The Newborn as Patient: How Medicine Turns Healthy Babies into Lifelong Customers (Part 7)
13 Interventions That Undermine Mothers, Pathologize Normal, and Extract Maximum Value from Every Birth
The baby is born. The cord is cut. And the interventions continue.
Parts 1 through 6 documented the capture of pregnancy and birth—from the first prenatal appointment through labor and delivery, each stage colonized by protocols that serve the system rather than mother or child. But the system doesn’t release its hold when the baby emerges. It tightens. The newborn, having survived the gauntlet of labor interventions, now faces their own.
These thirteen interventions span from the first hours of life through the first year. They share a common architecture: each pathologizes something normal, intervenes in ways that create new problems, then offers solutions to the problems the intervention caused. The baby who feeds on their own schedule is put on a hospital schedule that undermines breastfeeding. The mother whose milk is coming in perfectly is pressured to pump, creating the supply anxiety the pump was supposed to address. The baby who cries—communicating the only way they can—is given a pacifier that reshapes their jaw and a sleep training protocol that teaches despair.
What makes this stage of the cascade particularly insidious is its framing as care. The interventions don’t present as interventions. They present as help, as support, as best practices. The nurse offering formula is being kind. The pediatrician recommending eight well-baby visits is being thorough. The sleep consultant charging thousands to teach controlled crying is offering exhausted parents relief. The system has learned that mothers resist obvious coercion. They accept help.
The help, examined closely, serves someone other than the baby. The scheduled feedings serve the hospital’s staffing needs. The breast pump pressure serves the pump rental companies. The formula supplementation serves the formula manufacturers. The well-baby visits serve the billing cycle. The sleep training serves an industry built on monetizing maternal exhaustion. Each intervention that presents as support for the mother-baby dyad actually inserts the system between them, creating dependencies, generating revenue, undermining the confidence that would make the system unnecessary.
The two meta-interventions that close this section name what the preceding eleven demonstrate. The system manufactures maternal incompetence—systematically teaching mothers they cannot trust their instincts, recognize normal, or raise their children without professional oversight. And the system treats newborns as revenue streams—optimizing not for health outcomes but for billable events. These aren’t conspiracy theories. They’re the logical result of a healthcare system organized around profit rather than care.
The baby born into this system faces immediate challenges: a mother whose confidence has been undermined by months of prenatal surveillance, a hospital environment designed for institutional efficiency rather than infant needs, and protocols that will continue to pathologize normal variation for years to come. The parents who navigate this successfully don’t do so because the system supports them. They do so despite it.
What follows documents how the system continues its work after birth—and what parents lose when they don’t recognize the pattern.
Support Independent Research
This work remains free because paid subscribers make it possible. If you find value here, consider joining them.
What paid subscribers get: Access to the Deep Dive Audio Library — 170+ in-depth discussions (30-50 min each) exploring the books behind these essays. New discussions added weekly. That’s 100+ hours of content for less than the price of a single audiobook.
[Upgrade to Paid – $5/month or $50/year]
Get in touch Essay ideas, stories, or expertise to share: unbekoming@outlook.com
98. Scheduled Feeding: When the Clock Replaces the Baby
A 1968 hospital guide shows the schedule clearly: newborns on “display” at 2:30 to 3:30 p.m. and 7:00 to 7:45 p.m., brought to mothers only for scheduled nursing at 9:00 a.m., 1:00 p.m., and 5:30 p.m. Three feedings in a twelve-hour window. The schedule served institutional efficiency. It had nothing to do with infant hunger.
Scheduled feeding—offering the breast or bottle at predetermined intervals regardless of hunger cues—became standard hospital practice in the twentieth century, when formula feeding was the norm and newborns were kept in nurseries away from their mothers. Nurses couldn’t respond to individual hunger cues from dozens of babies simultaneously. The schedule solved a staffing problem. It was never designed around infant physiology.
The physiology works differently. Newborn stomachs hold about 5-7 milliliters at birth—roughly a teaspoon. Breast milk digests in approximately 90 minutes. A baby who fed an hour ago and shows hunger cues isn’t confused or manipulative; they’re empty. The schedule that says “not yet, it hasn’t been three hours” ignores the physical reality of their digestive system.
The evidence against scheduled feeding has accumulated for decades. A 2013 study tracking over 10,000 children from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children found that babies fed on a schedule at four weeks scored approximately 4 to 5 IQ points lower at age eight than demand-fed babies. The difference persisted after controlling for birth weight, maternal education, socioeconomic status, and how often parents read to their children. The effect appeared in both breastfed and bottle-fed infants—the schedule itself, not the feeding method, predicted the outcome.
The same study found that mothers who scheduled reported higher wellbeing in the early months—more sleep, more confidence. The system optimizes for short-term maternal convenience at the cost of long-term child development. The tradeoff is never explained to new parents choosing between approaches.
Breastfeeding, specifically, depends on demand. Milk production operates on a feedback loop—frequent nursing signals the body to produce more milk. A baby kept to a three-hour schedule during cluster feeding periods never sends the signal their body needs to send. The mother’s supply doesn’t increase to meet the upcoming growth spurt. By the time the spurt arrives, production is insufficient. The schedule created the supply problem the schedule will be blamed for.
Even mainstream medical organizations now recommend feeding on cue rather than on schedule. The guidance has shifted. Yet hospital practices persist: documentation requirements that demand logged feeding times, nursing staff who recommend schedules for “consistency,” discharge instructions that specify intervals rather than cues.
Infant hunger cues are legible to anyone watching: rooting, hand-to-mouth movements, lip smacking, increased alertness. Crying is a late hunger cue—the signal that earlier cues were missed. A baby on a schedule learns that their early signals don’t work. They learn to cry, or to stop signaling altogether. Either adaptation serves them poorly.
The alternative requires no technology, no documentation, no professional oversight. Feed the baby when the baby is hungry. Stop when the baby stops. The system that can’t accommodate this simple principle has optimized for the wrong outcome.
99. Hospital Breast Pump Pressure: The Machine That Replaces the Baby
The hospital-grade pump sits in every postpartum room, available for rent before discharge. Medela Symphony rentals run $70 to $100 per month. The lactation consultant mentions it. The nurse mentions it. The discharge paperwork includes pumping instructions. Before breastfeeding is established—sometimes before the baby has latched successfully even once—the pump enters the conversation.
