Re: Intro (LONG)
Carolyn Talarr
Hi Stephanie,
We lived in University City, 47th and Pine to be precise. At least a murder
a year on our block, in addition to countless car thefts, muggings, the
everyday occurence of unleashed pit bulls who you know weren't trained to be
sweet and friendly roaming the streets, and oil collecting on our window
screens and probably our lungs blowing up from the refineries in South
Philly.
Boring, strange suburban life down here seems like a party every day
compared to that. Suburban Phila is of course not as bad as where we were.
We even looked in Lansdowne but couldn't afford anything that wasn't falling
apart and would need renovations that we couldn't afford!
Ezzo. Hmmm....Below I've copied two articles from another list I'm on,
from a member in the UK who's very concerned that Babywise not spread to her
shores. She's been working with Penelope Leach, actually, on this.
The first is from the London Independent, and the second is just a public
release, not published anywhere. But it tells the story of Ezzoing from an
inside perspective. You'll see.
The Independent (London)
September 24, 1999, Friday
HEADLINE: SMACK THE CHILD, PRAISE THE LORD!; A CALIFORNIAN COUPLE
BELIEVE BABIES SHOULD BE BEATEN INTO OBEDIENCE. NOW THEY ARE BRINGING
THEIR METHODS TO BRITAIN. AND CHILDCARE EXPERT PENELOPE LEACH IS LEADING
THE BATTLE TO KEEP THEM AWAY. BY MARY BRAID
Gary and Ann Marie Ezzo have caused a storm in the United States with
their controversial programme for bringing up baby the Lord's way, with
critics claiming their extreme views have resulted in infants being
rushed to hospital suffering from severe malnutrition and dehydration.
A month before they wash up on British shores, bringing their strict
child-rearing "first-time obedience" programme in which even babies get
a taste of corporal punishment, the evangelical couple from California
are already being roundly denounced. "I don't want them over here
speaking to our parents," says the British child -care expert Penelope
Leach, already the Ezzos' arch enemy on the US conference circuit.
Leach makes no apologies for sounding draconian about the Ezzos, whom
she condemned this week at a BMA children's conference in London.
"Everyone has a right to their opinion until it amounts to cruelty to
babies," she says. "What they say should carry a government health
warning."
The antipathy is mutual. Gary Ezzo claims parental indulgence has
brought "moral decline" to the US and Britain. He sees Leach as the
devil's agent and will, in turn, denounce her child-centred philosophy
at public appearances in Britain next month.
The Ezzos look benign enough, if a touch over-starched. Mrs Ezzo, a
nurse, favours chaste Puritan lace collars and her husband a scrubbed,
closely shorn Mormon look. A few years ago the couple were nobodies.
Then they started parenting classes at their local church, apparently
because their own well-disciplined brood was the envy of the
congregation.
Business has boomed as American parents have clamoured for the Ezzos'
heavily Christian teaching materials, and their secular books in which
God gets hardly a mention on the journey to the lucrative wider market.
Their promise of well -behaved children, who sleep through the night,
has created the multimillion-dollar "ministry" Growing Families
International.
It is easy to see why the Ezzos are reviled by the child-care
establishment. In On Becoming Babywise, a best-seller in the States,
they decree that babies as young as eight months can be taught high-
chair manners, such as special Ezzo "signs" for "please" and "thank
you", and to sit up straight with their arms by their sides. They
recommend that baby's arms are held in position until the message sinks
in.
That the difference between right and wrong cannot yet be appreciated
should not prevent morally degenerative behaviour being stamped out, so
parents must stop babies banging on high-chair tables, flipping over
plates and wilfully arching their backs, by swotting baby's hand or
squeezing it until "it causes discomfort".
It is best to obey at the earliest opportunity for the corporal
punishment stakes rise as baby grows.
At 18 months children should be smacked for poor table manners, with a
plastic spatula to "inflict pain but not break bones or damage skin
tissue". And if that causes tears, mothers should not worry because "God
did not intervene when His Son cried out on the cross".
The Ezzos advise parents to put themselves first and make baby fit their
routine, which might explain why their message drifted from the pews to
the mass market.
"Teach the child to obey according to the character of true obedience,
immediately, completely, without challenge and without complaint," they
advise, warning parents not to cuddle too much or to follow the Leach
principle of feeding on demand unless they want to be slaves to their
children.
They recommend feeding every four hours and offer a method that promises
to have a new baby soon sleeping through the night.
The Ezzos have horrified child development experts by advising mothers
to leave even six-month-olds alone in their playpens for up to 30
minutes, twice a day. To avoid "unhealthy attachment", mothers must stay
out of sight and persevere even through tears. "(If left to cry) your
baby will not lose brain cells, experience a drop in IQ or have feelings
of rejection that will leave him manic depressive at age 30," states
Babywise. Their strictest - and surely most unrealistic - dictum is that
a child not potty trained by two and a half must be made to take
responsibility for cleaning up its own mess.
According to Arthur Roderick, of the Maranatha Foundation for Christian
Education Europe, the Swindon-based evangelical organisation which is
bringing the Ezzos to Britain, the couple are misunderstood and
misrepresented. He claims to have seen nothing about toddlers cleaning
up their own mess or any other extreme advice in the materials the Ezzos
have sent to him. Of allegations that children on the Ezzo programme
have been hospitalised, Mr Roderick says the Ezzos cannot be responsible
for "disciples that go ten times further" than they recommend.
The couple, who say the British press is prejudiced [Praise the Lord
they are!], are not giving interviews before they arrive on 27 October
but Mr Roderick says they have the support of mainstream American
evangelical churches. It is not so. The Ezzos have divided evangelical
Christians. Their former church has distanced itself from their
programme and leading Christian figures claim they are distorting
scripture. The American Association of Paediatricians has received a
flood of complaints about the couple, and is currently investigating
their methods.
Earlier this year The Washington Post printed some worrying messages
posted on the Ezzos' website which suggested their programme was being
over-zealously applied, especially by those who seem to believe it
carries the Lord's endorsement. One exasperated mother complained that
her two- year-old was still disobedient despite the welts on her bottom.
A father said that even after discipline his 13-month-old daughter was
still refusing to give the Ezzo sign for "all done" after eating, and a
mother said she was astonished that her six-month-old had begun to arch
her back in her high chair. "It's sad to see that they are really
sinners," she wrote.
While Leach insists that the most worrying aspect of the Ezzos' theory
is that it interferes with normal child development, one mother told The
Washington Post that she felt the Ezzo programme had turned her
offspring into "Stepford children". But every attack on the Ezzos brings
a little flurry of complaints from American parents who claim their
advice transformed a difficult baby.
