confused about babywise

[lizajane]

rather than sidetrack the original post...

ok, not trying to open a can of worms, but i am VERY confused. i read babywise twice and never saw any suggestions that would hurt an infant. i never read anything about spanking or anything that refered to christianity.

what i read was how to guide your infant toward a routine so that he/she would know what to expect and would know that he/she could expect her needs to be met. i used the tips on how to guide toward a nap schedule because i was having trouble determining whether or not my child was getting enough sleep when his naps were really eratic. my child already slept all night, so didn't need help there.

did i miss something? i borrowed the book, so i can't go back and flip through it.

is it possible that those of you who have heard that it "leads to the death of infants" are talking about an older version or different book in a series?

i am VERY anti-spanking because i don't think it is effective in educating a child and i think it teaches that it is ok to hit in "some circumstances." (which i don't think a child can understand.) so i KNOW i would remember reading about spanking if i read it.

thanks for your research supported assistance in helping me to understand where the controversy is. just trying to get my facts straight here, not trying to debate guiding babies toward routine.

[sntm]

I haven't read it myself, so I'm only speaking based on what I have read about it, but he apparantly advocated following a really strict schedule (more than a routine) that is believed to have contributed in some cases to babies getting underfed and ill as a result.

if you do a google search, you could probably find more info. the AAP discourages use of any Ezzo recommendations last I heard.

shannon
not-even-pregnant-yet-overachiever
trying-to-conceive :)
PREGNANT! EDD 6/9/03
mama to Jack 6/6/03

[lizajane]

i guess it is in the interpretation. i read it. i just did a google search, as you recommended, and found an article about it that was VERY critical and pointing out some scary stuff. but i just don't remember reading anything like what the article was talking about. if i read something that said i couldn't fed my hungry child, i would have stopped reading right then!

i think the revised version is very different than the original, but the articles are about the original. and i think people like me who read this book read it differently than uneducated people with no experience with babies.

who else read it and didn't find these "fake facts" or dangerous suggestions? is it really in my interpretation? did i only read a few sections and miss the christian spanking and clock feeding part?

[Calmegja2]

Here's some good pointers on what the problem is....

http://www.ezzo.info/babywise.htm

http://www.fresnofamily.com/ap/ezzo.htm

http://www.nospank.net/ezzo3.htm

There are numerous points to jump off that illuminate the problem with Ezzo, the least of which are some glaring medical facts that are incorrect. The AAP is against his style of feeding, and have made statements against it.

Babycenter also has a good explanation of what the problem is with Ezzo, and the health risks that can follow for babies if Babywise is followed strictly.

[amp]

I read it, but I already knew to take it all with a grain of salt, and to use it only to the extent that it helped me to understand some scheduling. In the end, we've always fed DS on demand, so I guess I haven't followed it that much. I do recall in my reading that the book indicated that while a schedule could be set, that a hungry baby *should* be fed if necessary, so I would never have dreamed of not feeding him because the clock said not to. Perhaps I, too, just didn't see the danger in what was being advocated, but I know there is a lot of controversy out there about the book and its recommendations.

[egoldber]

I haven't checked more recent versions of Babywise, but the version I read a couple years ago definitely advocated spanking. It also talked about leaving your very young child alone to cry in a playpen for long periods of time to "teach" them patience. (While I think that some version of this may be appropriate for a toddler as a type of timeout, definitely not for the age range he was talking about.)

Also, the most outspoken criticism and the AAP position paper was aimed at his parent directed feeding program which has been linked to several cases of failure to thrive in infants. Some babies do well on his type of schedule, but other babes don't. This program has also caused many women to fail at breastfeeding before their supply was adequately established. Again, the version I read talked about doing parent directed feeding at 3-4 hour intervals, even for newborns.

[deborah_r]

I'm in the middle of reading through the story of Matthew Hsieh on the Fresno Family site and it is so hard to read. I understand that they thought they were doing the right thing and a good thing for their baby (to not encourage him to be a snacker, which I did worry about in the early days too) but it pains me to read about them ignoring a newborn's cries for food. It just seems inhuman. I could not ignore that no matter what these theories and training methods were telling me to do. I had to stop reading because it bothers me so much.

EDITED: Oh my God, I just thought I'll go back and skim over the rest, and now they are, as instructed by Babywise, HOLDING DOWN HIS HANDS while feeding him solids. I'm sorry if someone has done this and feels it's right, I don't mean to offend, but that sounds horrible to me. I'm afraid to read more...