The pressure to pump early is pervasive and often counterproductive. Lactation experts consistently recommend waiting four to six weeks before introducing regular pumping if direct breastfeeding is going well. The rationale is physiological: the breast and baby need time to calibrate. The baby’s suckling pattern differs fundamentally from a pump’s mechanical extraction. Introducing the pump too early can disrupt the feedback loop that establishes appropriate supply.
A 2016 Australian study found that 51% of women had expressed milk before hospital discharge. A U.S. study found that 98% of postpartum women intended to use a breast pump, with nearly one-third of first-time mothers already pumping while still in the maternity hospital. The most commonly cited reason was concern about milk supply—the very concern that premature pumping can exacerbate. By 4.5 months postpartum, 85% of breastfeeding mothers in one large study had expressed milk. Pumping has become nearly universal rather than situational.
The mechanics matter. Babies at the breast use a complex tongue and jaw action to extract milk—a deep, rhythmic pull that stimulates production through hormonal feedback. Pumps create negative pressure through suction. The patterns aren’t equivalent. A baby who learns to expect the faster, easier flow of a bottle may develop what lactation consultants now call “flow preference”—refusing the breast not from confusion but from rational preference for less effort.
The timing problem compounds. In the first days postpartum, mothers produce colostrum—small amounts of concentrated nutrition perfectly suited to newborn stomach capacity. A pump yields almost nothing during this phase, which mothers interpret as failure. “I’m not making enough milk” becomes the self-diagnosis, leading to formula supplementation, which reduces breast stimulation, which actually creates the supply problem the pump was meant to prevent.
When pumping genuinely helps—NICU separations, latch difficulties, medical necessity—it can preserve breastfeeding relationships that would otherwise fail. The research is clear that mothers separated from hospitalized infants should begin pumping within hours of birth. But these are specific situations with specific indications. The universal pressure to pump, applied to mothers whose babies are nursing normally, serves a different purpose.
The Affordable Care Act required insurance coverage for breast pumps, and an industry bloomed. Hospital rental programs generate revenue. Pump manufacturers market directly to new mothers. The language—”build your stash,” “maintain supply,” “flexibility and freedom”—frames pumping as empowerment rather than intervention. The mother who doesn’t pump seems unprepared, inflexible, naive about the demands ahead.
The exhaustion is rarely mentioned. A mother who pumps and nurses is doing double the work—the feeding itself plus the pumping sessions, the washing of pump parts, the storing and labeling and rotating of milk. She’s feeding her baby and also operating a small dairy. The “flexibility” promised by the pump often means twice the labor for the same outcome.
The cascade is predictable. Pump too early, introduce bottles too early, baby develops flow preference, mother’s supply drops from reduced direct nursing, more pumping required to compensate, breastfeeding becomes pumping-dependent, mother exhausted from feeding plus pumping, breastfeeding ends earlier than intended. The pump that was supposed to support breastfeeding contributed to its termination.
The alternative is simpler and costs nothing. A baby who nurses on demand, whose cues are followed, whose mother isn’t watching the clock or the pump output—this baby establishes supply through the mechanism that evolved for exactly this purpose. The pump has its place. That place isn’t every postpartum room, offered to every mother, before anyone knows whether it’s needed.
100. Nipple Shields: The Quick Fix That Becomes the Long Problem
The baby won’t latch. The mother is exhausted, her nipples cracked and bleeding. The nurse reaches into a drawer and hands over a thin silicone shield—a nipple-shaped cover that fits over the breast, $10 to $20 at the hospital gift shop. “Try this.” The baby latches to the plastic immediately. Relief floods in. Problem solved.
Except the problem hasn’t been solved. It’s been covered.
Nipple shields create a barrier between baby and breast. That barrier can mask the underlying cause of latch difficulty—whether tongue tie, positioning issue, or simply the normal learning curve of early breastfeeding. The shield provides a workaround without addressing what went wrong. And workarounds become dependencies.
The concerns about nipple shields have persisted across decades of lactation research. Older studies using thick rubber or latex shields found significantly reduced milk transfer—as much as 22% to 58% less milk reaching the baby. Modern ultrathin silicone shields perform better, and some recent studies show milk transfer comparable to direct breastfeeding. But the research remains inconsistent, and lactation professionals remain divided. One breastfeeding guide for healthcare professionals states plainly: “Many lactation experts consider the use of a shield a sign of failure of proper lactation guidance.”
The dependency problem is real. Babies become accustomed to the firm silicone stimulus at the roof of their mouth—a sensation different from the soft, yielding breast. Some babies refuse to nurse without the shield, even when the original problem has resolved. Weaning from shields requires patience and persistence that exhausted new mothers may not have. One study found that by two months postpartum, only 65% of mothers using shields had discontinued them—and 17% had stopped breastfeeding entirely.
The milk supply risk compounds over time. If the baby isn’t fully emptying the breast through the shield, production adjusts downward. Hospital guidelines recommend pumping after nursing with a shield to ensure complete emptying—adding yet another layer of complexity and labor to each feeding session. The mother who started with a simple latch problem now manages shields, pumping, storage, and careful weight monitoring. The intervention that was supposed to simplify feeding has made it more complicated.
When nipple shields genuinely help—premature infants who can’t generate enough suction, severely inverted nipples, babies transitioning from extended bottle feeding—they can preserve breastfeeding relationships that would otherwise fail. For preterm infants specifically, research shows nipple shields can actually increase milk intake by providing a firmer stimulus and allowing milk to pool in the tip. The tool has legitimate uses. The question is how often it’s used legitimately versus handed out as the path of least resistance.
A 2003 study of over 4,800 breastfeeding mothers found that 22% used a nipple shield during the early breastfeeding period. Most received shields during their initial hospital stay, when breastfeeding difficulties are most common—and most likely to resolve with time and support rather than equipment. If true medical indications for shields affect perhaps 5% of breastfeeding dyads, the gap between indicated use and actual use reveals the pattern: the quick intervention deployed in place of skilled assessment.
The better approach takes longer. A skilled lactation consultant assessing the latch, adjusting positioning, checking for tongue restriction, observing a full feeding. This takes time hospitals don’t allocate and staff often aren’t trained to provide. The shield takes thirty seconds to hand over. The quick fix wins, and the mother goes home with a dependency she’ll struggle to break.
The shield didn’t teach her baby to breastfeed. It taught her baby to breastfeed with a shield.