Mr Roderick, who supplies teaching materials to 40 independent
evangelical schools in Britain and 400 Christian families who teach
their children at home, is the only distributor in Britain of the Ezzo
programme. He swears by it. His own nine grandchildren - all under four
- are on it and well-behaved. Corporal punishment, he insists, is only a
small element in the philosophy but a useful deterrent for "a wayward or
sinful child". Without proper discipline, he argues, we will always
have "13-year-old boys impregnating 12-year-old girls" [Note: recently,
two 12yo girls were reported pregnant in the UK media. Later, one of the
fathers, a 23yo, was prosecuted for actual and statutory rape. The other
child was the product of a violent and abusive father].
Surely it is an overreaction to think that the programme, despite its
popularity in America, will reach the mainstream in less loopy Britain?
Leach warns against complacency. Smacking is still popular with British
parents - about 75 per cent still smack the under-ones. Offering a
simple message in complicated times, the Ezzo programme, Leach warns,
could well find a home on deprived, desperate sink estates, especially
when Tony Blair's government has such "unreasonable expectations" of
parents.
Rachel Hodgkin, senior policy officer with the National Children's
Bureau and a supporter of the anti-corporal punishment campaign Epoch,
urges the Government to condemn the Ezzo methods ahead of the visit. "As
far as I can see, it is all about breaking a child's spirit as early as
you can," she says. "It should be taken seriously. I think the
Department of Health should come out and say that this amounts to
emotional and physical neglect of babies."
*****************
*****************
And now, the second post, which is graphic and quite disturbing. I include
it partially for Faith, since these folks went into this with the best of
intentions and were basically brainwashed to the point that their child
almost died and has serious longterm repercussions.
If you get upset easily (as I did), it's probably not such a good idea to
read it unless you're seriously considering Ezzoing or seriously concerned
about someone who is...There are a few footnotes and leads to other
sites/cites at the end of the article.
Carolyn
------- Forwarded message follows -------
Michael & Michelle Hsieh
4325 127th Pl. SE
Everett, WA 98208
(425) 357-8557
mahsieh@...
AN OPEN LETTER REGARDING THE DANGERS OF PREPARATION FOR PARENTING
(BABYWISE)
The following is Matthew Hsieh's history as described by his parents,
Michael & Michelle Hsieh, April 1999.
The purpose of this letter is to generate public awareness about yet
another child who has surely suffered due to following a Christian
parenting program entitled Preparation for Parenting/Preparation for the
Toddler Years (secular versions marketed in stores as On Becoming
BabyWise 1 & 2) by Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo1. We hope that knowledge of
his case can be used to promote existing and future efforts to inform
communities of the extremely serious dangers associated with following
the Ezzos' program, even in its newest editions. It is our hope that, as
awareness grows, popularity for its teachings will diminish to the
extent that most churches will no longer promote or choose to be
affiliated with them.
Initially, we would like to qualify a couple of points. We are both
college graduates from prestigious universities. Michelle has a business
degree with an accounting concentration from the University of
Washington (a rigorous and highly acclaimed program), and Michael has a
mechanical engineering degree from the University of California,
Berkeley. He currently works in international sales in the high-tech
industry, while Michelle is currently a full-time mom. We point this out
to say that we are not uneducated, fly-by-night, take-whatever-we-hear-
as-gospel types of people. In fact, we have always prided ourselves on
possessing strong common sense, thinking things through in an analytical
manner, and distinguishing between right and wrong. Secondly, we want to
stress that the classes we attended were, and still are as of this
writing, the most up-to-date versions of the program. For instance, the
program's infant feeding schedules have been revised to suggest feeding
every two-and-one-half to three hours and to incorporate "flexibility,"
yet the overall message is indeed the very same as in earlier editions
(it was shocking to us to learn what they used to recommend!). Major
problems still exist with following the Ezzos' parenting program.
Matthew was born March 26, 1998. Just prior to his birth, we took the
first parenting class, Preparation for Parenting (Prep), in a series of
what was promoted to be the most Christian-based, medically accurate
parenting information. We took the second class, Preparation for the
Toddler Years, a couple of months later. As first time parents, we were
excited about applying the principles, thereby raising our children to
be both loving and obedient. The messages were strong and clear, and the
boastful claims of thousands of parents correctly applying the
principles with only optimum results left little room for debate or need
to question the material. A couple of times we remember hearing there
was controversy regarding the program, but we were encouraged to dismiss
it as coming from parents not using good judgement or incorrectly
applying the principles, or as simply "secular" society's attack due to
the program's Christian affiliation.
Other than his first week, Matthew's first two months went rather
smoothly. His first week was tough, and, looking back, it should have
been our first indication not to follow the feeding schedule we were
taught in Prep. We should point out that Matthew was a small newborn.
Although he was full-term and healthy, he was just under six pounds at
birth, possibly due to low amniotic fluid levels, which, although not
significantly alarming, prompted the obstetrician to induce labor eleven
days early. (Induction is a relatively common practice, and Matthew was
still considered full-term.) Matthew was born on a Thursday; we were
discharged on Friday, and yet, during that first week of life, we were
back at the hospital every day but one. In his third day, he already
appeared to be losing a little too much weight too quickly, and he was
getting increasingly jaundiced. His before/after nursing weights
indicated that he was getting adequate amounts of breastmilk, even
though he was found to be an extremely efficient eater-normally five
minutes on one side, and he was done. However, telling the lactation
consultants and nurses that he was fed every two-and-one-half to three
hours gave them the intended message that he was being fed on demand.
Yet, "we knew better"-demand feeding was unhealthy, and we were using
the Ezzos' parent-directed feeding (PDF) approach.
Tuesday his jaundice was severe enough to require hospitalization, and
while there our pediatrician also had mother-baby compatibility tests
performed to see if his body was rejecting Michelle's milk-tests were
normal. We were sent home the following day but continued on home photo-
therapy for the following couple of days. This required a daily visit
from a nurse. Michelle remembers them telling us 1) to be sure to feed
on demand, 2) not to press beyond the two-and-one-half- to three-hour
mark, and 3) to monitor (actually document) all feeding times and
wet/poopy diapers. Again, we chose to ignore the feeding on demand
advice due to our "medically supported training," but we did make sure
to feed him in the time frame suggested, as this went right along with
PDF.