[emilyf]

Liza- I read the more recent version also and found it very, very helpful for me in the getting to a routine days. I actually didn't think it was any more hardcore than Weissbluth but I liked it because it included feeding advice as well. I have read a lot of the negative stuff (here and elsewhere) and it does sound like Ezzo is kind of a nut job, and some of the earlier versions were a little different (I think most of the weird discipline is in Babywise 2 which is geared for toddlers, I haven't read it). But the book I read helped me a lot, so you are not alone! All of the parents I know who read and followed the most recent edition have incredibly content, easy babies-(and peaceful households) so it can't be all bad!
Emily \r\nmom of Charlie born 11/02

[MommytoDylan]

I know alot about this subject as my SIL and BIL were involved in teaching the Preparation for Parenting classes which are the Christian version of Babywise. Babywise is a shortened version of Prep. for Parenting with scripture references removed for the general public.

Prep. for Parenting is followed by a program for toddlers called Prep. for Toddlerhood which is followed by a program called Growing Kids God's Way. The last is a discipline program for kids through elementary school (I think). The spanking is advocated in the GKGW program for older kids. I think in the Toddlerhood program (which is Babywise Part 2) they talk about hand slapping as a discipline tactic.

This program is very contraversial in many churches. Opponents feel that it is too strict and expects too much from children before they are able (developmentally). Some also fear that children may learn a wrong view of God--that He is strict, even militant, and ready to punish us quickly if we are ever out of line. They are concerned that when followed, there is often not a good parental balance of firm leadership mixed with grace, mercy and love (all of which God gives freely and often). I think certain personalities do better with the program. If you are a "baby of the family", laid back, shrugs authority type you can read the book, pick and choose a few ideas, and move on. Some "first born", perfectionists take all the ideas and strictly follow each. This personality may run into trouble with the program--especially if their child is strong willed and they are too. These are the major reasons that many churches and Christians feel uncomfortable with the overall program.

The Babywise 1 book and ideas can be very dangerous if it is the only place one is getting their information on breastfeeding and childrearing. It advocates a 3-3/12 hour schedule of breastfeeding (letting the child wake naturally during the night but waking them during the day to keep the schedule) that can cause some mothers to lose their milk. They may need more stimulation than is being provided. If the reader is a "rule follower" and is following the advice carefully, they may be reluctant to feed more often during a growth spurt (maybe not realizing that it is occuring) and be diligent about sticking to the schedule. Some babies end up in the hospital needing nurishment or are "failure to thrive" babies. All because the mother unknowingly starved her baby by trying to follow this program. These moms are often trying to do their best for their babies and trusting the advice in the book as what is right. The book also advocates CIO from the beginning.

My SIL is super laid back and it has worked well for her. But she also has only used some of the ideas and had a nursing background so she had some knowledge of babies and breastfeeding going into parenting. They have four great kids who are happy and healthy. However, my DH and I decided not to use the program. I am not comfortable with much of it and my personality is more "first born, school teacher" so I knew it was not for me. I need to be able to trust the entire program or philosophy and not use an idea or two.

I know I am all over the place here (and need to go tend to my sweet, little one) but felt like I needed to answer. Please ask me if you have any more questions.

HTH,
Meredith

[SeanaRain]

This is the link to the site that I read about BW and helped me to decide that it just wasn't for me. I found it linked through Kelly's AP site.

http://www.breastfeeding.com/advocacy/ezzo_fied.html

http://www.kellymom.com/

[sweetbasil]

While (as first-time parents) following the first version definitely caused problems for us, we thought the book still had a few good pointers, so when I couldn't locate our copy when I was due with DS#2, I went ahead and got another one. My husband and I were quite surprised at the striking differences in the two editions.

While the first one was very strict about lining out feedings at specific increments, the second, and more recent book, said things like...(paraphrasing) while schedules are helpful for new parents, parents should never ignore a baby's cries for food and should modify feeding times to satisfy baby's needs, especially early on in baby's life.

The changes we saw were much improved over the first edition, but like any other book, had some things we've adopted and some we disregard in our journey of parenting.

[sntm]

part of my argument (and this is jmo) is that there are so many parenting books out there that offer reasonable information on how to encourage a routine, etc, that putting any money in this man's pocket by buying his book (even if you ignore the bad advice) is doing everyone a disservice. plus the fact that many of the people out there who are picking up his book may not have other resources like the boards or other books to compare it to. i see it in the bookstores and want to hide it behind all the other books.

does that make sense? just 'cause he toned down the orginial negative message, doesn't mean he should now be considered acceptable.

again, jmo.

shannon
not-even-pregnant-yet-overachiever
trying-to-conceive :)
PREGNANT! EDD 6/9/03
mama to Jack 6/6/03

[sweetbasil]

I know, Shannon, and you're really right. I hesitated to buy it, but in some ways I'm glad I have the recent copy. I know that sounds funny, but I was so anti-Babywise for a while there, talking about what it spoke against, what it stood for, etc., and after reading the updated edition, am glad I know they've made modifications to their book.

