Archive for 2009

Mother-Baby Contact Is the Norm

Sunday, May 31st, 2009

On Friday, May 29, 2009, John and I were invited to attend the Grand Rounds lecture at Children’s Hospital in Cincinnati.  The speaker was an eminent researcher from Cape Town, South Africa, Dr. Nils Bergman (MD, DCH, MPH, PhD) and his topic was of great interest to us, “Perinatal Neuroscience and Skin-to-Skin Contact.”  His goal in speaking to the hospital doctors and nurses was to persuade them to change the norm of care in the neonatal unit.  He noted that the incubator was invented around the turn of the 19th-20th century by someone who placed some babies in it and toured.  It sounded like a circus freak show.  His point was that there was not one bit of scientific research or evidence, then or now, showing that the incubator is superior to skin-to-skin contact with the mother in terms of the health of the baby. 
   He was obviously aware of the challenge he was presenting to the doctors and nurses in terms of today’s claim to practice “evidence-based medicine.”  At one point he interrupted himself to note that he expected that some of the audience were probably rolling their eyes or staring at the ceiling and wondering who let this guy in the door.  He then proceeded to review the evidence demonstrating that the best place for the newborn baby is on the chest of the mother, even if the baby has special needs.  In one hour this doctor from Cape Town, South Africa presented research to support his case.  I made notes on some of his statements:
 “90% of breastfeeding is not nutrition but sight, smell, taste, touch, skin-to-skin contact, etc.”   “Breastfeeding is brain-wiring and is very important to the baby.” 
 “The environment the baby needs is the mother.”
 “Mother is the key for neurodevelopment.”
 “There is no reason to separate mother and baby.”
 “The incubator has no scientific foundation.”
 “Incubators de-stabilize newborns.”
 “Incubators cause harm.”
 “Mother stabilizes the newborn.”
 “Skin-to-skin contact is necessary for premature babies.”
 “Separated babies cry more and sleep less.”
 “For improved child health we need to restore the baby to the Mother.”
    At the end of the meeting, John asked, “Where in the world is this practiced?”  Dr. Bergman replied, “Nowhere.”  He then went on to say that there are pieces of excellence here and there, but no hospital has put it all together.  He expressed the hope that Cincinnati Children’s might be the first to put it all together. 
    After the meeting we chatted briefly with a neonatalogist who was largely in agreement.  He noted that the neonatal procedures are so rigorous that not even the doc can pick up the baby and hold him.  It was a very rewarding Friday afternoon.
    For more information about Dr. Bergman and his research, go to www.kangaroomothercare.com

Sheila Kippley
The Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding

Ecological breastfeeding: Things I did not say

Sunday, May 24th, 2009

        This blog is an effort to set the record straight.  I have read some blogs or other material that erroneously associated me with various behaviors or statements, and these call for correction.
      “Mothers must not be separated from their infants for more than three hours a day.”  I never said that.  But I do promote mother-and-baby togetherness.
      The 7th rule is: “The woman must not have had a period after 56 days postpartum.”  That is not the 7th rule or 7th Standard.
      In a book on eco-breastfeeding (in this book breastfeeding is called “responsive breastfeeding”) it says that Sheila “advises prolonging breastfeeding through the first year as baby’s only food.”  I would not advise that. I follow the American Academy of Pediatrics’ recommendation of exclusive breastfeeding for 6 to 8 months.
      Several mothers have claimed I require the baby to be carried in a sling by the mother at all times or that the mother must keep the baby on her.  I never said that.
      “Eco-breastfeeding would say not to let her [the baby] sleep more than three hours without nursing.” That’s not my interpretation.
      Read any of my books or talks on natural child spacing.  You will not find any of the above statements in them.  I encourage interested mothers and couples to read my up-to-date book, The Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding: The Frequency Factor, for the facts and for the research showing that breastfeeding does space babies.
      Frequency of nursing is very important for extended breastfeeding infertility, but we need to avoid the absolute sort of statements reported above.

NFPI Website: On May 23, we received the following: “I will print off the breastfeeding brochure to hand out so that they have the web address and I will probably print out a summary of the Seven Standards as well.  Your website is such a great resource and that is an understatement.  I love being able to tell people about the free manual.  I send anyone and everyone to your site–secular, Protestant, and Catholic.”

And on May 11another grateful lady said this about our website: “I am sending you this as I head out to buy a basal thermometer and a three ring binder!  I just wanted to say how thrilled I am to have found your website, book, and resources.  I have looked into NFP before and it always sounded so clinical and like a lot of work.  I read your book last night and am thoroughly confident that this is the right choice for myself, my husband, and our family.  You have made it so easy to understand, and not cold and clinical.  As a convert, I loved the references to Scripture and the Catechism.  I had never quite been sure what the “rules” were regarding the marriage act, and I’m so pleased to have such clear guidelines.  I would love to have another child, as many as God would allow actually, but we need time to “get on our feet” before we have any more.  We really do have serious reasons to wait, we have to be responsible for the children we have, before we have another.  My husband and I had been using complete abstinence, rather than an artificial method of birth control, and I have found it to be so damaging to our relationship which is to be expected when you remove the marriage act from the marriage – it becomes just an act.  I just thought of that now, but I quite like it!  Anyway, I know you don’t need some stranger waffling on and telling you her life story, I just wanted you both to know that I am quite sure you have just changed my life for the better, and, in turn, the lives of my family.  Thank you.  I am not in a position at this moment to make a donation to you, but I will be soon.  I will also be sure to pass your information on whenever and wherever I can.”

Swine flu and breastfeeding: Mothers should continue to breastfeed if she or her baby is suspected of having H1N1.  See recommendations by The Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine.

Sheila Kippley
The Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding: The Frequency Factor

The need to promote ecological breastfeeding

Sunday, May 17th, 2009

Eco-breastfeeding
    Recently we read that some in the Church don’t like eco-breastfeeding, or at least don’t see any need for it in marriage preparation.  I wrote the following to a person who was experiencing this opposition. 

   I would like to sit down with such persons and say something like this.   I am sure you are interested in the health and well-being of children, especially the children of the poor.  How much would you be willing to invest in a baby food that is the most excellent food that can be invented, a food that actually changes in composition according to the needs of the child, a food whose quantity actually increases as the child wants more of it, and so health-protecting that its universal use would save the lives of 1,500,000 babies each year?  Further, the natural process of transmitting this food to the child benefits the mother as well as the child, giving both mother and baby long-term as well as short-term benefits.  Moreover, these benefits are dose-related; the longer they are received the better.  Not only that but if the natural process of transmission is done at a natural, baby-led frequency, it postpones the return of the mother’s fertility.  And the cost of this wonder?  Nada.  How can anyone who is genuinely interested in child welfare not be in favor of breastfeeding?  And how can anyone who comes to recognize, after appropriate education, that only the frequent suckling of ecological breastfeeding provides extended breastfeeding as well as extended infertility, be opposed to the teaching of ecological breastfeeding? It truly is God’s own plan for baby spacing and baby care.  Think about it!

John F. Kippley
Sex and the Marriage Covenant