Mothering at the breast

Back in January, my baby was admitted to the hospital with a bizarre rash and swelling.  During his illness and our hospital stay, I'd say he was at my breast at least 70% of the time.  When the nurse wanted to give him an I.V. for fluids, fortunately I asked, "Are you worried he's becoming dehydrated?"  After assuring her that he was breastfeeding almost constantly, they agreed to hold off on the I.V. as long as I kept track of all his feedings and he continued to have lots of wet diapers. So they gave me a chart to mark all his "feedings."  It was kind of a joke.  When a baby is almost constantly nursing both day and night?  Ha.

One of the mornings, when the nurse asked about the feeding chart, I mentioned that it was hard to keep track in the middle of the night because he was nursing so often and sometimes I fell asleep mid-feeding and wasn't sure when it officially "ended." It was clear from her facial expression that my nursing style was totally foreign to her.  She replied, "Well, then that's not breastfeeding... that's just for comfort."

I was perplexed by her response.  What's the difference? Of course he wanted extra comfort... he was very sick, sleeping in a foreign place, being awakened repeatedly (after finally, blessedly falling asleep) for nurses and doctors to "take a peek" at his rash, being poked multiple times for blood draws and tests... of course he wanted and needed extra comfort!  But that "comfort" and my breastmilk were inseparable. Even if a baby is suckling only for comfort, the breast doesn't know the difference.  The breast responds to suckling by giving milk.

And how grateful I was that the only thing he wanted to do was nurse!  While many babies with his illness develop gastro-intestinal discomfort, blood in the stools, and other more serious problems, he never did, and I attribute that to the vast amounts of breastmilk he consumed during that time.

In my mind, nursing is so much more than "feeding."  I have never wanted to restrict my babies' suckling time to conform to when they "should" be hungry.  When one of my babies becomes distressed, the first thing I almost always offer is my breast, even if they just "ate" two minutes before.  If they don't seem interested or aren't calmed by suckling, then I try other ways to soothe them.

I was talking with a friend last week about how my babies have never taken to bottles or pacifiers.  I mentioned that my baby boy will happily drink water from a bottle when he's thirsty, and he would probably even drink milk from a bottle (though we've never tried).  The other day he found an old pacifier and sucked on it for a bit for fun.  But if someone tried to stick a bottle or pacifier in his mouth when he was grumpy, tired, afraid, or distressed, he would cast them away and only scream harder.

I am his pacifier.  I am the only answer to his deepest cries.  Nothing and no one else can give him what I can give.  Call it "just for comfort" if you want, but it's all the same to me.  In my mind you cannot separate breastfeeding, nursing, and soothing... they are all one.

There are many who would say my son no longer "needs" breastmilk or night-feedings because he's 14-months-old.  There are some who would have said he didn't need them when he was in the hospital at 9-months-old.  I say that the time when I am able to provide this gift to him will pass in the blink of an eye.  This time when only my body can comfort him is precious and fleeting.  If it means I will lose a few years of uninterrupted sleep, so be it.  If he's three years old before he's able to soothe himself back to sleep on his own, so be it.

Because of my own history and struggles with abandonment issues, there is almost nothing more important to me than establishing a secure, unbreakable attachment with my babies... telling them with my every touch and action that I will always be here... that I will never abandon them, especially when they need me the most, no matter what time of day or night.  I've never regretted one moment of nurse-comforting my children, and I feel confident that I will look back when I'm past my childbearing years with gratitude that I didn't push those precious nursing relationships away for the sake of independence or convenience.  (P.S. Moms who don't continue nursing through the second year are really missing out on the best trick up their sleeves for dealing with those daily toddler tantrums.)

Me and my almost 15-month-old nursling last weekend

I appreciate these words (shared by Sarah, one of my facebook fans) from lactation consultant, Diane Wiessinger:

Easy, long-term breastfeeding involves forgetting about the "breast" and the "feeding" (and the duration, and the interval, and the transmission of the right nutrients in the right amounts, and the difference between nutritive and non-nutritive suckling needs, all of which form the focus of artificial milk pamphlets) and focusing instead on the relationship. . . . [T]he real joys and satisfactions of the experience begin when they stop "breastfeeding" and start mothering at the breast.  (Source)

Maybe that nurse in the hospital was right, after all.  I wasn't really "breastfeeding" in that hospital, I was mothering at the breast.

