Just a few weeks

Just Those Few Weeks
Susan Erling

For those few weeks-
I had you to myself.
And that seems too short a time
to be changed so profoundly.

In those few weeks-
I came to know you...
and to love you.
You came to trust me with your life.
Oh, what a life I had planned for you!

Just those few weeks-
When I lost you.
I lost a lifetime of hopes,
plans, dreams, and aspirations...
A slice of my future simply vanished overnight.

Just those few weeks-
And no "normal" person would cry all night
over a tiny, unfinished baby,
or get depressed and withdraw day after endless day.
No one would, so why am I?

You were those few weeks my little one
you darted in and out of my life too quickly.
But it seems that's all the time you needed
to make my life so much richer
and give me a small glimpse of eternity.

Theory-Practice and Theory-Theory Gap

I've been thinking a lot recently about the 'theory-practice gap'. It's been discussed on one of the midwifery forums, and the general consensus is that it isn't so much of a gap, as a chasm. I'm afraid I have to go against the flow on this because this has not been my experience of the course so far. I'm not saying that there is 100% correlation between the theoretical and practical aspects of the course. There are gaps; there are some things that my mentor says to women that I would not, and vice versa. However, I feel that I'm able to bridge these gaps. And so they aren't really gaps, because I can bridge them. Does that make any sense? If there was such a huge differential in the philosophy and pracice of my mentor and my ideals of what midwiery practice should be that no amount of discussion could reconcile these differences, then there would be a gap. But that hasn't happened. I have thought and worried about this a lot, as I thought that I might have missed something. Maybe I have, or maybe I've just been lucky so far. I don't want there to be a chasm between the theoretical and practical aspects of the course, it's not helpful and I've seen it make people very unhappy. So I'll be working hard to bridge any gaps that become apparent.

Actually, there appears to be significant differences in the midwifery philosophies of some of our cohort members. I'm very much on the non interventionist side of midwifery; I come from a farming family and birth is a normal, natural everyday occurrance to me. Sheep and cows can usually birth perfectly well without the vet rushing in at every given opportunity, thank you very much! I worry about the medicalisation of childbirth, and the technocratic, patriarchal birth culture that we have in this country. I worry because the baseline that women have is not that birth is a normal physiological process, but that it is a disaster waiting to happen. I worry about the psychological effects that antenatal screening has on women. Also the psychological effects of giving birth in a culture that gives the strong impression that women are not capable of giving birth without medical intervention. I worry that at least one person in my cohort is perpetuating this philosophy. Of course there are no rights and wrongs here, only opinions. However, the philosophies are diametrically opposed, and it's difficult to see any middle ground. In other words, mind the theory-theory gap.

Joyful birth clip

More from YouTube...knicked this link from a midwifery forum I'm afraid ;-)



The joy on the woman's face is amazing. I love how the midwives stood back (almost, they could do with letting go of her leg) and watched quietly but vigilantly while the woman birthed her baby. Then they encouraged the dad to catch the baby. Fantastic.

Birth Crawl

After a recent lecture on breastfeeding, a few of our cohort were discussing the neonatal instinct to feed, and the reflexes that precipitate this. I remembered seeing a video that I think was Norwegian, but might have been Swedish, that showed this beautifully. Sadly, I couldn't find a copy of this on the net to share with my colleagues, but did stumble across this on YouTube:

I wish that the mother's face wasn't blanked out, as it's impossible to see what she is thinking.
Personally, I find this neonatal behaviour fascinating. I was intrigued by their suggestion that the baby should be dried apart from their hands, as the amniotic fluid secretes a smell/taste that facilitates the baby finding the breast. I don't know the exact mechanism of this, but will be looking into it.
I thought the clip also highlighted some of the political aspects of infant feeding. Initiating breastfeeding within half an hour reduces infant mortality by 22% in developing countries (see the clip for the reference). That is just staggering. This is typical of a country where there is unequal access to clean water and sterilising facilities. All too often in this country we can become obsessed with the breast vs bottle choice debate, and lose track of the wider implications of the issue. Babies die because they are bottle fed in countries where there is a lack of clean drinking water and facilities to sterilise equipment. All the while, the multinational corporations that manufacture artificial milk ruthlessly market their wares to, well, everybody, but especially it seems to those that are most vulnerable and would benefit the most from breastfeeding. To make this point, I'd like to quote from the Numico corporate web site. Numico is the MNC behind brands such as Cowe&Gate and Milupa. They state on their web site that they are interested in "High-growth, high-margin businesses only, concentrating on markets with the greatest potential for brand leadership." They do not give out free pens, flip charts and tourniquets because they are kind and generous. They do it because the perception of professional power can be extremely influential, and seeing the brand logo of an artificial milk on a midwife's equipment sends the message that they are endorsing artificial feeding in general, and that brand in particular. They exist to make money, at any cost. There is one picture that haunts me when I think of what that cost is.

From the IBFAN web site: http://www.ibfan.org/english/issue/overview01.html
This photograph was taken by UNICEF in Islamabad, Pakistan. These babies, believe it or not, are twins. The baby with the bottle is a wee girl. She died the day after this picture was taken. Her brother was breastfed and thrived. The mother was told that she would only be able to produce enough milk for one baby, and that is why she bottle fed the girl. Totally inaccurate information, sadly. "Use my picture if it will help" said this mother. I wonder if she knows the impact this picture has had on people round the world. I can't think of anything that so definitively and so powerfully shows why it is fundamentally important that breastfeeding is promoted and supported and that companies that produce artificial milk are put back in their box.

Which leads on to this clip:

Baby Milk Action is a group which protects breastfeeding and the right of mothers to accurate information free from company propaganda.

http://www.babymilkaction.org/