101. Hospital Depression Screening: Pathologizing the First Days
Before you leave the hospital—sometimes within hours of giving birth—a nurse hands you a questionnaire. Ten questions about how you’ve felt “in the past seven days.” You’ve been in labor for most of those seven days. You haven’t slept. Your hormones are crashing. Your body is in shock. You fill out the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale, and your answers trigger a conversation about antidepressants.
The timing makes no clinical sense. The Edinburgh Scale was developed to screen for postpartum depression in outpatient settings, typically at six to eight weeks after birth—not in the hospital within hours of delivery. A 2021 study found that EPDS scores from 3 to 24 hours postpartum “do not reliably predict elevated scores 6 weeks later.” The screening tool, administered during the immediate hormonal upheaval following birth, captures something other than postpartum depression. It captures the normal aftermath of delivery.
Baby blues affect up to 80% of new mothers. The symptoms—tearfulness, mood swings, anxiety, difficulty sleeping—overlap substantially with the Edinburgh Scale’s questions. Baby blues typically resolve within two weeks without treatment. Postpartum depression is different: more severe, more persistent, requiring intervention. But the screening tool doesn’t distinguish between them when administered in the hospital. A mother experiencing normal baby blues scores the same as a mother developing true postpartum depression. Both get flagged. Both enter the treatment conversation.
The treatment conversation moves fast. Part 5 of this series documented the prenatal version of this pattern—the Edinburgh Scale administered during pregnancy, the quick path from elevated score to SSRI prescription. The hospital version compresses the timeline further. The mother is exhausted, vulnerable, eager to be discharged. The provider sees the score, expresses concern, offers medication as the solution. Some hospitals have psychiatric consultations available for high-scoring mothers before discharge. The prescription can be written before she takes her baby home.
The screening itself shapes what it measures. A new mother who might have described herself as “overwhelmed but okay” before the questionnaire now has a depression score. The number reframes her experience. The questions ask about anxiety, sleep disturbance, feeling scared or panicky—all normal in the first days postpartum. Answering honestly generates a concerning score. The screening doesn’t distinguish between pathology and the reasonable emotional response to having just given birth.
One study found that 33% of women scored 9 or above on the Edinburgh Scale on day two postpartum—yet only 13% met criteria for postpartum depression at 30-40 days. The hospital screening identifies something, but that something isn’t primarily postpartum depression. It’s the acute stress of immediate postpartum, which resolves for most women without pharmaceutical intervention.
The women who genuinely develop postpartum depression—persistent, severe, interfering with function and bonding—need identification and support. Screening has value. But the value depends on timing. A screening tool validated for six weeks postpartum, administered at six hours postpartum, loses its validity. The sensitivity drops. The false positive rate climbs. The mother flagged for depression may simply be having a normal, difficult, transformative experience.
The alternative is patience. Screen at the six-week visit, when baby blues have resolved and true postpartum depression has declared itself. Provide support and follow-up rather than immediate medication. Recognize that the first days after birth are supposed to be emotional, overwhelming, disorienting—and that this doesn’t constitute mental illness requiring pharmaceutical management.
The questionnaire administered while you’re still bleeding into mesh underwear isn’t measuring your mental health. It’s measuring how recently you gave birth.
102. Car Seat Tolerance Test: The Final Gatekeeping Before Home
Your baby is ready to go home. The paperwork is complete, the discharge instructions reviewed, the car seat installed. One thing remains: the car seat tolerance test. Your newborn will be strapped into the seat, attached to monitors, and observed for 90 to 120 minutes. If their oxygen dips or their heart rate drops, they fail. Fail three times, and they’re transferred to the NICU. The test stands between you and home.
The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends this test for all infants born before 37 weeks gestation. The rationale emerged from studies in the 1980s showing that preterm infants experienced oxygen desaturations when placed in the semi-upright position of a car seat. The concern was real: small babies slumping forward, airways compromised, breathing difficulties during the drive home. The test was designed to catch these problems before they became emergencies on the highway.
The evidence base is thinner than the policy implies. In 2016, the Canadian Paediatric Society reviewed the literature and reversed its earlier position, concluding there was “insufficient evidence to recommend routine use of the infant car seat challenge as part of discharge planning for preterm infants.” The critical gap: while studies show infants experience oxygen desaturations in car seats, no research has demonstrated that the test predicts death or disability after discharge. A MEDLINE search covering nearly two decades found no documented deaths or disabilities associated with car seat use in newborns. Babies who “fail” the test don’t have worse outcomes than babies who pass—because failing hasn’t been proven to identify babies actually at risk.
The failure rates vary enormously depending on where you deliver. Different hospitals use different thresholds—some fail babies at oxygen saturations below 90%, others at 88%, others at 85%. The duration varies. One study found that 11% of babies who passed a first test failed when tested again within 24 to 48 hours. The inverse also occurred: babies who failed once passed on repeat testing. Whether your baby passes may depend less on their physiology than on which hospital you’re in, which nurse is monitoring, and which criteria the institution applies.
Late preterm infants—those born at 35 to 36 weeks, often healthy and discharged from the regular nursery—fail at rates as high as 26% in some studies. These babies are typically well. They’re not on oxygen. They have no respiratory concerns. Yet one in four fails the test, triggering extended monitoring, specialist consultations, delayed discharge, sometimes NICU transfer for a baby who was ready to go home. Each additional hospital day costs the family money, delays bonding, and exposes the infant to hospital-acquired risks—all for a test that Canada concluded lacks evidence of benefit.
The conditions of testing don’t match reality. The hospital seat may differ from the family’s seat. The angle in the testing room may differ from the angle when properly installed in a vehicle. The monitoring detects brief desaturations that occur at home without anyone noticing—and without apparent harm. Studies show that healthy term babies also experience transient oxygen dips in car seats, spending nearly 5% of their time with saturations below 90%. But term babies aren’t tested. The line at 37 weeks is arbitrary, the consequences of crossing it significant.
When testing genuinely identifies a baby with respiratory compromise who needs intervention, it serves its purpose. The problem is universal application of a test with poor predictive value, inconsistent criteria, and no demonstrated ability to prevent the harms it claims to prevent. The family kept an extra day because oxygen dipped to 89% for twelve seconds—in a test one country no longer recommends—pays the cost of screening theater.
The car seat is essential. Proper positioning matters. Parents should watch their newborns during travel. But the 90-minute monitored ordeal, with its anxiety and failure cascades and NICU transfers, hasn’t proven it keeps babies safer than attentive parents would.