Book Review: The Science of Parenting

I'm catching-up on some things I've been wanting to write posts about for months. Like a book I checked-out from the library ages ago... I heard about The Science of Parenting by Dr. Margot Sunderland (director of education and training at the Centre for Child Mental Health in London) in a Canadian news article with the headline 'Crying it out' may damage baby's brain. Now that's a heavy headline, eh? I was definitely intrigued, so I decided to dig further into this. It took me weeks to read it (bit by bit while nursing), but I finally finished last month some time.

My initial reaction to the book was: it looks and feels like a text book. Lots of pictures, sidebars, bullet points, etc. The tone of the writing also reminded me of a text book--one that was giving you basic information without personality or fluff. But I was sort of disappointed because the book repeats phrases like, "There is a mass of scientific research showing..." but it only speaks in very general terms about what those studies actually show. I guess I expected a book called "The Science of Parenting" to delve more deeply into the science of parenting.

The book also struck me as somewhat biased. It kind of reminded me of Stupid Things Parents Do To Mess Up Their Kids which I read per a friend's suggestion. They're very different books written in very different ways, but they both support narrow visions of "good" parenting. It's no question Dr. Laura favors stay-at-home moms, so her book was like a big pat on the back for me (though I don't agree with everything she says). Similarly, The Science of Parenting leaves no doubt that it was written by a woman who is an advocate of attachment parenting and co-sleeping. For someone like me, it's validating. For an Ezzo-Babywise fan, probably not so much. (Actually, Dr. Laura herself would probably trash The Science of Parenting since Sunderland opposes spanking as a form of discipline.)

So where did the Canadian news headline come from? Sunderland devotes a whole chapter of her book to crying and separation. How does prolonged crying "damage" a baby's brain? Here's an excerpt:

Let's be clear at the outset--it is not crying itself that can affect a child's developing brain. It doesn't. It is prolonged, uncomforted distress. . . . It is the type of crying that goes on and on and on, and eventually stops when the child is either completely exhausted and falls asleep or, in a hopeless state, realizes that help is not going to come. . . . In a crying baby, the stress hormone cortisol is released by the adrenal glands. If the child is soothed and comforted, the level of cortisol goes down again, but if the child is left to cry and cry, the level of cortisol remains high. This is a potentially dangerous situation, because over a prolonged period, cortisol can reach toxic levels that may damage key structures and systems in a developing brain. Cortisol is a slow-acting chemical that can stay in the brain at high levels for hours. (p. 38-40)

I have heard similar explanations in previous reading and research, so this wasn't new to me, but I found Sunderland's explanation, visuals, and charts enriching. Despite these points, I personally feel that intuition trumps science and that we each are given promptings of how to respond to our children individually.

The part of the book I found most helpful was Sunderland's section about the two types of tantrums--distress tantrums and "Little Nero" tantrums. She explains that these two types of tantrums should be handled in very different ways.

Distress tantrums mean that rage, fear, and/or separation distress have sent "too-high levels of stress chemicals searing through his body and brain" (p. 122). These stress chemicals "hijack" your child's ability to think or reason or communicate effectively. Children in distress tantrums need help managing their big feelings. Sunderland encourages parents to remember that their child's distress is genuine and focus on giving physical comfort, emotional empathy, and safety.

Little Nero tantrums are another story. These tantrums are about control and manipulation and rarely involve tears. There aren't stress chemicals involved. Sunderland explains, "A Little Nero tantrum is about a child trying to get what he wants--attention, a particular toy, or food--through bullying his parents into submission. . . . Children who have Little Nero tantrums need to learn that they can't always receive the gratification they want at the time they want it, and that it's not OK to bully or control people to get what they want in life" (p.128). Sunderland encourages parents to ignore these tantrums, avoid trying to reason, argue, or negotiate with the child, remain emotionally calm, and be firm in saying, "No." Above all, don't reward these inappropriate tantrums with attention.

