【插播】北卡罗来纳州医院委员会关于“PDF婴儿”的报告

Report on Preparation for Parentingand On Becoming BABYWISE

关于《Preparation for Parenting》与《On Becoming BABYWISE》的报告

Issued by a hospital in North Carolina who warned its pediatric department as well as a local church teaching the program of its dangers:由北卡罗来纳州一家医院发布。该医院向其儿科部门及一间教授该课程的当地教会发出警告，指出该课程存在潜在风险：

Issues felt to be inadequately supported by conventional medical practice:

被认为缺乏传统医学实践支持的问题：

1.Hunger patterns are discussed on page 78 and the terms “hunger metabolism” and “digestive metabolism” are not defined or scientifically supported. Where is the concern for low blood glucose levels in the newborn?

第78页讨论了“饥饿模式（hunger patterns）”，并使用了“饥饿代谢（hunger metabolism）”和“消化代谢（digestive metabolism）”等术语，但这些术语既未被明确定义，也缺乏科学依据。对于新生儿低血糖风险的关注体现在哪里？

2.By six months of age, babies should be on 3 meals per day. No mention of between meal fluids or snacks.

书中指出婴儿到六个月大时应当每天三餐，但未提及两餐之间的液体补充或加餐。

3.Guidelines are not always age specific. Specific needs of neonate (0-2 weeks old) not addressed. Rigid scheduling of feedings prior to maternal milk letdown can lead to low success rate of breastfeeding.

指南并非始终按年龄具体划分。未涉及新生儿（0–2周）的特殊需求。在母乳尚未充分分泌前实行严格的喂养时间表，可能会导致母乳喂养成功率降低。

4.We recommend observation of both voiding and stooling frequency as a means of monitoring infant intake. Only frequency of voiding is mentioned by the authors.

我们建议同时观察排尿和排便频率，以此作为监测婴儿摄入量的方法。而作者仅提到了排尿频率。

5.Regarding SIDS: the information concerning sleep position for infants is erroneous. Infants should always be placed on their backs to sleep. This practice has led to a significant decrease in SIDS.

关于婴儿猝死综合征（SIDS）：书中关于婴儿睡姿的信息是错误的。婴儿应始终仰卧入睡。该做法已显著降低SIDS的发生率。

6.The authors state that co-sleeping is always inappropriate. Medical evidence suggests that this is good for the breastfeeding mother and newborn.

作者声称共睡（co-sleeping）在任何情况下都是不合适的。但医学证据表明，这对哺乳期母亲和新生儿是有益的。

7.Controlled feedings in the first weeks of life can lead to dehydration and should not be encouraged.

在出生最初几周实行控制式喂养可能导致脱水，不应被鼓励。

8.The authors fail to give any scientific evidence to support their claims. What are their qualifications? They mention a La Leche League consultant, but not her qualifications.

作者未提供任何科学证据来支持其观点。他们的资质为何？书中提到一位母乳联盟（La Leche League）的顾问，但未说明其具体资质。

9.The authors state that the quality of breastmilk is inadequate in 5% of women. There is no scientific evidence to support this and, in fact, there is no way to really know what this figure might be.

作者声称5%的女性母乳质量不足。对此没有科学证据支持，事实上，目前也无法真正得出这样的比例。

10.The authors state that slings may cause developmental damage. There is no scientific evidence to support this.

作者声称使用婴儿背巾（slings）可能导致发育损伤。对此没有科学证据支持。

11.The committee supports community efforts to encourage loving and caring parents. It is felt that by giving consistent, sound information regarding breastfeeding and child development, we can improve the health and security of our children. Furthermore, by working together and sharing current valid clinical knowledge in this area, these efforts will be more successful. We cannot recommend the Preparation for Parenting course in its current version. If it is used, the educator should be quite careful in clarifying the inconsistencies noted above.

本委员会支持社区鼓励父母成为充满爱心与关怀的父母。我们认为，通过提供关于母乳喂养和儿童发展的持续、可靠的信息，可以改善儿童的健康与安全。此外，通过合作并分享当前有效的临床知识，这些努力将更加成功。我们无法推荐当前版本的《Preparation for Parenting》课程。如必须使用，教育者应谨慎澄清上述不一致之处。