Ignoring this advice to feed on demand (or cue) was our FIRST BIG
MISTAKE. However, despite our scheduled feedings, Matthew's jaundice did
clear up, and his wet/poopy diapers met the minimum number, although
they did seem fairly "weightless." As new parents having no experience
to compare it against, we assumed infants just eliminated very tiny
amounts fairly often. Things continued this way through his two month
appointment, where his weight registered in the twenty-fifth percentile.
Although his nursing continued to be short in length, the milk supply
seemed adequate, and Matthew was fairly content.
Things slowly began to change at this point. Matthew became more
fussy/irritable and Michelle found herself always questioning her milk
supply, wondering if he had colic or excess gas (we tried Mylicon Drops)
or was just overtired. She began pumping regularly, hopefully to ensure
sufficient milk supply, and also tried supplementing with a bottle, but
he repeatedly and vehemently refused, becoming so upset that he would
even refuse the breast at that feeding. Many times Michelle's intuition
told her that Matthew was hungry before the scheduled time, yet she
chose to ignore those signals and instead comfort him back to sleep, due
to the Ezzos' scheduled feeding philosophies, which had been drilled
into us. Our training specifically said that regularly feeding him
sooner than our schedule would interrupt his hunger, digestive, and
sleep/wake cycles, causing him to be a snacker, and this would just be
unhealthy for him (and us) overall. We had no reason to argue with this
supposed medically-backed advice. On very rare occasions, Michelle would
exercise "flexibility" and feed him before "time" due to his
uncontrollable cries, but most often he would "submit" to her comforting
him to sleep.
It was at Matthew's three-month (possibly between three & four months)
check-up that we discovered his weight, in terms of percentiles, had
plummeted. He had dropped off the charts altogether. To say the least,
we were very alarmed, as he was soon diagnosed as "Failure to Thrive"
(FTT). Again, when asked about nursing frequencies, we answered every
two-and-one-half to three hours and of the lack of success in getting
him to supplement with a bottle. We were told that as long as we had
always fed on demand, Michelle's supply should meet his needs. We were
told to continue as we were, and to come in for frequent weight checks
between well-child appointments. During this time Matthew's temperament
had evened out a bit, and once again he seemed fairly content. What we
now believe, in fact, to have been the case was that Matthew had become
resigned to taking only small amounts of milk-not nearly close to what
he needed to "thrive."
We began introducing solid food, which Matthew took to very eagerly. We
hoped this would help him to put on some more weight. We again followed
the strict suggestions for proper training from our parenting class, and
encouraged Matthew to keep his hands down while we spoon fed him. He did
NOT like this, but we were encouraged to persevere, as our training had
indicated that he could and would learn to keep his hands down and out
of/away from his food.
This was our SECOND BIG MISTAKE. He did, in fact, learn to submit to
keeping his hands down (or our holding them down), but his interest in
food was quickly diminishing. At six months, we knew beyond a doubt that
he was still getting far below adequate amounts of milk (we rented a
highly accurate scale and did before- and after-feeding weights to get
his total intake for twenty-four-hour periods), and felt we had no other
choice but to keep feeding him solids as well. His growth had not
improved, and he was still off the charts.
More and more, Matthew was losing interest in nursing, while still
refusing outside supplementation by bottle or cup. It was obvious that
nursing was not a "comfort" to him, as Michelle had always read and
heard it to be for other babies (a trust issue). It was increasingly
common for him to arch his back and display other obvious signs that he
did not want to nurse any longer-just a couple of minutes every four
hours or so, and he had enough. His back arching was interpreted as a
possible sign of acid reflux, so we tried Zantac but experienced no
change in behavior.
If we had rigidly been following the Ezzos' advice in this scenario, we
would have punished him for his defiant arching. However, Michelle was
unwilling to punish Matthew for this, in fear that it would cause him to
reject nourishment even more. At this time (still about six months)
Michelle was placed on Metaclopramide, a generic form of Reglin, to
increase her milk supply. It worked wonders. It was obvious through
pumping that she now had plenty of milk. However, Matthew's behavior
about nursing did not change. For so long he had resigned himself to
small amounts, we believe he had learned to feel full on that
insufficient amount of milk.
Things continued like this until Matthew was nine-and-one-half months
old. He was learning up through this time to supplement breastfeeding by
taking formula from a cup, but again, extremely small amounts of maybe
an ounce or two. His spoon-fed and fingerfoods were, however, on the
decline to the point where he would refuse to swallow the spoon-fed food
we did get in, and wanted nothing to do with fingerfoods. Then, within a
two-day period, Matthew stopped nursing altogether (apparently due to
Michelle becoming pregnant, which changes breastmilk flavor). Over the
next week he became increasingly dehydrated, with a fever above 103-104
degrees. He would take perhaps eight ounces of formula over the whole
day, and, still to his dislike, we continued to spoon feed him until he
would protest too loudly or stop swallowing. We felt we had no choice
but to push the baby foods, as we were so concerned with his lack of
formula intake. With his continued rapid decline in
energy/health/weight, he was admitted to Children's Hospital to begin
naso-gastric (NG) tube feedings. He was released from the hospital after
4 days but has remained on the NG tube.
To say the least, these last months with him on the NG tube have been
the hardest ever. There were times that he was throwing up so much we
didn't know if he would make it. However, with the proper amounts of
nourishment, his weight has begun to climb dramatically, along with his
energy and disposition. At the beginning of the tube feedings, he was
almost ten months old and weighed a mere fourteen pounds, eleven ounces.
(If he had continued following the curve he set in his first couple of
months, he would've been just shy of 20lbs at this point.) At twelve
months, he showed significant progress, weighing in at a wonderful
eighteen pounds (still off the charts, but getting closer).
During this time, we spent a lot of time reflecting on what brought a
perfectly healthy baby boy to this state of complete food
aversion/infant anorexia. He has undergone every test (a grueling
process) to rule out medical problems, which left us with an unexplained
"behavioral" diagnosis. It was then that a chance reading of an article
warning against Babywise in a local paper led Michelle to do a little
more research into the Ezzos' parenting program that we had been so sold
on.
What we found was astonishing. Matthew is just one of hundreds who have
been diagnosed with improper weight gain or "Failure to Thrive"
associated with this program. We were not just looking for somewhere to
put the blame. We had complete respect for the Ezzos and their methods.
Friends have followed through with the program with only "success." In
our hearts, we just knew, as we looked back over his history, analyzed
medical reports and other articles, that this program indeed was the
significant reason for his problems.
