Thank you for this review, I really enjoyed reading it.
I am reading the book myself and also found some of the advice contradictory. For example, performing blood tests on a newborn baby who shows signs of hunger does not make sense when there is a perfectly safe alternative feeding method available (formula), and goes against the precautionary principle that is so important for patient safety (I am a medical doctor myself).
It also strikes me that their chapter for mothers who want to exclusively breastfeed should come with a lot of warnings about the risk of doing so, especially in the first few days of life. Not providing those warnings seems contradictory to the evidence they outline in the first chapter. Your reflections on patient choice as a value are very interesting for this, I couldn’t agree more.
I also inadvertently starved my baby following breast is best advice. Overall this book is refreshing, but could’ve gone further.
Thanks for your kind words and insightful observations!
Agreed that encouraging invasive testing of unproven necessity or benefit on newborns showing signs of hunger doesn't seem to weigh the harm of that pain and stress against the probability that formula-feeding would solve the problem. This seems to promote medicalization where iatrogenesis can result and common sense might do.
Excellent point about the need to highlight exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) risks in the chapter for mothers who want to do it. It's hard to reconcile the authors' support for exclusive breastfeeding from birth with their stated goal of preventing all feeding-related harms. Until breastfeeding is fully established (e.g., with appropriate weight gain), it seems crucial for moms to nurse and then offer formula supplements (15 mL or more on demand) to ensure the baby is getting enough. Because the signs of infant hunger are so ambiguous (baby too loud/baby too quiet; baby moving too much/baby too still)... Supply presents measurement difficulties... And the postpartum period is so intense and exhausting... A mixed feeding protocol to start seems like a safer recommendation flowing from a harm prevention priority.
Overall I also found myself wondering why the book didn't go further. Perhaps future editions will offer more clarity and resolve some of these tensions.
Thank you for this review, I really enjoyed reading it.
I am reading the book myself and also found some of the advice contradictory. For example, performing blood tests on a newborn baby who shows signs of hunger does not make sense when there is a perfectly safe alternative feeding method available (formula), and goes against the precautionary principle that is so important for patient safety (I am a medical doctor myself).
It also strikes me that their chapter for mothers who want to exclusively breastfeed should come with a lot of warnings about the risk of doing so, especially in the first few days of life. Not providing those warnings seems contradictory to the evidence they outline in the first chapter. Your reflections on patient choice as a value are very interesting for this, I couldn’t agree more.
I also inadvertently starved my baby following breast is best advice. Overall this book is refreshing, but could’ve gone further.
Keep up the good work!
Thanks for your kind words and insightful observations!
Agreed that encouraging invasive testing of unproven necessity or benefit on newborns showing signs of hunger doesn't seem to weigh the harm of that pain and stress against the probability that formula-feeding would solve the problem. This seems to promote medicalization where iatrogenesis can result and common sense might do.
Excellent point about the need to highlight exclusive breastfeeding (EBF) risks in the chapter for mothers who want to do it. It's hard to reconcile the authors' support for exclusive breastfeeding from birth with their stated goal of preventing all feeding-related harms. Until breastfeeding is fully established (e.g., with appropriate weight gain), it seems crucial for moms to nurse and then offer formula supplements (15 mL or more on demand) to ensure the baby is getting enough. Because the signs of infant hunger are so ambiguous (baby too loud/baby too quiet; baby moving too much/baby too still)... Supply presents measurement difficulties... And the postpartum period is so intense and exhausting... A mixed feeding protocol to start seems like a safer recommendation flowing from a harm prevention priority.
Overall I also found myself wondering why the book didn't go further. Perhaps future editions will offer more clarity and resolve some of these tensions.
Thanks for such an interesting and thought provoking critique!
Thanks for your important contributions to the infant feeding lit and discourse!