Your baby passed every other test. This one might be testing the system’s need to test.
103. Tylenol Before Vaccines: Preventing Fever by Undermining Immunity
The advice seems reasonable: give your baby Tylenol before the two-month vaccines to prevent fever and fussiness. Pediatricians recommended it for years. Some still do. The CDC’s vaccine information sheet for DTaP—not updated since 2007—instructs caregivers to use antipyretics at the time of vaccination and for the next 24 hours. The goal is a calmer baby and a less anxious parent. The cost, discovered too late, is a weaker immune response to the vaccines themselves.
In 2009, a randomized controlled trial in The Lancet upended the assumption that prophylactic acetaminophen was harmless. Infants who received acetaminophen before vaccination showed significantly reduced antibody responses to ten pneumococcal serotypes, as well as to Hib, diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis antigens. The reduction wasn’t trivial—approximately 35% lower antibody concentrations for some antigens. The finding was unexpected enough that it prompted the discontinuation of enrollment in another trial studying acetaminophen for post-vaccine fever. The prevailing notion that prophylactic antipyretic use was harmless had been rejected.
The mechanism remains incompletely understood. Fever is part of the normal inflammatory process after immunization—a sign the immune system is responding. Suppressing the fever may suppress the response itself. Some research suggests acetaminophen affects B-cell proliferation or interferes with signaling pathways involved in antibody production. The inflammation that feels like a problem is actually part of the solution.
The clinical significance depends on how you define significance. The antibody levels in the acetaminophen group, though lower, generally remained above protective thresholds. Children still developed immunity. But “above the threshold” and “optimal” aren’t the same thing. For vaccines targeting bacteria people can carry asymptomatically—like pneumococcus—higher antibody levels help interrupt transmission at the population level. Lower antibody concentrations mean more carriers, more spread, more breakthrough infections in others.
Follow-up studies confirmed the pattern. Adults given prophylactic acetaminophen before hepatitis B vaccination showed 26% lower antibody levels than controls. A systematic review of pneumococcal conjugate vaccine studies found that prophylactic paracetamol decreased immune response in all included trials. The effect was most pronounced after primary vaccination—the initial priming of the immune system—rather than boosters. The timing matters: the first vaccines, given to the youngest infants, are the ones most affected.
The irony is precise. Parents give acetaminophen hoping to reduce vaccine side effects, making the experience easier for everyone. The fever they’re preventing is evidence of immune activation. Preventing the fever may prevent the full activation. The intervention designed to make vaccines more tolerable may make them less effective.
Current guidance has shifted, though not universally. Many pediatric organizations now discourage routine prophylactic acetaminophen, recommending it only if fever actually develops after vaccination. But old habits persist. The CDC information sheet remains outdated. Parents who received the advice years ago pass it to new parents. Some pediatricians still recommend it reflexively. The practice continues despite the evidence against it.
The alternative requires tolerating discomfort. A fussy baby after vaccines. A low-grade fever that resolves on its own. The normal inflammatory response doing what it evolved to do. If fever becomes high or the baby seems genuinely distressed, acetaminophen remains an option—therapeutic rather than prophylactic, treating symptoms rather than preventing immune function.
The Tylenol given before the appointment isn’t preventing illness. It may be preventing protection.
104. “Just One Bottle”: The Supplement That Ends Breastfeeding
The baby is crying. The mother is exhausted. It’s the second night, colostrum is still coming in tiny drops, and the baby seems desperately hungry. The nurse offers help: “Would you like us to give the baby a bottle so you can rest?” It sounds like kindness. It often becomes the beginning of the end.
In-hospital formula supplementation among mothers who intended to exclusively breastfeed is remarkably common. One study found that 47% of infants received formula during the maternity stay despite their mothers’ intentions otherwise. The reasons given were telling: perceived insufficient milk supply (18%), signs of inadequate intake (16%), poor latch (14%). Most of these aren’t medical indications. They’re normal challenges of early breastfeeding, interpreted as failures requiring intervention.
The consequences unfold predictably. That same study found in-hospital formula supplementation was associated with nearly double the risk of not fully breastfeeding between days 30 and 60, and triple the risk of stopping breastfeeding entirely by day 60. The single bottle becomes more bottles. The mother’s confidence erodes. The supply-demand feedback loop that establishes milk production gets interrupted at the most critical time.
The physiology is unforgiving. Colostrum—the thick, concentrated first milk—comes in small quantities because newborn stomachs are small. A day-old baby’s stomach holds about 5 to 7 milliliters. The frequent nursing in the first days isn’t a sign of insufficient milk; it’s the mechanism that signals the body to produce more. Every time a baby goes to the breast instead of a bottle, the message gets sent: make milk. Every bottle that replaces a feeding sends the opposite message: don’t bother.
Primary lactation failure—true physiological inability to produce adequate milk—affects less than 5% of women. The other 95% can breastfeed if supported through the normal challenges of the early days. But the early days are hard. The baby feeds constantly. The mother doesn’t sleep. The colostrum seems like nothing compared to the ounces of formula in a bottle. Without education about what’s normal, without reassurance that this relentless nursing is establishing supply rather than indicating inadequacy, parents reach for the solution that offers immediate relief and long-term consequences.
The bottle itself creates mechanical problems. Sucking at a breast requires different oral mechanics than sucking at a bottle nipple. Some babies, after experiencing the fast flow of formula, struggle to return to the breast. They push the nipple out, suck ineffectively, cause pain and damage. The supplementation given to solve a perceived problem creates actual problems that require more supplementation to address.
Beyond breastfeeding, early formula exposure carries its own risks. Breastfed infants from allergic families can be sensitized to cow’s milk protein by a single formula bottle in the first days of life. Formula supplementation is associated with changes to the infant microbiome and increased risk of allergic disease and type 1 diabetes in susceptible children. The bottle given for convenience in the hospital may have consequences extending years.
When supplementation is genuinely needed—true hypoglycemia, dangerous weight loss, a mother medically unable to breastfeed—it serves a purpose. The problem is how often it’s offered without genuine medical indication, how readily it’s framed as help rather than risk, how easily it becomes the default response to normal newborn behavior that staff don’t have time to explain.