We cannot begin to explain the feelings of anger, guilt, and remorse
that accompany the realization that due to some very improper and
unsound medical advice and child-rearing techniques, our son has had to
endure so much. "Unpleasant" doesn't even come close to describing how
it feels to force this unnatural tube down our son's nose as he is held
there screaming, only to have to do it again if he pulls it out or,
worse, throws it up. And to think that it has been recommended and is
quite probable that we will have to proceed with the invasive surgery
for the more permanent stomach tube.
It is our firm opinion that the Ezzos lack the background and,
therefore, the authority to be preaching about step-by-step methods for
raising an infant into a thriving toddler. They allow no room for
individual temperament, size (premies, low birth weight babies, etc.),
stomach capacity and digestion speed, along with a variety of other
factors. When their program doesn't work just right, or they are
notified of cases of low weight gain, the Ezzos immediately seem to
attribute it to the parents (a guilt trip) for either not following
teachings correctly, or following them too rigidly, which is
contradictory. It has been proven that there is a 300% variation among
mothers for storage capacity of breastmilk2. Those with larger
capacities can more often nurse at longer intervals, whereas women with
smaller capacities need to nurse much more frequently. Most importantly,
it was noted that all women in these studies had the ability to produce
plenty of milk over twenty-four hours; what varied was the maximum
amount they could deliver at one sitting. It is also known that if an
infant is fed on demand, more appropriately titled "cue feeding," during
the first couple of months, the mother is much more likely to establish
appropriate milk quantities. We were taught to ignore those "cues." Yes,
we were told to incorporate some "flexibility" when the child was
obviously hungry (like crying to be fed), or when it was to suit our own
needs. However, the Ezzos' definition of demand feeding as feeding a
baby only when it cries is simply wrong. In fact, demand feeding is
actually recognizing the child's hunger cues (before crying, as crying
is often a late sign of hunger3) and feeding them accordingly. We
remember those cues vividly, and yet ignored them and tried to pacify
Matthew in other ways until his "appropriate" feeding time. How very
sadly wrong we were.
How obviously wrong we were again to choose to follow the seemingly
medical and biblical advice of the Ezzos in Preparation for the Toddler
Years. Here we were taught to teach our child appropriate "highchair
manners" of holding his hands down while he was being fed, and again it
was said all children can learn obedience in this area. Health and
medical professionals in the feeding therapy arena would all say this is
actually one of the worst things one can do. A child naturally wants to
touch, experiment, etc.-this is a developmental stage/activity all
children should be allowed to experiment with. Is avoiding a messy floor
or table to teach compliance worth the possible costs? Yes, some infants
and maybe even most will learn to be happy to let you hold their hands
down while spoon feeding and then to let them experiment after with
finger foods. But, it can be argued, is this really success? Or, is
success worth the possible cost of later food aversion? Let us tell you,
it most definitely is not! We remember heartily laughing at a friend
who, having not taken the parenting program offered by the Ezzos, often
had to give her six-month-old a bath after a feeding. "How do you keep
him from exploring with the food and keep it out of his hair?" she would
ask. We would simply think how much extra work she was creating for
herself by allowing her child to be, as the Ezzos might describe, "out
of control and sinful." Her child is now a healthy, well-behaved one-
year-old, and that laugh was sadly at our own expense.
So, did we have success with the parenting program? Obviously not. Do
others have success? Some think they do, as their children learn to be
fed on schedules, sleep through the night, and otherwise be "obedient."
However, is there a long term cost of this obedience? Have bond and
trust areas been unknowingly damaged? We really wonder. There are plenty
of good parenting books and classes, but any one of those that comes
across as if theirs is the only good way (for it is God's way, right?),
not only has a lot of nerve but should be questioned in other areas as
well. If readers take the time to do this, we are confident that they
will find not only that many of the Ezzos' ideas on parenting are being
widely questioned as unreliable and outright wrong, but that deeper
issues of integrity, accountability, and honesty are also in question.
And, contrary to what we were told about "secular" criticism, much of
the questioning has come from within the Christian community.
Please, don't just take our word for it. Do your own research. When you
are finished, we believe you will draw the same conclusions we have. We
thought we were following sound parenting information and doing what was
proclaimed to be in the best interest of our son. We could not have been
more wrong, and we will always live with that knowledge. We now believe
nursing on demand, especially in the early months of life, is among the
most critical things one can do for the long-term health and well-being
of their child. The harm that has been associated with the Ezzos'
parent-directed feeding schedules is not always easily undone, and is
simply not worth the potential risks. No other child or parents deserve
to endure what we have suffered.
It is our sincere prayer that as awareness of the controversies and
problems with the Ezzos' Preparation for Parenting and Preparation for
the Toddler Years (On Becoming BabyWise, books 1 & 2) programs
increases, the followers will decrease.
For more information, you may contact us at the address, phone number,
or e-mail given below. Here is also a short list of the many
articles/commentaries regarding the Ezzos' parenting programs. A full
bibliography of information relating to this subject may be found at the
following website: http://www.mailing-list.net/redrhino/Ezzo/Files.html
Michael & Michelle Hsieh
4235 127th Pl. SE
Everett, WA 98208
(425) 357-8557
* "Babies in Danger?" by Jenny Deam, Ladies Home Journal, April, 1999,
pp. 102, 104, 106, 189.
* "Getting Wise to 'Babywise,'" by Katie Allison Granju, Salon, August
6, 1998. http://www.salonmagazine.com/MWT/feature/1998/08/cov_06feature
.html
* "More than a Parenting Ministry: The Cultic Characteristics of Growing
Families International," by Kathleen Terner and Elliot Miller, Christian
Research Journal, April-June 1998, pp. 11-19, 27, 43-45. Synopsis and
ordering information: http: //www.fix.net/~rprewett/CRI.html Publisher:
Christian Research Institute, (888) 7000-CRI, http://www.equip.org
* "Babywise advice linked to dehydration, failure to thrive," by Matthew
Aney, MD, AAP News, Volume 14, No. 4, April 1998, p. 21
* "Examining the Evidence for Cue Feeding of Breastfed Infants," by Lisa
Marasco, BA, IBCLC and Jan Barger, MA, RN, IBCLC. http://www.fix.net/~r
prewett/evidence.html
1 The BabyWise books list Gary Ezzo and Robert Bucknam, M.D., as
authors, but their content is virtually the same as Gary and Anne Marie
Ezzos' books Preparation for Parenting and Preparation for the Toddler
Years, with religious references removed.
2 See "Examining the Evidence for Cue feeding of Breastfed Infants" by
Lisa Marasco, BA, IBCLC, and Jan Barger, MA, RN, IBCLC at http://www.fix
.net/~rprewett/evidence.html.
