Changing Infant Paradigms (part 2)

Now that you have examined and thought and pondered over the basics of how praxis is developed, how about examining a new thought on practice.

So, if you're working as a professional in the birth field, sit back and examine what you would do if presented with a mother. Be it, expecting or nurturing her newborn. Think of all of the experiences that have shaped your own perception. What is the first picture that comes to mind - of a contemporary mother.

It's dependent upon your own praxis and the practice which has evolved. It's interesting to think of how many pictured a mother holding her newborn with a bottle. A certain percentage of people would. Some would see a mother standing over a crib, and others will see a woman cradling a new baby in her arms. Maybe they would see this mother sobbing on the couch, staring at this new bundle and asking the professional to fix something. Perhaps, they would even see this mother in a skin to skin position with a baby (swaddled or unswaddled? That is an appropriate question). Depending on praxis, and maybe even personal bias, she may see the newborn in an isolette with tubes and lines. We are all shaped by praxis, to evolve our practice.

The picture a health care professional sees first, flashing in the pan, is important. This will indicate what comes further to this. When the mother says - "now what", her next words would seem to be important. Does she fix the latch and position and encourage the feeding, does she recommend a strict schedule with weights and ins and outs and start thinking of pathophysiology and intervention, or does she look at the bigger picture? Many HCP's I know and many stories I have heard, all look to the dyad but in peculiar ways. I still remember the common practice being "mashing" babies into mothers, breaking seals, making daft comments about the clipboard and schedule, and sticking a gloved finger into the mouth of the newborn. I remember undressing babies (but, not mothers?), and being the face of ignorance with flippant remarks like "let's see how the next feed goes", or "have you thought about suck training?". I had no effing clue what the implications would be. Lucky for me, nursing pairs may have figured it out or just kept tripping and stumbling along with a medium result.

What would seem to be productive would be to look further into the practice and what the average HCP should practice - with considerations of scope. Why was a new nurse even making a diagnosis of poor suck based on a single interaction with a glove? Why were conclusions being made about meconium and diapering without truly knowing what was going to change that? When did the position of the sun/moon (aka clocks) ever dictate hunger for anyone, beyond "sleep happened at some point for mother, and baby probably ate and slept a lot". We know from early history that women carried their children close to keep them safe and nourished. Yet, practice and praxis are both dictating a dangerous place can only be known as "in the arms of the mother". Why ELSE would mothers and babies be separated by devices?

When an HCP is developing their practice, need they look at the historical perspective? Likely not. Infant mortality has decreased, one would think. Are rates rising... newest literature says, yes, rates are increasing again... but the stories are told as "it's still better than the cave".

If you want to change the praxis... you need to change the practice. Yeah?