The mother who gets through those first nights with support—with a lactation consultant who shows her positioning, with a nurse who reassures her that cluster feeding is normal, with skin-to-skin contact that calms the baby and stimulates supply—often establishes breastfeeding successfully. The mother who gets a bottle gets through the night too. But she often doesn’t get through the month.
That one bottle doesn’t stay one.
105. Hospital Pacifier Use: Soothing the Baby, Shaping the Jaw
The baby is crying. The mother just fed him twenty minutes ago. The nurse hands over a pacifier: “Here, let him suck on this so you can rest.” The crying stops. Everyone relaxes. The feeding that would have happened doesn’t. And the jaw that was developing normally begins to change.
The pacifier is faster than teaching a mother to breastfeed. It’s quieter than a crying baby on a busy ward. It requires no skill, no assessment, no time. When hospital staff hand out pacifiers to breastfeeding mothers in the first days, they’re solving their problem—a noisy unit, a demanding workload—not the mother’s.
The breastfeeding interference is real, though the mechanism isn’t “nipple confusion.” Pacifiers replace feedings. Newborns love to suck—put anything in their mouth and the reflex triggers automatically. A sleepy baby will contentedly suck a pacifier right through a feeding window. The hunger cues get masked. The feeding gets delayed. The breast doesn’t get stimulated. One skipped feeding becomes two, becomes inadequate stimulation during the critical window when milk supply is being established. The mother worries she doesn’t have enough milk. The staff offer formula. The pacifier didn’t confuse the baby—it caused missed feedings that caused supply problems that caused formula supplementation that ended breastfeeding.
But breastfeeding isn’t the only casualty. The orofacial consequences of pacifier use are increasingly well-documented. A 2024 scoping review of 35 studies found pacifier use “consistently associated with increased prevalence of malocclusions, including anterior open bite, posterior crossbite, and overjet.” The prevalence of malocclusion among pacifier users ranges from 38% to 94% across studies. Anterior open bite—where the front teeth don’t meet when the mouth closes—appears in 17% to 96% of children who used pacifiers.
The mechanism is mechanical. When a baby sucks a pacifier, the tongue is held low in the mouth rather than resting against the palate where it belongs. The palate, without the tongue’s natural pressure shaping it, grows narrow and high. The jaw develops differently. The facial muscles, engaged in a different pattern than breastfeeding requires, develop differently too. Breastfeeding exercises the jaw in ways that promote proper development. Pacifier sucking does not.
The effects compound with duration. Pacifier use beyond age three has increasingly harmful effects on the developing dentition. Beyond age five, the damage becomes more severe and less likely to self-correct. But the habit that becomes difficult to break at three years old started in the hospital at three days old—handed over by a nurse who needed quiet, accepted by a mother who didn’t know what else to do.
When one hospital locked up their pacifiers, expecting breastfeeding rates to improve, they dropped instead—from 79% exclusive breastfeeding to 68%. Formula use rose. This has been cited as evidence that pacifiers help. It’s evidence of nothing except inadequate support. The hospital restricted pacifiers without restricting formula, without adding lactation help. Mothers still needed something to soothe babies. Without pacifiers, they reached for bottles. The policy failed because it addressed an object rather than a system.
Some babies genuinely need non-nutritive sucking. Premature infants use pacifiers therapeutically. Babies undergoing painful procedures find them soothing. At home, limited pacifier use that ends by age two may cause minimal lasting harm—the mouth can still self-correct. The problem is hospital introduction in the first days, when breastfeeding is being established, when the habit is being formed, when no one mentions what years of pacifier use will do to the child’s jaw.
The baby crying twenty minutes after feeding might need to suck, or might need to eat again. In the early days, the answer is almost always: put the baby to the breast. The frequent feeding establishes supply. The jaw exercises properly. The tongue learns where it belongs. The pacifier, introduced now by staff too busy to help with breastfeeding, starts a cascade that doesn’t end when breastfeeding fails. It continues through childhood, into the orthodontist’s office.
The pacifier quiets the baby. It also quiets the signal that breastfeeding needs support—and begins reshaping the face.
106. The Well-Baby Visit Schedule: Surveillance Disguised as Care
Two days old. Two weeks. One month. Two months. Four months. Six months. Nine months. Twelve months. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends eight medical appointments in your baby’s first year—and that’s just the minimum. Your healthy infant needs more healthcare encounters than most adults with chronic conditions. Each visit is an opportunity to find something wrong with a baby who was fine before walking through the door.
The visits follow a predictable script. Weight, length, head circumference—plotted on charts that reduce your unique child to a percentile that’s either acceptable or concerning. Developmental questionnaires asking whether your baby smiles “enough” or makes adequate eye contact. A brief physical exam of a crying infant in a cold room, leading to pronouncements about temperament and development. Vaccines administered whether or not you’ve had time to consider them. And always, the unstated message: you need professional oversight to raise your own child.
The fifteen-minute appointment cannot meaningfully assess your baby’s wellbeing. The pediatrician sees a snapshot—often a screaming, overstimulated baby who was content at home—and makes pronouncements. Your baby who laughs all day gets labeled “irritable.” Your active explorer becomes “hyperactive.” Your cautious observer gets flagged for “delays.” Every normal variation becomes a potential problem requiring follow-up, referral, intervention.
The developmental milestones they check against are averages treated as deadlines. Rolling by four months. Sitting by six. Walking by twelve. These aren’t requirements—they’re statistical midpoints with enormous normal ranges. Some babies walk at nine months, others at eighteen. Some never crawl, going straight from sitting to walking. Some talk in sentences at eighteen months, others don’t say much until three. All normal. All healthy. But the checklist doesn’t allow for variation. Fall outside the window and the cascade begins: evaluations, referrals, early intervention, therapy appointments—for a child who would have reached the milestone on their own timeline.
The vaccine schedule dominates these visits. Two months: multiple vaccines. Four months: more. Six months: more plus flu shot. The actual well-baby examination takes five minutes; the vaccine administration and paperwork take the rest. These aren’t health assessments—they’re vaccination appointments disguised as care. Parents who question the schedule are warned about missed appointments, falling behind, endangering their child and others. The visits become mandatory in practice if not in law.
Countries with better infant outcomes see babies far less frequently. The UK mandates five health visitor checks in the first year. Denmark built its renowned infant health system on nurse home visits rather than clinic surveillance. Finland, with one of the world’s lowest infant mortality rates, provides comprehensive support without the American model of constant clinic appointments. An infant in the US is two to three times more likely to die than one in Japan, Finland, or Sweden—despite more frequent medical encounters. More visits haven’t produced better outcomes. They’ve produced more billing opportunities.