3 See "Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk (RE9729)," the December
1997 statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
--
We lived in University City, 47th and Pine to be precise. At least a murder
a year on our block, in addition to countless car thefts, muggings, the
everyday occurence of unleashed pit bulls who you know weren't trained to be
sweet and friendly roaming the streets, and oil collecting on our window
screens and probably our lungs blowing up from the refineries in South
Philly.
Boring, strange suburban life down here seems like a party every day
compared to that. Suburban Phila is of course not as bad as where we were.
We even looked in Lansdowne but couldn't afford anything that wasn't falling
apart and would need renovations that we couldn't afford!
Ezzo. Hmmm....Below I've copied two articles from another list I'm on,
from a member in the UK who's very concerned that Babywise not spread to her
shores. She's been working with Penelope Leach, actually, on this.
The first is from the London Independent, and the second is just a public
release, not published anywhere. But it tells the story of Ezzoing from an
inside perspective. You'll see.
The Independent (London)
September 24, 1999, Friday
HEADLINE: SMACK THE CHILD, PRAISE THE LORD!; A CALIFORNIAN COUPLE
BELIEVE BABIES SHOULD BE BEATEN INTO OBEDIENCE. NOW THEY ARE BRINGING
THEIR METHODS TO BRITAIN. AND CHILDCARE EXPERT PENELOPE LEACH IS LEADING
THE BATTLE TO KEEP THEM AWAY. BY MARY BRAID
Gary and Ann Marie Ezzo have caused a storm in the United States with
their controversial programme for bringing up baby the Lord's way, with
critics claiming their extreme views have resulted in infants being
rushed to hospital suffering from severe malnutrition and dehydration.
A month before they wash up on British shores, bringing their strict
child-rearing "first-time obedience" programme in which even babies get
a taste of corporal punishment, the evangelical couple from California
are already being roundly denounced. "I don't want them over here
speaking to our parents," says the British child -care expert Penelope
Leach, already the Ezzos' arch enemy on the US conference circuit.
Leach makes no apologies for sounding draconian about the Ezzos, whom
she condemned this week at a BMA children's conference in London.
"Everyone has a right to their opinion until it amounts to cruelty to
babies," she says. "What they say should carry a government health
warning."
The antipathy is mutual. Gary Ezzo claims parental indulgence has
brought "moral decline" to the US and Britain. He sees Leach as the
devil's agent and will, in turn, denounce her child-centred philosophy
at public appearances in Britain next month.
The Ezzos look benign enough, if a touch over-starched. Mrs Ezzo, a
nurse, favours chaste Puritan lace collars and her husband a scrubbed,
closely shorn Mormon look. A few years ago the couple were nobodies.
Then they started parenting classes at their local church, apparently
because their own well-disciplined brood was the envy of the
congregation.
Business has boomed as American parents have clamoured for the Ezzos'
heavily Christian teaching materials, and their secular books in which
God gets hardly a mention on the journey to the lucrative wider market.
Their promise of well -behaved children, who sleep through the night,
has created the multimillion-dollar "ministry" Growing Families
International.
It is easy to see why the Ezzos are reviled by the child-care
establishment. In On Becoming Babywise, a best-seller in the States,
they decree that babies as young as eight months can be taught high-
chair manners, such as special Ezzo "signs" for "please" and "thank
you", and to sit up straight with their arms by their sides. They
recommend that baby's arms are held in position until the message sinks
in.
That the difference between right and wrong cannot yet be appreciated
should not prevent morally degenerative behaviour being stamped out, so
parents must stop babies banging on high-chair tables, flipping over
plates and wilfully arching their backs, by swotting baby's hand or
squeezing it until "it causes discomfort".
It is best to obey at the earliest opportunity for the corporal
punishment stakes rise as baby grows.
At 18 months children should be smacked for poor table manners, with a
plastic spatula to "inflict pain but not break bones or damage skin
tissue". And if that causes tears, mothers should not worry because "God
did not intervene when His Son cried out on the cross".
The Ezzos advise parents to put themselves first and make baby fit their
routine, which might explain why their message drifted from the pews to
the mass market.
"Teach the child to obey according to the character of true obedience,
immediately, completely, without challenge and without complaint," they
advise, warning parents not to cuddle too much or to follow the Leach
principle of feeding on demand unless they want to be slaves to their
children.
They recommend feeding every four hours and offer a method that promises
to have a new baby soon sleeping through the night.
The Ezzos have horrified child development experts by advising mothers
to leave even six-month-olds alone in their playpens for up to 30
minutes, twice a day. To avoid "unhealthy attachment", mothers must stay
out of sight and persevere even through tears. "(If left to cry) your
baby will not lose brain cells, experience a drop in IQ or have feelings
of rejection that will leave him manic depressive at age 30," states
Babywise. Their strictest - and surely most unrealistic - dictum is that
a child not potty trained by two and a half must be made to take
responsibility for cleaning up its own mess.
According to Arthur Roderick, of the Maranatha Foundation for Christian
Education Europe, the Swindon-based evangelical organisation which is
bringing the Ezzos to Britain, the couple are misunderstood and
misrepresented. He claims to have seen nothing about toddlers cleaning
up their own mess or any other extreme advice in the materials the Ezzos
have sent to him. Of allegations that children on the Ezzo programme
have been hospitalised, Mr Roderick says the Ezzos cannot be responsible
for "disciples that go ten times further" than they recommend.
The couple, who say the British press is prejudiced [Praise the Lord
they are!], are not giving interviews before they arrive on 27 October
but Mr Roderick says they have the support of mainstream American
evangelical churches. It is not so. The Ezzos have divided evangelical
Christians. Their former church has distanced itself from their
programme and leading Christian figures claim they are distorting
scripture. The American Association of Paediatricians has received a
flood of complaints about the couple, and is currently investigating
their methods.
Earlier this year The Washington Post printed some worrying messages
posted on the Ezzos' website which suggested their programme was being
over-zealously applied, especially by those who seem to believe it
carries the Lord's endorsement. One exasperated mother complained that
her two- year-old was still disobedient despite the welts on her bottom.
A father said that even after discipline his 13-month-old daughter was
still refusing to give the Ezzo sign for "all done" after eating, and a
mother said she was astonished that her six-month-old had begun to arch
her back in her high chair. "It's sad to see that they are really
sinners," she wrote.
While Leach insists that the most worrying aspect of the Ezzos' theory
is that it interferes with normal child development, one mother told The
Washington Post that she felt the Ezzo programme had turned her
offspring into "Stepford children". But every attack on the Ezzos brings
a little flurry of complaints from American parents who claim their
advice transformed a difficult baby.