Reading her explanation of these two types of tantrums was one of those "aha" moments. I have seen both types hundreds of times but never really made that distinction or realized that they called for different parental responses. I'm trying to incorporate Sunderland's suggestions, when I remember. Fortunately, Little Nero rarely makes an appearance around here. But I definitely need to work on keeping my cool and ignoring those.

Even though it wasn't really what I expected, I'm glad I read The Science of Parenting. It reminded me to respect my children's feelings and respond in a way that honors their identity as children of God. It helped me to better understand what is happening inside when my 4-year-old freaks out about something--as she often does. It has validated my efforts to create a secure attachment with my babies through responsive parenting--both night and day. I'd definitely recommend the book to others, but only after making them aware of the author's preference for the attachment parenting style.

A couple of Amazon reviewers' statements might be helpful:

I think it inflates the parents' role in child-rearing. It goes completely overboard about activating the wrong parts of your child's brain. I'm not saying there is no merit to this theory, but the book would make it seem a miracle anyone ever grew up halfway sane if their parents nevcer read this book. -SWB "Parent"

[T]he discussion of the science is extremely superficial . . . . To learn more about the science of how the brain actually works, I would recommend What's Going on in There?: How the Brain and Mind Develop in the First Five Years of Life by Lise Eliot. -sammy

I've already put What's Going on in There on hold at our library. It sounds more like what I was expecting The Science of Parenting to be, and the reviews promise lots of dense scientific details. Goody! I also have another parenting book on hold, The Wonder Weeks, per Heather's suggestion. Can't wait to check them out!

Do you have any other book recommendations, while we're at it?

Pick and Choose

I've been stuck on the topic of sleep lately. This morning I turned to Google when I started wondering whether my 3- and 5-year-old were getting enough sleep. I found this WebMD site listing the amount of sleep children need at various stages. It also gives tips. Knowing how I feel about cosleeping and night nursing, you can probably imagine how I reacted to this advice from WebMD:

Allowing your child to soothe herself and put herself to sleep unassisted are critical to establishing good sleep habits, sleeping soundly, and preventing future sleep problems. As Mark Weissbluth, MD, says in his book Healthy Sleep Habits, Happy Child, "The failure of our children to fall asleep and stay asleep by themselves is the direct result of parents' failure to give their child the opportunity to learn . . . self-soothing skills. . . . Some parents can't leave their kids alone long enough for them to fall asleep by themselves. . . . The major sleep problems in babies 4-12 months old develop and persist because of the inability of parents to stop reinforcing bad sleep habits" (source).

Dr. Weissbluth wouldn't think too highly of us! I might start feeling like a failure... except that my 3-year-old and 5-year-old take a mere 3-10 minutes to fall asleep most nights (without crying) and then stay peacefully asleep until 10-12 hours later. Perhaps I haven't irreparably damaged their "healthy sleep habits" by soothing them to sleep as infants (and toddlers) after all? (Can a 4-month-old really have "bad sleep habits" to reinforce?) Some of my fondest early childhood memories are of my dad singing us lullabies while we fell asleep and my grandma lying down with me until I fell asleep so I wouldn't be scared. Those were moments when I felt an intense sense of peace, security, and love... things I desperately needed at that time in my life (I had an emotionally traumatic early childhood). I'm so grateful my caregivers didn't fret over "reinforcing bad sleep habits" when I needed or wanted their assistance falling asleep.

Thank goodness we can pick and choose our experts! Isn't it funny how you can find opposing "expert" opinions on just about any topic? In terms of infant sleep, I much prefer Dr. James J. McKenna's take on things! He says:

[I]rrepressible (ancient) neurologically-based infant responses to maternal smells, movements and touch altogether reduce infant crying while positively regulating infant breathing, body temperature, absorption of calories, stress hormone levels, immune status, and oxygenation. In short, . . . cosleeping (whether on the same surface or not) facilitates positive clinical changes including more infant sleep and seems to make, well, babies happy. In other words, unless practiced dangerously, sleeping next to mother is good for infants. The reason why it occurs is because... it is supposed to ("Cosleeping and Biological Imperatives: Why Human Babies Do Not and Should Not Sleep Alone").