The real purpose becomes clear when you see what happens if you decline. Some practices dismiss families who don’t maintain the visit schedule. Insurance companies may penalize you. Child Protective Services has been called on parents who space out appointments or question the frequency. Your compliance is expected. Your participation in the surveillance is required.
“Any concerns?” the pediatrician asks. It sounds supportive until you realize every concern becomes a diagnosis. Mention your baby seems fussy in the evening—suddenly you’re discussing reflux medication. Say they prefer you to strangers—attachment disorder screening. Admit you’re tired—postpartum depression questionnaire and perhaps an SSRI prescription. The fishing expedition never stops. Normal parts of parenting become medicalized. Normal variations in development become pathology requiring intervention.
Parents who space out visits, who skip the two-week and one-month appointments for a thriving baby, who decline the excessive schedule, report less anxiety. They’re watching their actual child instead of comparing them to charts. They’re trusting their observations instead of waiting for professional validation. Their babies develop normally without constant measurement and assessment—because most babies develop normally regardless of how often they’re measured.
The money flow is obvious. Each visit bills insurance. Each vaccine generates revenue. Each referral creates more appointments. The well-baby industrial complex has convinced parents they can’t recognize normal without professional confirmation. The fifteen-minute visit that finds something “concerning” in your healthy baby isn’t care. It’s the creation of a customer who will keep coming back.
Your baby doesn’t need eight medical appointments in their first year. They need you—watching them, knowing them, trusting what you see.
107. Sleep Training: Teaching Despair
Your baby cries at night. Every instinct screams to go to them, but the sleep trainer’s book says wait. Five minutes. Ten minutes. “They need to learn to self-soothe,” it promises. So you sit outside their door, listening to them scream, watching the clock, your biology at war with expert advice. Eventually the crying stops. The book calls this success. Your baby didn’t learn to self-soothe. They learned that nobody’s coming.
The infant brain is incapable of self-soothing. The prefrontal cortex—the part of the brain that regulates emotions—won’t be functional for years. When babies stop crying after being left alone, they haven’t developed a skill. They’ve given up. The distinction matters: one is learning, the other is despair. Sleep training studies measure whether babies stop crying, not whether those babies are okay. Of course they stop crying. Prisoners stop rattling their cages eventually too.
The stress response doesn’t end when the crying does. A 2012 study found that while sleep-trained babies stopped crying by the third night, their cortisol levels remained elevated—their bodies still flooded with stress hormones even as they lay silent. The mothers’ cortisol dropped when the crying stopped; the babies’ didn’t. The synchrony between mother and infant—the biological attunement that forms the foundation of secure attachment—had been disrupted. The mother’s body no longer registered what the baby’s body was experiencing.
The long-term research that sleep training advocates don’t mention shows associations between early unresponsive care and later anxiety, attachment difficulties, and problems with emotional regulation. Harvard research found that babies who experienced excessive crying were more susceptible to stress as adults. The developing brain, growing three times larger in the first year alone, is constructing its neural architecture during exactly the period when sleep training is recommended. Cortisol in excess kills neurons. The deficits may not appear for years.
Sleep training gained traction in the twentieth century, when babies were moved out of parents’ beds and into separate rooms—an arrangement with no precedent in human history or cross-cultural practice. For hundreds of thousands of years, human infants slept with their mothers, waking frequently to nurse, their breathing regulated by maternal proximity. Cultures that still practice this don’t have sleep training industries. They also don’t have our epidemic of anxiety disorders.
The studies cited to support sleep training are methodologically weak—small samples, high dropout rates, parent-reported outcomes rather than objective observation, no measurement of child wellbeing. A recent review noted that every study had significant flaws in either fidelity of intervention or outcome measurement. The standards for publishing such studies appear remarkably low when the conclusion supports existing practice.
The industry has monetized maternal exhaustion. Sleep consultants charge thousands to teach parents to ignore their instincts. Apps time how long babies have been crying, as if there’s a magic number where abandonment becomes pedagogy. Books promise sleeping through the night, failing to mention that frequent waking in infancy is normal, healthy, protective. The cruel irony: sleep-deprived mothers, desperate for rest, are sold “solutions” that create stressed, cortisol-flooded babies who sleep through the night because they’ve learned that crying doesn’t work—not because their needs have been met.
What actually happens when you respond to a crying baby? Their stress drops immediately—not just behaviorally but biochemically. Their brain learns: when I’m distressed, help comes. The world is safe. I matter. This isn’t spoiling. It’s literally building the architecture of their nervous system. Each response weaves another thread in the safety net of their psyche. The responsive care that sleep trainers dismiss as “creating bad habits” is creating secure attachment.
The real solution to parental exhaustion isn’t teaching babies to stop signaling their needs. It’s support—help with the baby, shared caregiving, communities that don’t leave mothers alone and desperate. Other cultures have grandmothers, aunties, villages. We have books telling us to ignore our crying babies and apps to time how long we can stand it.
Your baby cries because they need you. Not want—need. For all of human history, a baby whose cries weren’t answered was a baby who didn’t survive. That desperate cry that makes your milk let down isn’t manipulation. It’s survival. The instinct to respond isn’t weakness to be trained away. It’s biology working exactly as designed.
The baby who stops crying after sleep training has learned something. Just not what the books claim.
108. Early Solids: Disrupting the Gut on Industry’s Timeline
Four months old and the pressure begins. “Start cereal to help them sleep!” “Early introduction prevents allergies!” “They need more than breast milk!” Your baby who can barely sit, whose tongue thrust reflex pushes everything out, who is thriving on milk alone—suddenly deficient, requiring rice cereal and purees. The pressure comes from pediatricians, grandparents, baby food companies. It doesn’t come from biology.
The reasoning for waiting is physiological, not arbitrary. Around six months, gut closure occurs—the decrease in intestinal permeability that protects against foreign proteins entering the bloodstream. The enzymes needed to digest complex carbohydrates develop around six months. The loss of the tongue thrust reflex, the ability to sit unassisted, the pincer grasp for self-feeding—all emerge around six months. Biology has a timeline. Industry has profit margins.