Mr Roderick, who supplies teaching materials to 40 independent
evangelical schools in Britain and 400 Christian families who teach
their children at home, is the only distributor in Britain of the Ezzo
programme. He swears by it. His own nine grandchildren - all under four
- are on it and well-behaved. Corporal punishment, he insists, is only a
small element in the philosophy but a useful deterrent for "a wayward or
sinful child". Without proper discipline, he argues, we will always
have "13-year-old boys impregnating 12-year-old girls" [Note: recently,
two 12yo girls were reported pregnant in the UK media. Later, one of the
fathers, a 23yo, was prosecuted for actual and statutory rape. The other
child was the product of a violent and abusive father].
Surely it is an overreaction to think that the programme, despite its
popularity in America, will reach the mainstream in less loopy Britain?
Leach warns against complacency. Smacking is still popular with British
parents - about 75 per cent still smack the under-ones. Offering a
simple message in complicated times, the Ezzo programme, Leach warns,
could well find a home on deprived, desperate sink estates, especially
when Tony Blair's government has such "unreasonable expectations" of
parents.
Rachel Hodgkin, senior policy officer with the National Children's
Bureau and a supporter of the anti-corporal punishment campaign Epoch,
urges the Government to condemn the Ezzo methods ahead of the visit. "As
far as I can see, it is all about breaking a child's spirit as early as
you can," she says. "It should be taken seriously. I think the
Department of Health should come out and say that this amounts to
emotional and physical neglect of babies."
*****************
*****************
And now, the second post, which is graphic and quite disturbing. I include
it partially for Faith, since these folks went into this with the best of
intentions and were basically brainwashed to the point that their child
almost died and has serious longterm repercussions.
If you get upset easily (as I did), it's probably not such a good idea to
read it unless you're seriously considering Ezzoing or seriously concerned
about someone who is...There are a few footnotes and leads to other
sites/cites at the end of the article.
Carolyn
------- Forwarded message follows -------
Michael & Michelle Hsieh
4325 127th Pl. SE
Everett, WA 98208
(425) 357-8557
mahsieh@...
AN OPEN LETTER REGARDING THE DANGERS OF PREPARATION FOR PARENTING
(BABYWISE)
The following is Matthew Hsieh's history as described by his parents,
Michael & Michelle Hsieh, April 1999.
The purpose of this letter is to generate public awareness about yet
another child who has surely suffered due to following a Christian
parenting program entitled Preparation for Parenting/Preparation for the
Toddler Years (secular versions marketed in stores as On Becoming
BabyWise 1 & 2) by Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo1. We hope that knowledge of
his case can be used to promote existing and future efforts to inform
communities of the extremely serious dangers associated with following
the Ezzos' program, even in its newest editions. It is our hope that, as
awareness grows, popularity for its teachings will diminish to the
extent that most churches will no longer promote or choose to be
affiliated with them.
Initially, we would like to qualify a couple of points. We are both
college graduates from prestigious universities. Michelle has a business
degree with an accounting concentration from the University of
Washington (a rigorous and highly acclaimed program), and Michael has a
mechanical engineering degree from the University of California,
Berkeley. He currently works in international sales in the high-tech
industry, while Michelle is currently a full-time mom. We point this out
to say that we are not uneducated, fly-by-night, take-whatever-we-hear-
as-gospel types of people. In fact, we have always prided ourselves on
possessing strong common sense, thinking things through in an analytical
manner, and distinguishing between right and wrong. Secondly, we want to
stress that the classes we attended were, and still are as of this
writing, the most up-to-date versions of the program. For instance, the
program's infant feeding schedules have been revised to suggest feeding
every two-and-one-half to three hours and to incorporate "flexibility,"
yet the overall message is indeed the very same as in earlier editions
(it was shocking to us to learn what they used to recommend!). Major
problems still exist with following the Ezzos' parenting program.
Matthew was born March 26, 1998. Just prior to his birth, we took the
first parenting class, Preparation for Parenting (Prep), in a series of
what was promoted to be the most Christian-based, medically accurate
parenting information. We took the second class, Preparation for the
Toddler Years, a couple of months later. As first time parents, we were
excited about applying the principles, thereby raising our children to
be both loving and obedient. The messages were strong and clear, and the
boastful claims of thousands of parents correctly applying the
principles with only optimum results left little room for debate or need
to question the material. A couple of times we remember hearing there
was controversy regarding the program, but we were encouraged to dismiss
it as coming from parents not using good judgement or incorrectly
applying the principles, or as simply "secular" society's attack due to
the program's Christian affiliation.
Other than his first week, Matthew's first two months went rather
smoothly. His first week was tough, and, looking back, it should have
been our first indication not to follow the feeding schedule we were
taught in Prep. We should point out that Matthew was a small newborn.
Although he was full-term and healthy, he was just under six pounds at
birth, possibly due to low amniotic fluid levels, which, although not
significantly alarming, prompted the obstetrician to induce labor eleven
days early. (Induction is a relatively common practice, and Matthew was
still considered full-term.) Matthew was born on a Thursday; we were
discharged on Friday, and yet, during that first week of life, we were
back at the hospital every day but one. In his third day, he already
appeared to be losing a little too much weight too quickly, and he was
getting increasingly jaundiced. His before/after nursing weights
indicated that he was getting adequate amounts of breastmilk, even
though he was found to be an extremely efficient eater-normally five
minutes on one side, and he was done. However, telling the lactation
consultants and nurses that he was fed every two-and-one-half to three
hours gave them the intended message that he was being fed on demand.
Yet, "we knew better"-demand feeding was unhealthy, and we were using
the Ezzos' parent-directed feeding (PDF) approach.
Tuesday his jaundice was severe enough to require hospitalization, and
while there our pediatrician also had mother-baby compatibility tests
performed to see if his body was rejecting Michelle's milk-tests were
normal. We were sent home the following day but continued on home photo-
therapy for the following couple of days. This required a daily visit
from a nurse. Michelle remembers them telling us 1) to be sure to feed
on demand, 2) not to press beyond the two-and-one-half- to three-hour
mark, and 3) to monitor (actually document) all feeding times and
wet/poopy diapers. Again, we chose to ignore the feeding on demand
advice due to our "medically supported training," but we did make sure
to feed him in the time frame suggested, as this went right along with
PDF.
