Author/s: Peggy O'Mara
Issue: May-June, 2000

LAST WEEK I RECEIVED A CALL FROM a newspaper reporter who wanted to know what alternative parenting was and whether it was the same as attachment parenting. She seemed perplexed by the idea that parents would choose to do things differently from the dominant culture and wanted not only to understand why, but also to define specifically how they were doing this.

Having just written a book called Natural Family Living with Jane McConnell, I have been giving much thought to what these terms mean. I chose the title Natural Family Living for the book because it is encompassing and proactive rather than reactive.

For the sake of discussion, let's say that alternative parenting means doing things differently from the dominant culture. Attachment parenting, while it also involves doing things differently, has sprung up in response to our increased awareness of the importance of the psychological period of attachment that occurs during the first three to five years of life.

And natural family living means doing things in their most natural way.

Names and definitions, however, can give the impression that rules and dogma are associated with these new -- yet old-ways of parenting. While we often need guidelines, signposts, and differentiation when we are finding a "new" way, they can give the impression of a rigidity that runs counter to what these types of parenting imply. Rather than being rigid, the most natural kind of family living is simply doing what is natural to you.

In the 1960s, when young people chose alternative lifestyles, it was called counterculture as if their actions to find a new way in society were inherently in opposition to the culture rather than a revitalization of it. The reporter who interviewed me also questioned why anyone would want to do things differently, failing to understand that in choosing alternative parenting styles, or whatever we call them, we do so to protect our children.

It seems to surprise people when parents want to protect their children from some influences of society, and yet, it is responsible to do so. It is responsible because as parents we must provide not only for the immediate gratification of our children's needs, but also consider long-term effects. The reporter I spoke with was surprised that some parents would deny television to children who wanted to watch it. Her response echoes an endemic belief that freedom in our society means doing whatever we want.

Freedom regardless of consequences, however, is not freedom at all. Freedom implies responsibility. Without responsibility, freedom becomes mere license. While we believe that people in the US have the freedom to do whatever they choose, in fact, our freedoms as parents are often severely limited by individuals in positions of power and by ingrained and out of date customs.

As parents, we sometimes find that our love for our children requires us to resist the imposition of customs, behaviors, or procedures, however customary, that simply do not meet the needs of our family. It would be nice, if instead of being looked upon as suspect for making individual choices, we would be applauded for not only protecting the welfare of our children-sometimes at the cost of our own image and reputation -- but also for ushering in a new society.

Much of what we call alternative, attachment, or natural parenting is, in fact, simply doing what is based on evidence rather than doing what everyone else does. And, unfortunately, many common practices in US society are based not on what supports the common good, but on what supports the income or status of a few individuals. Some examples follow.

Pregnancy is not a disease, although the epidemic of prenatal testing can make it seem as so. For example, while most women are routinely tested with ultrasound during pregnancy, the American College of Gynecologists, the American College of Radiology, and the US Preventive Services Task Force all recommend again ultrasound in low-risk pregnancies. Over 95 percent of pregnancies are low risk. A 1999 study at University College Dublin demonstrated that ultrasound scans create changes in the cells of the baby. Mothering cautioned against routine ultrasound as early as 1985.

Likewise, birth is not a medical event. While in the US most women receive epidurals for pain relief in labor and many elect labor inductions, neither of these common procedures is evidence based. In fact, the World Health Organization suggests that the routine use of pain relief and anesthesia be avoided in labor and that induction should only be used when medically necessary. Moreover, the FDA has never approved routine induction of labor.

The use of epidurals and induction of labor both lead to a cascade of other interventions, which in turn result in our high rate of vacuum extractions and cesarean deliveries. Our medical technology, however, does not result in better birth outcomes. In fact, all countries with lower infant mortality than the US use midwives in over 70 percent of births. In the US, we use midwives in only 6 percent of births. Fortunately, US midwife-attended births have increased 1,000 percent since the 1970s. This increase of more evidence-based birth practices has occurred because individuals made choices contrary to the accepted norm.

Midwives deliver babies at home, in the hospital, and in birth centers. Studies are unanimous in supporting the safety of birth in any setting. While the US homebirth rate is only 1 percent, all studies of planned homebirths have shown them to be as safe if not safer than hospital births. Families who choose homebirths may be selecting an alternative, but what they choose is based on evidence. While it may appear that medical intervention is normal, it is not. It is only customary.

Our current birth practices are not evidence based. They are, in fact, special-interest based. Insurance companies consider pregnancy a life-threatening disability. Further, the climate of medical malpractice suits encourages defensive medicine. Hospital routines often require compliance, and consumers demand painless births.