Rice cereal—the traditional American first food—is nutritionally inferior to the breast milk or formula it displaces. It’s processed white rice flour, fortified with synthetic iron that causes constipation. The FDA allows 100 parts per billion of inorganic arsenic in infant rice cereal—ten times the limit for bottled water—because rice absorbs arsenic from soil more readily than other crops. The agency’s own risk assessment links inorganic arsenic exposure to neurodevelopmental effects. Their advice: don’t rely on rice cereal as the only or first food. Yet for decades, pediatricians recommended exactly that.
The sleep myth persists despite consistent evidence against it. A randomized trial published in the American Journal of Diseases of Children found no statistically significant difference in sleep patterns between babies given rice cereal at five weeks versus four months. “Feeding infants rice cereal in the bottle before bedtime does not appear to make much difference in their sleeping through the night.” The 2018 EAT study that generated headlines about early solids improving sleep found a difference of seventeen minutes per night—clinically meaningless, especially weighed against the risks of early introduction.
The AAP explicitly advises against putting cereal in bottles. It’s a choking hazard. It displaces the nutrient-dense milk with empty carbohydrates. It overrides the baby’s natural satiety cues, potentially contributing to later obesity. The practice continues because it was passed down from generations when formula feeding was routine and breastfeeding discouraged—advice suited to a different era, repeated as received wisdom.
The allergy prevention claims shift constantly. First, delay allergens. Then, introduce early. Then, “early and often.” The guidance changes every few years, but always involves buying products. Meanwhile, the early introduction of foods before the gut is ready to handle them may trigger the immune responses that lead to allergies. The “virgin gut” protected by exclusive breastfeeding gets disrupted. Foreign proteins enter through still-permeable intestines. The body mounts defenses that become permanent sensitivities.
The baby food industry profits are staggering—billions of dollars in sales to parents convinced their babies need processed food at four months. Pouches, jars, cereals, puffs: marketing disguised as nutrition. The readiness signs that indicate a baby can actually handle solid food—sitting unassisted, loss of tongue thrust, pincer grasp, interest in food—usually appear around six months, sometimes later. The baby will signal readiness. The industry signals profit opportunity.
Baby-led weaning—waiting until the baby shows developmental readiness, offering real food rather than purees—shows better outcomes. Less picky eating. Better self-regulation. No progression through manufactured “stages” that require purchasing increasingly complex products. But it requires trusting the baby’s timeline instead of the industry’s schedule.
Breast milk or formula provides complete nutrition for most of the first year. Iron in breast milk is highly bioavailable—absorbed more efficiently than the synthetic iron fortifying rice cereal. Solids before six months are practice, not necessity. The fear-mongering is intense: “They need iron!” “They’re not getting enough!” “They’ll have texture issues!” None of it holds up against the evidence or the physiology.
Your four-month-old doesn’t need solids. They need milk, time to develop, and protection from an industry that profits from rushing them to the table.
109. The Manufactured Incompetence of Mothers
The interventions documented in this series share a common thread beyond their individual harms. Each one teaches the same lesson: you cannot be trusted with your own baby.
The prenatal appointments teach it first. Your body, capable of growing a human being without your conscious direction, requires constant professional monitoring to do so safely. The ultrasounds check that your uterus is measuring correctly, as if your body might miscalculate. The blood draws confirm what your body already knows. The weight checks and fundal measurements and fetal heart rate recordings accumulate into a file that describes your pregnancy better than you can.
Labor amplifies the message. Your contractions, timed and graphed, must progress according to schedule or intervention follows. Your pushing, coached by strangers counting to ten, cannot be trusted to your own body’s urges. The fetal monitor declares your baby’s status more reliably than your felt sense of the life inside you. By the time your baby emerges—often extracted rather than born—you’ve absorbed the lesson thoroughly: this process required management because you couldn’t have done it alone.
Then the newborn period drives it home. Your colostrum is insufficient until proven otherwise. Your baby’s weight must be checked daily because you can’t tell if they’re getting enough. Their jaundice levels must be measured because you can’t assess their color. Their blood sugar must be tested because you can’t recognize hunger or satiation. A parade of professionals assesses what you might miss, documents what you might forget, intervenes where you might fail.
The well-baby visits continue the education. Is your baby meeting milestones? You don’t know—you need a checklist. Are they growing properly? You can’t tell—you need a percentile chart. Are they developing normally? You lack the expertise—you need a professional opinion every few weeks. The thriving baby in your arms becomes a data point requiring interpretation by someone with credentials.
The sleep consultants, the feeding specialists, the developmental therapists—each one confirms what the system has been teaching since your first prenatal appointment: mothering is too complex for mothers. It requires experts, protocols, products. Your instincts, evolved over millions of years of successful human reproduction, are obsolete. Your grandmother’s knowledge is outdated. Your felt sense of your own child is unreliable.
This manufactured incompetence serves multiple purposes. It creates customers—for appointments, for products, for professional services. It creates compliance—mothers who doubt themselves accept interventions they might otherwise question. It creates dependence—the mother who can’t trust her instincts needs the system that undermined them.
The mechanism is elegant in its cruelty. Separate mother and baby at birth, then sell solutions for the bonding difficulties that result. Undermine breastfeeding with bottles and pacifiers and schedules, then treat the supply problems these create. Teach mothers that crying must be timed and managed, then offer sleep training for the anxious babies this produces. Each intervention creates the conditions requiring the next intervention. The mother who started out capable becomes, through systematic undermining, exactly as incompetent as the system assumes her to be.
Other cultures don’t do this. Mothers in traditional societies aren’t screened and tested and scheduled into helplessness. They’re surrounded by other mothers, by grandmothers, by women who’ve done this before—not as credentialed experts but as experienced companions. They learn by watching, by doing, by trusting the process. Their babies thrive without percentile charts. Their milk comes in without lactation consultants. Their instincts, supported rather than supplanted, guide them through.
The system requires your incompetence. Without it, you might decline the unnecessary interventions. You might question the routine procedures. You might trust your body, trust your baby, trust yourself. And then who would need them?
The mother who reclaims her competence is dangerous to this system. She watches her baby instead of charts. She responds to cries instead of waiting prescribed intervals. She feeds on demand instead of schedule. She notices when something is actually wrong rather than when something deviates from average. She is the expert on her own child—not because of credentials but because of proximity, attention, love.
For all of human history, mothers raised babies without professional oversight. They weren’t better educated or more naturally gifted than you. They simply weren’t taught, systematically and from the first prenatal appointment, that they couldn’t do it.