Ignoring this advice to feed on demand (or cue) was our FIRST BIG
MISTAKE. However, despite our scheduled feedings, Matthew's jaundice did
clear up, and his wet/poopy diapers met the minimum number, although
they did seem fairly "weightless." As new parents having no experience
to compare it against, we assumed infants just eliminated very tiny
amounts fairly often. Things continued this way through his two month
appointment, where his weight registered in the twenty-fifth percentile.
Although his nursing continued to be short in length, the milk supply
seemed adequate, and Matthew was fairly content.
Things slowly began to change at this point. Matthew became more
fussy/irritable and Michelle found herself always questioning her milk
supply, wondering if he had colic or excess gas (we tried Mylicon Drops)
or was just overtired. She began pumping regularly, hopefully to ensure
sufficient milk supply, and also tried supplementing with a bottle, but
he repeatedly and vehemently refused, becoming so upset that he would
even refuse the breast at that feeding. Many times Michelle's intuition
told her that Matthew was hungry before the scheduled time, yet she
chose to ignore those signals and instead comfort him back to sleep, due
to the Ezzos' scheduled feeding philosophies, which had been drilled
into us. Our training specifically said that regularly feeding him
sooner than our schedule would interrupt his hunger, digestive, and
sleep/wake cycles, causing him to be a snacker, and this would just be
unhealthy for him (and us) overall. We had no reason to argue with this
supposed medically-backed advice. On very rare occasions, Michelle would
exercise "flexibility" and feed him before "time" due to his
uncontrollable cries, but most often he would "submit" to her comforting
him to sleep.
It was at Matthew's three-month (possibly between three & four months)
check-up that we discovered his weight, in terms of percentiles, had
plummeted. He had dropped off the charts altogether. To say the least,
we were very alarmed, as he was soon diagnosed as "Failure to Thrive"
(FTT). Again, when asked about nursing frequencies, we answered every
two-and-one-half to three hours and of the lack of success in getting
him to supplement with a bottle. We were told that as long as we had
always fed on demand, Michelle's supply should meet his needs. We were
told to continue as we were, and to come in for frequent weight checks
between well-child appointments. During this time Matthew's temperament
had evened out a bit, and once again he seemed fairly content. What we
now believe, in fact, to have been the case was that Matthew had become
resigned to taking only small amounts of milk-not nearly close to what
he needed to "thrive."
We began introducing solid food, which Matthew took to very eagerly. We
hoped this would help him to put on some more weight. We again followed
the strict suggestions for proper training from our parenting class, and
encouraged Matthew to keep his hands down while we spoon fed him. He did
NOT like this, but we were encouraged to persevere, as our training had
indicated that he could and would learn to keep his hands down and out
of/away from his food.
This was our SECOND BIG MISTAKE. He did, in fact, learn to submit to
keeping his hands down (or our holding them down), but his interest in
food was quickly diminishing. At six months, we knew beyond a doubt that
he was still getting far below adequate amounts of milk (we rented a
highly accurate scale and did before- and after-feeding weights to get
his total intake for twenty-four-hour periods), and felt we had no other
choice but to keep feeding him solids as well. His growth had not
improved, and he was still off the charts.
More and more, Matthew was losing interest in nursing, while still
refusing outside supplementation by bottle or cup. It was obvious that
nursing was not a "comfort" to him, as Michelle had always read and
heard it to be for other babies (a trust issue). It was increasingly
common for him to arch his back and display other obvious signs that he
did not want to nurse any longer-just a couple of minutes every four
hours or so, and he had enough. His back arching was interpreted as a
possible sign of acid reflux, so we tried Zantac but experienced no
change in behavior.
If we had rigidly been following the Ezzos' advice in this scenario, we
would have punished him for his defiant arching. However, Michelle was
unwilling to punish Matthew for this, in fear that it would cause him to
reject nourishment even more. At this time (still about six months)
Michelle was placed on Metaclopramide, a generic form of Reglin, to
increase her milk supply. It worked wonders. It was obvious through
pumping that she now had plenty of milk. However, Matthew's behavior
about nursing did not change. For so long he had resigned himself to
small amounts, we believe he had learned to feel full on that
insufficient amount of milk.
Things continued like this until Matthew was nine-and-one-half months
old. He was learning up through this time to supplement breastfeeding by
taking formula from a cup, but again, extremely small amounts of maybe
an ounce or two. His spoon-fed and fingerfoods were, however, on the
decline to the point where he would refuse to swallow the spoon-fed food
we did get in, and wanted nothing to do with fingerfoods. Then, within a
two-day period, Matthew stopped nursing altogether (apparently due to
Michelle becoming pregnant, which changes breastmilk flavor). Over the
next week he became increasingly dehydrated, with a fever above 103-104
degrees. He would take perhaps eight ounces of formula over the whole
day, and, still to his dislike, we continued to spoon feed him until he
would protest too loudly or stop swallowing. We felt we had no choice
but to push the baby foods, as we were so concerned with his lack of
formula intake. With his continued rapid decline in
energy/health/weight, he was admitted to Children's Hospital to begin
naso-gastric (NG) tube feedings. He was released from the hospital after
4 days but has remained on the NG tube.
To say the least, these last months with him on the NG tube have been
the hardest ever. There were times that he was throwing up so much we
didn't know if he would make it. However, with the proper amounts of
nourishment, his weight has begun to climb dramatically, along with his
energy and disposition. At the beginning of the tube feedings, he was
almost ten months old and weighed a mere fourteen pounds, eleven ounces.
(If he had continued following the curve he set in his first couple of
months, he would've been just shy of 20lbs at this point.) At twelve
months, he showed significant progress, weighing in at a wonderful
eighteen pounds (still off the charts, but getting closer).
During this time, we spent a lot of time reflecting on what brought a
perfectly healthy baby boy to this state of complete food
aversion/infant anorexia. He has undergone every test (a grueling
process) to rule out medical problems, which left us with an unexplained
"behavioral" diagnosis. It was then that a chance reading of an article
warning against Babywise in a local paper led Michelle to do a little
more research into the Ezzos' parenting program that we had been so sold
on.
What we found was astonishing. Matthew is just one of hundreds who have
been diagnosed with improper weight gain or "Failure to Thrive"
associated with this program. We were not just looking for somewhere to
put the blame. We had complete respect for the Ezzos and their methods.
Friends have followed through with the program with only "success." In
our hearts, we just knew, as we looked back over his history, analyzed
medical reports and other articles, that this program indeed was the
significant reason for his problems.
