The bottle of help for mothers

"Jo, Armando, how cruel you are," a co-worker told me two days ago. And no, I don't think it's cruel, but I'm going to explain why he told me and you will decide whether to light the fire (to burn me) or if you give me probation.

Not long ago we were talking in Babies and more of hypogalactia, which is the name given to the phenomenon of not producing enough milk for a baby. Many mothers believe they have it because their children are not gaining enough weight, and in these cases you really have to do something, but many mothers believe it because their children suck very often, and often the weight is correct to very correct and Lack of milk is a mother's sensation or corresponds to the belief that your baby would have to spend more time without eating.

To these two groups we would have to add a third, which would be those mothers who do not have hypogalactia, but who almost want to have it to be able to give their baby a bottle (or several), which allow them to spend more time without the baby hooked to the chest. It is what I call the bottle of help for mothers.

More than a week ago, a mother with a few-day-old baby came to the nurse's office who, being breastfed, had gained very little weight with respect to the weight she made the day she left the hospital.

Concerned, I explained how to breastfeed and how often to do it (on demand, without spending more than two hours per day and without allowing more than three hours at night), in addition to assessing other aspects such as breastfeeding position , the sucking of the baby, the possible presence of sublingual frenulum, etc.

I summoned the mother two days later to assess the weight (not that in two days she was going to win a lot, but if the thing was going to go wrong, we better realize the two days later).

Two days later the mother arrived with her baby, who gained about 80 grams (more or less what babies usually earn in 3-4 days), being “almost all day hooked” and my joy was evident: I breathed easy Y I told him I was doing well and keep it up.

The mother did not stay too satisfied, it seemed that she made little weight and stressed that she had been "giving him almost all day", something that I understood as logical, because it was what I had recommended.

After telling him that the weight was correct, that the frequency at the beginning is usually high and that if he continued like that the weight would go even better I quoted them again a few days later to see that everything was going well.

He came again and the weight had increased even more in proportion, showing that breastfeeding went like silk. However, despite this, he told me again that he spent a lot of time suckling and that he thought I had to give him a bottle, that he had already bought milk but that as he had a visit today he had wanted to wait for me to give him my opinion.

My cruelty

So I gave it to him. I am nobody to tell mothers what they have or do not have to do. A professional can only give recommendations and argue what are the advantages and disadvantages, as well as the advantages and disadvantages of not following them.

So of course I didn't tell him what he had to doBut I did explain that the bottle (or bottles) he wanted to give his son was unnecessary, because the baby was gaining weight perfectly and that, in any case, the one that needed it was her:

“Well, the boy is doing well. He has taken more than one would expect and more than is usually marked as desirable, so he does not need anything else. However, if you want me to spend more time without breastfeeding then you would have to give him a bottle, but not because he needs it, but because you need it so that your baby is not so long asking for a tit ”.

Then I explained the logical consequence of giving a bottle (or more than one) to a baby, which is none other than the progressive decrease in breastfeeding time to the point where the child barely wants a breast (it does not always happen, but in most cases).

The tone and intentionality

I am aware that the tone with which I said it (explaining things calmly and naturally) cannot be printed in these words, but I explain it because depending on how these things are said you can go from simple informant to rude and intrusive.

Let's say I wanted to make it clear that if your child ended up taking a bottle, it was because she wanted to, but not because she needed it or because I had recommended it. Not for him to feel bad or as a method of torture, but for When he explained his son's breastfeeding to other mothers, he said it was a success and not a failure because he didn't have enough milk. Many mothers, from hearing other mothers say that they did not have enough milk, end up thinking that the same thing will happen to them and, unfortunately, being predisposed to a possible failure makes the chances of failure greater.

Maybe I should have shut up?