Breastfeeding is another example of a practice about which our society has the wrong ideas. The World Health Organization suggests that babies be breastfed for at least two years. The American Academy of Pediatrics advises one year. In fact, worldwide, babies are breastfed on average for 4.2 years. However, in the US we wean babies at six months, and only 14 percent of babies are nursing at one year. Those of us in the US who chose to follow our instincts and the inclinations of our babies by breastfeeding longer than customary, may face criticism from ignorant people. In fact, we may even be asked to leave restaurants and public institutions. However, we are doing what is evidence based -- and what comes naturally.

Over the last 20 years, we have gradually decreased our rate of medical circumcision. Today, less than 60 percent of boys in the US are circumcised at birth; 34 percent in the western states. And yet, worldwide only 15 percent of babies are circumcised. In Canada and Australia the rate is about 20 percent, and in Great Britain it is almost zero. Thus those who choose the "alternative" of not circumcising are actually more in sync with the world community than their peers who follow the US crowd.

Until very recently, it was considered parental treason to even question the administration of routine childhood vaccinations. However, Congressional hearings in the summer of 1999 and subsequent withdrawals of rotavirus and thimerosal containing hepatitis B vaccines from the market have given parents pause for thought. As the number of vaccines increase, parents are forced to analyze the risk of the vaccines versus the risk of the disease, particularly in the case of diseases they are not especially worried about. While doctors, who are pressured themselves to comply with vaccine quotas, may criticize parents who pick and choose or who conscientiously object to vaccines, again evidence suggests that what the majority does may not be right for everyone.

Similarly, we are told by society to hush our crying babies in public as if we could control them and despite the fact that crying is a normal stress release for babies. Further, we are advised by so-called experts to teach our babies to sleep through the night, even though it is normal for babies to wake during the night; babies need nourishment during the night as well as during the day.

Just as it is normal for babies to wake during the night, so is it normal for babies to need to be held by their parents. And yet even this healthy need is questioned. Often we see parents carrying their babies around in carseats as though they were packages instead of human beings. New parents themselves suspect their own babies' needs for intimacy, calling them "high needs" when they are simply needs.

In recent years there has been a huge increase in the number of parents who choose natural food for their families. Sometimes natural means organic, sometimes vegetarian, sometimes just food in its most natural state. Yet, when our natural and healthy instincts tell us to be suspicious of genetically engineered food, we are labeled un-American for putting our family's needs for food safety before the needs of the economy.

Along with the increased interest in natural food, there has been an increased use of alternative medicine. In fact, in 1997 we paid $27 billion on alternative therapies, as much as we spent for all out-of-pocket spending on US physician services. Many of us find alternative therapies to be practical and even sometimes life-saving for our children. However, instead of being considered good parents for creatively seeking out what really helps our children, we can be seen as extremists simply because we question authorities.

Those of us who become interested in the alternatives listed above and thus gain confidence in our own individual choices, often become more confident about our children's instincts as well. And with this respect for them, we choose not to punish or spank them. Again we are in good company. Many countries, including Sweden, prohibit hitting of children. And new anti-spanking judicial rulings in Great Britain and Israel have supported the human rights of the child. However, the US is infamous in the world for continuing to allow the hitting of children in our schools. At schools 2,500 children a day are hit-over 450,000 a year. And yet in Europe, Central and South America, Japan, and China, hitting of children by their teachers is prohibited. Yet, as parents in the US, when we challenge teachers who hit, we are viewed as the unhealthy ones.

In this country, we have very little consciousness about the necessity of protecting children. The fact that we continue to debate the legality of handguns when the evidence against them is overwhelming illustrates the crossfire between the common good and special interests in which innocent families are caught. When mothers march against gun violence in Washington, DC, on Mother's Day, I hope our elected representatives are listening.

Those of us who limit our children's television viewing, prohibit violent toys and television programming, and shelter our vulnerable teens are considered anti-society when, again, all evidence supports these choices.

Maybe the next time a reporter calls to ask about alternative parenting, instead of hemming and hawing about the names and the rules and the dogma, I will say something else. I will say that there are a growing number of parents in the US -- and worldwide -- who have a new vision. They see that children are inherently good and deserve protection. They are reinventing society by making individual choices that are not only responsive to the individual needs of their unique children, but also forge a new way for us all. These courageous parents are willing to risk public ridicule, legal repercussions, and even their marriages to make sure that the vulnerable children of our society are protected. They insist that children be sheltered from those who see them merely as statistics or consumers-from those who would exploit them for gain whether that be status, success, or money. You can call them alternative parents, attachment parents, or natural parents, but really they are simply good parents.

COPYRIGHT 2000 Mothering Magazine