We cannot begin to explain the feelings of anger, guilt, and remorse
that accompany the realization that due to some very improper and
unsound medical advice and child-rearing techniques, our son has had to
endure so much. "Unpleasant" doesn't even come close to describing how
it feels to force this unnatural tube down our son's nose as he is held
there screaming, only to have to do it again if he pulls it out or,
worse, throws it up. And to think that it has been recommended and is
quite probable that we will have to proceed with the invasive surgery
for the more permanent stomach tube.
It is our firm opinion that the Ezzos lack the background and,
therefore, the authority to be preaching about step-by-step methods for
raising an infant into a thriving toddler. They allow no room for
individual temperament, size (premies, low birth weight babies, etc.),
stomach capacity and digestion speed, along with a variety of other
factors. When their program doesn't work just right, or they are
notified of cases of low weight gain, the Ezzos immediately seem to
attribute it to the parents (a guilt trip) for either not following
teachings correctly, or following them too rigidly, which is
contradictory. It has been proven that there is a 300% variation among
mothers for storage capacity of breastmilk2. Those with larger
capacities can more often nurse at longer intervals, whereas women with
smaller capacities need to nurse much more frequently. Most importantly,
it was noted that all women in these studies had the ability to produce
plenty of milk over twenty-four hours; what varied was the maximum
amount they could deliver at one sitting. It is also known that if an
infant is fed on demand, more appropriately titled "cue feeding," during
the first couple of months, the mother is much more likely to establish
appropriate milk quantities. We were taught to ignore those "cues." Yes,
we were told to incorporate some "flexibility" when the child was
obviously hungry (like crying to be fed), or when it was to suit our own
needs. However, the Ezzos' definition of demand feeding as feeding a
baby only when it cries is simply wrong. In fact, demand feeding is
actually recognizing the child's hunger cues (before crying, as crying
is often a late sign of hunger3) and feeding them accordingly. We
remember those cues vividly, and yet ignored them and tried to pacify
Matthew in other ways until his "appropriate" feeding time. How very
sadly wrong we were.
How obviously wrong we were again to choose to follow the seemingly
medical and biblical advice of the Ezzos in Preparation for the Toddler
Years. Here we were taught to teach our child appropriate "highchair
manners" of holding his hands down while he was being fed, and again it
was said all children can learn obedience in this area. Health and
medical professionals in the feeding therapy arena would all say this is
actually one of the worst things one can do. A child naturally wants to
touch, experiment, etc.-this is a developmental stage/activity all
children should be allowed to experiment with. Is avoiding a messy floor
or table to teach compliance worth the possible costs? Yes, some infants
and maybe even most will learn to be happy to let you hold their hands
down while spoon feeding and then to let them experiment after with
finger foods. But, it can be argued, is this really success? Or, is
success worth the possible cost of later food aversion? Let us tell you,
it most definitely is not! We remember heartily laughing at a friend
who, having not taken the parenting program offered by the Ezzos, often
had to give her six-month-old a bath after a feeding. "How do you keep
him from exploring with the food and keep it out of his hair?" she would
ask. We would simply think how much extra work she was creating for
herself by allowing her child to be, as the Ezzos might describe, "out
of control and sinful." Her child is now a healthy, well-behaved one-
year-old, and that laugh was sadly at our own expense.
So, did we have success with the parenting program? Obviously not. Do
others have success? Some think they do, as their children learn to be
fed on schedules, sleep through the night, and otherwise be "obedient."
However, is there a long term cost of this obedience? Have bond and
trust areas been unknowingly damaged? We really wonder. There are plenty
of good parenting books and classes, but any one of those that comes
across as if theirs is the only good way (for it is God's way, right?),
not only has a lot of nerve but should be questioned in other areas as
well. If readers take the time to do this, we are confident that they
will find not only that many of the Ezzos' ideas on parenting are being
widely questioned as unreliable and outright wrong, but that deeper
issues of integrity, accountability, and honesty are also in question.
And, contrary to what we were told about "secular" criticism, much of
the questioning has come from within the Christian community.
Please, don't just take our word for it. Do your own research. When you
are finished, we believe you will draw the same conclusions we have. We
thought we were following sound parenting information and doing what was
proclaimed to be in the best interest of our son. We could not have been
more wrong, and we will always live with that knowledge. We now believe
nursing on demand, especially in the early months of life, is among the
most critical things one can do for the long-term health and well-being
of their child. The harm that has been associated with the Ezzos'
parent-directed feeding schedules is not always easily undone, and is
simply not worth the potential risks. No other child or parents deserve
to endure what we have suffered.
It is our sincere prayer that as awareness of the controversies and
problems with the Ezzos' Preparation for Parenting and Preparation for
the Toddler Years (On Becoming BabyWise, books 1 & 2) programs
increases, the followers will decrease.
For more information, you may contact us at the address, phone number,
or e-mail given below. Here is also a short list of the many
articles/commentaries regarding the Ezzos' parenting programs. A full
bibliography of information relating to this subject may be found at the
following website: http://www.mailing-list.net/redrhino/Ezzo/Files.html
Michael & Michelle Hsieh
4235 127th Pl. SE
Everett, WA 98208
(425) 357-8557
* "Babies in Danger?" by Jenny Deam, Ladies Home Journal, April, 1999,
pp. 102, 104, 106, 189.
* "Getting Wise to 'Babywise,'" by Katie Allison Granju, Salon, August
6, 1998. http://www.salonmagazine.com/MWT/feature/1998/08/cov_06feature
.html
* "More than a Parenting Ministry: The Cultic Characteristics of Growing
Families International," by Kathleen Terner and Elliot Miller, Christian
Research Journal, April-June 1998, pp. 11-19, 27, 43-45. Synopsis and
ordering information: http: //www.fix.net/~rprewett/CRI.html Publisher:
Christian Research Institute, (888) 7000-CRI, http://www.equip.org
* "Babywise advice linked to dehydration, failure to thrive," by Matthew
Aney, MD, AAP News, Volume 14, No. 4, April 1998, p. 21
* "Examining the Evidence for Cue Feeding of Breastfed Infants," by Lisa
Marasco, BA, IBCLC and Jan Barger, MA, RN, IBCLC. http://www.fix.net/~r
prewett/evidence.html
1 The BabyWise books list Gary Ezzo and Robert Bucknam, M.D., as
authors, but their content is virtually the same as Gary and Anne Marie
Ezzos' books Preparation for Parenting and Preparation for the Toddler
Years, with religious references removed.
2 See "Examining the Evidence for Cue feeding of Breastfed Infants" by
Lisa Marasco, BA, IBCLC, and Jan Barger, MA, RN, IBCLC at http://www.fix
.net/~rprewett/evidence.html.
3 See "Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk (RE9729)," the December
1997 statement of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
--