is a list on which standing on a soapbox and beating our collective chests as to the idiocy of anyone who doesn't believe as we do is hailed as brilliant and "oh that's just what I'd say"... I don't know, I guess this isn't the place I thought it was. “ is plain rude and disrespectful. And this: “Apparently you and know the TRUTH (as from on high) and feel it is your duty to convert those on this list who lack the "clarity or inclination" to see it as such. Again, the ultimate in arrogance. If you don't agree with or Dianne you lack clarity or inclinication to see the truth. WOW.†You cannot be serious. You blatantly insulted both me and Dianne. I insulted no one. “My request to this list is that we try to HELP each other -- respect each other as having the wit and intelligence to recognize our own TRUTH, and not make offensive and belittling statements as in the post below while trying to convert others to your view of the world, no matter how TRUE it is in your own eyes.†I cannot say I have read a more belittling post myself on any list in the recent past. As an LC in PP for 11 years, I think I have a pretty good handle on the issues we face. I consider poor policy (ACOG/AAP and public health policy included) to be a huge impediment to my ability to do my job optimally. You may not have that experience, but that does not make me wrong or my concerns invalid or off-topic. Tow, IBCLC, CT, USA Intuitive Parenting Network LLC More new features than ever. Check out the new AOL Mail! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.