The confidence that was stolen can be reclaimed. It starts with recognizing the theft.
110. The Newborn as Revenue Stream
A newborn in the United States generates, on average, $5,820 in healthcare spending in their first three months of life. Those admitted to the NICU average $71,158—ranging from $4,488 at the low end to $161,929 at the ninetieth percentile. Level IV NICU care costs $3,741 per day. Eighteen percent of newborns receive some NICU care, an 8% increase since 2017. Only 10% of births require NICU admission, yet these cases account for 85% of newborn healthcare expenses.
The numbers reveal what the rhetoric obscures: your baby is a product, and the hospital is extracting maximum value.
Each intervention documented in this series generates revenue. The prenatal appointments bill insurance. The ultrasounds bill insurance. The blood draws, the genetic screens, the specialist consultations—each one creates a charge. The labor interventions cascade not just medically but financially: continuous monitoring generates charges, Pitocin generates charges, the epidural generates charges, the cesarean generates the largest charge of all. The newborn procedures follow the same logic: vitamin K injection, eye ointment, hepatitis B vaccine, hearing screen, metabolic screen, bilirubin check, weight check, blood sugar test. Each one billable. Each one documented. Each one justified by protocols that ensure it happens to every baby regardless of need.
The system has learned that healthy babies don’t generate sufficient revenue. A baby who emerges without complication, nurses successfully, and goes home in twenty-four hours with their mother represents lost opportunity. The baby who gets flagged for jaundice monitoring, whose weight loss triggers formula supplementation, whose blood sugar requires heel sticks—that baby generates charges. The baby who ends up in the NICU for “observation” generates serious revenue.
NICU admission rates have risen steadily despite no corresponding increase in genuinely sick newborns. The expansion of NICU bed capacity creates pressure to fill those beds. Hospitals that build Level III and Level IV NICUs need patients to justify the investment. The definition of which babies “need” intensive care expands accordingly. A study found that short-stay NICU claims may contain up to 25% in avoidable costs—unbundled services, duplicate charges, items that should have been included in negotiated rates. The billing practices are not accidental. They are optimized.
The interventions that increase NICU risk are the same interventions documented throughout this series. Induction increases the risk of fetal distress. Continuous monitoring increases the diagnosis of fetal distress. Cesarean sections—performed at rates far exceeding medical necessity—produce babies more likely to have breathing difficulties. The cascade doesn’t just produce worse outcomes; it produces outcomes that require expensive treatment.
When families receive bills—$207,000, $550,000, $738,000, $4 million—they see the system’s valuation of their baby’s first days. The charges for moving rooms. The daily facility fees that triple for NICU care. The professional fees stacked on top of facility fees. The itemized lists reveal charges for procedures parents don’t remember happening, prices that bear no relationship to actual costs, totals that could buy houses. Insurance negotiates these down, but the original charges reveal what the system believes it can extract.
The healthy baby who stays with their mother, nurses on demand, and requires no intervention doesn’t fit this model. That baby represents minimal revenue—perhaps a facility fee, a pediatrician’s quick exam, discharge paperwork. The system isn’t designed to produce that baby. Every protocol, every routine procedure, every “just in case” test moves babies away from that uncomplicated, unprofitable outcome and toward the medicalized, monitored, billable alternative.
International comparison is instructive. Countries with universal healthcare don’t have financial incentives to intervene unnecessarily. Their cesarean rates are lower. Their NICU admission rates are lower. Their outcomes are the same or better. Mothers from Canada, Australia, New Zealand respond with disbelief to American hospital bills. Their babies received care without anyone calculating how to maximize the charge.
The mothers who avoid this system—who birth at home or in birth centers, who decline unnecessary interventions, who take their healthy babies home quickly—represent revenue the system loses. The pressure to intervene, the protocols that pathologize normal variation, the culture of defensive medicine and aggressive billing all serve the same purpose: ensuring your baby generates maximum return.
The hospital celebrates your baby’s birth. It also bills for every moment of it. Understanding that these two things coexist—that the congratulations come alongside the charges—is essential to understanding what happens in that building. The care your baby receives and the bill your family pays are not separate matters. They are the same matter, viewed from different angles.
Your baby is precious. To you, irreplaceable. To the hospital, quantifiable. Both things are true. Only one of them shapes the protocols.
Support Independent Research
This work remains free because paid subscribers make it possible. If you find value here, consider joining them.
What paid subscribers get: Access to the Deep Dive Audio Library — 170+ in-depth discussions (30-50 min each) exploring the books behind these essays. New discussions added weekly. That’s 100+ hours of content for less than the price of a single audiobook.
[Upgrade to Paid – $5/month or $50/year]
Get in touch Essay ideas, stories, or expertise to share: unbekoming@outlook.com
New Biology Clinic
For those of you looking for practitioners who actually understand terrain medicine and the principles we explore here, I want to share something valuable. Dr. Tom Cowan—whose books and podcasts have shaped much of my own thinking about health—has created the New Biology Clinic, a virtual practice staffed by wellness specialists who operate from the same foundational understanding. This isn’t about symptom suppression or the conventional model. It’s about personalized guidance rooted in how living systems actually work. The clinic offers individual and family memberships that include not just private consults, but group sessions covering movement, nutrition, breathwork, biofield tuning, and more. Everything is virtual, making it accessible wherever you are. If you’ve been searching for practitioners who won’t look at you blankly when you mention structured water or the importance of the extracellular matrix, this is worth exploring. Use discount code “Unbekoming” to get $100 off the member activation fee. You can learn more and sign up at newbiologyclinic.com
Circumcision is the worst intervention of all. It sets the boy up for a lifetime of grief he doesn't even know the cause of. Physical & meantal. Of course, if the cut was "botched" (more damage than what you get in the "successful" denaturing of the child), then the boy/man knows for sure what the cause is. But often enough his brain dead parents won't admit they made a mistake in tolerating the cut.
C'est ca.
I had my three babies in Goa, India in the seventies. The first was an emergency C-section at the government hospital in Panjim and the next two at Dr. Colvalcar's Mapusa Clinic. At the clinic, the girl's family would stay with her and sleep on the floor under the bed. For my last baby, my ayah, Carmeline, got her sister to come and help me. What a difference that made! She would carry the baby and give it to me to nurse, then take it away so I could rest.
I think every baby needs two people. The mother to nurse and recover, and a helper to carry the baby around and do stuff.