Of course I couldn't help feeling smug about this one:

Western parents are taught that "co-sleeping" will make the infant too dependent on them, or risk accidental suffocation. Such views are not supported by human experience worldwide, however, where for perhaps millions of years, infants as a matter of course slept next to at least one caregiver, usually the mother, in order to survive. At some point in recent history, infant separateness with low parental contact during the night came to be advocated by child care specialists, while infant-parent interdependence with high parental contact came to be discouraged. In fact, the few psychological studies which are available suggest that children who have "co-slept" in a loving and safe environment become better adjusted adults than those who were encouraged to sleep without parental contact or reassurance ("Babies Need Their Mothers Beside Them").

Thank goodness for access to information. With libraries and the internet, we can examine the differing view points about child-rearing (or childbirth or any other topic) and find what feels right for us. I'm grateful to have found what works for me and my family.

Breaking the rules

When my first daughter was a newborn, I was getting multiple free baby magazine subscriptions and piles of baby-related junk-mail. I guess that's what happens when you pop-up on on the baby-marketing radar screen. And, like most new moms, I was utterly blind-sided by the whiplash of sleep-deprivation and was positively desperate for sleep. So I devoured those baby magazines each month--hoping each time that this issue would contain the secret that would give me back my sleep.

At the same time I was fishing for advice from other women, both experienced and new moms. My grandma urged, "Just let her cry. Eventually she'll go to sleep." Another new mom recommended On Becoming Babywise, by Gary Ezzo, adding that it was the reason her small baby had learned to sleep through the night at 6 weeks.

If there was one cardinal rule of infant sleep among all the experts and moms I consulted, it was this: do not, I repeat, do not nurse (or rock) your baby to sleep!

The problem was that I was already nursing my baby to sleep. I felt right nursing my baby to sleep. I liked nursing my baby to sleep. And I felt wrong letting her cry. In the end, my heart won out over the "experts."

Now, almost six years later, I have nursed-to-sleep and slept-with three babies. Fortunately, I ended my subscriptions to those baby magazines early-on and found my own parenting niche with Mothering Magazine, all things Dr. Sears, and helpful books such as Our Babies, Ourselves, by Meredith Small, and The No-Cry Sleep Solution, by Elizabeth Pantley.

I love this excerpt from Elizabeth Pantley's book:

Your baby . . . has learned to associate sucking (having your nipple or his bottle or pacifier in his mouth) with sleeping. I have heard a number of sleep experts refer to this as a “negative sleep association.” I certainly disagree, and so would my baby! It is probably the most positive, natural, pleasant sleep association a baby can have. The problem with this association is not the association itself, but our busy lives. If you had nothing whatsoever to do besides take care of your baby, this would be a very pleasant way to pass your days and nights until he naturally outgrew the need. After all, this is natural. You may not even see this as a problem, in which case it is not. It's all a matter of your perception and your personal needs. (Click here for more excerpts)

I couldn't agree more. It definitely is all a matter of our perceptions and personal needs. And those perceptions and needs can change over time as our children grow older or our circumstances shift.

So I broke the rules. Did it take a long time for my daughters to learn to sleep through the night? You betcha it did! Do I still need to help them fall asleep at night? Yes. (My husband and/or I lie down in my daughters' bedroom almost every night until they fall asleep.) Do I regret my decision to nurse them to sleep and respond to their night-time cries? Absolutely not.

I share this not because I believe my way is the "right" way, but because I want to encourage other parents to "break the rules." Whether it be your grandma's rules, your next-door-neighbor's rules, the baby magazine rules, or your pediatrician's rules... don't let them dictate how you choose to parent your child. When it comes to your baby's needs, YOU are the expert. Follow your heart.

If you're anything like me, it will tell you that there's absolutely nothing wrong with rocking that sweet, precious baby (or toddler, or big kid) in your arms or cuddling them to sleep. In fact, in my view, it's the greatest thing in the world.

P.S. You get used to the sleep-deprivation. :-)