When people ask me for my thoughts on the book, I give them details of our experiences with the first edition, and mention that the Ezzos were smart enough to revise that highly controversial book and may have softened a bit on many of their philosophies, but I still don't recommend it.

[kristine_elen]

Hi there. I haven't read the book, but after reading about it (see below), I'd have trouble listening to ANY of his advice, even if he's now revised it for a wider audience. This paragraph alone should give people pause, and that's putting it very kindly: "The scheduling and discipline are seen as a way to combat sinfulness and put the child on the right track so he or she can grow to follow God's will. The suffering of a crying infant is compared to Jesus suffering on the cross and, because God did not intervene, neither should parents."

Capital Times (Madison, WI.)
September 21, 1999, Tuesday, ALL EDITIONS
SECTION: Lifestyle, Pg. 01D

HEADLINE: IF YOU SPARE THE ROD, DO YOU SPOIL THE CHILD? ; KIDS NEED STRICT, BIBLICAL DISCIPLINE, EZZOS TEACH

BYLINE: By Teresa Paprock Special to The Capital Times

BODY:
What if there was a manual for child rearing that would help you teach your newborn to sleep through the night after only a few weeks, and grow into a perfectly behaved child? And what if this manual was endorsed by God?

Some people believe such a manual exists. It's called Babywise, and it's one of the publications available through Gary and Anne Marie Ezzo's Growing Families International, based in Chatsworth, Calif.

Their child-rearing advice is said to have been used by 1.5 million parents since the Ezzos began teaching it in 1984. Their materials can be purchased in secular and religious bookstores, and their workshops are presented in churches worldwide.

Some parents who use the Ezzos' core curriculum, ''Growing Kids God's Way,'' report happy, well-behaved children and peaceful households. They find it a favorable alternative to permissive parenting.

The best part is that they use biblical ethics in forming a moral foundation for children, says Zita Henry of the Victory Christian Center, a nondenominational church in Madison. She and her husband, the Rev. Dart Henry, plan to promote the 18-week GFI course at their church and, later, to the community.

But not everyone considers the Ezzos' method appropriate child-rearing. Some authorities contend many of these teachings are not only bad theology, but psychologically and physically dangerous.

Kirsten Miller, a child and family therapist and social worker with the Center for Christian Counseling, says she has a lot of concerns about the Ezzo curriculum. Even the title is a concern to her, as she notes that the Bible does not give explicit instructions about how to raise a child.

Miller is not alone. Nationwide, Christian child-rearing experts including Dr. William Sears and Dr. James Dobson have criticized the Ezzo method.

Ezzo techniques include:

*Scheduled feedings from birth.

*Discouragement of rocking a baby to sleep or responding quickly to a baby's cries.

*Physical chastisement (spanking with a rod or slapping the hands) from infancy, for misbehavior such as dropping food or squirming during a diaper change.

Christianity Today has printed more than one article criticizing the program, and the Christian Research Institute (a Christian authority on cults) contends it exhibits cultlike qualities. The Ezzos' former church, Grace Community Church in Sun Valley, Calif., has publicly ended its affiliation with the couple.

Ezzo books are published in religious and secular (without Bible references) versions, and have been revised many times in recent years so that old and new versions of the books provide different advice. But implicit in materials is the view that this child-rearing method is biblical, and that anyone who disagrees is unbiblical.

Ezzo, who has theological training but is not an ordained minister, and his wife, a pediatric nurse, base their method heavily on the Christian doctrine of original sin. Babies begin to show their sin nature early, he teaches, by demanding multiple feedings and crying for attention.

The scheduling and discipline are seen as a way to combat sinfulness and put the child on the right track so he or she can grow to follow God's will. The suffering of a crying infant is compared to Jesus suffering on the cross and, because God did not intervene, neither should parents.

Ezzo advocates also see plenty of nonspiritual benefits to following the advice. By allowing an infant to cry it out instead of feeding on demand, they say they teach babies to sleep through the night within a couple of months. This results in a better night's sleep for everyone in the family.

Ezzo proponents also point out there is nothing new in the Ezzo materials. The Henrys, of Victory Christian Center, say they raised their children (now 13 and 11) using methods similar to the Ezzos' years before they ever heard of the program.

''They're great kids,'' says Zita Henry of her children. She adds that even though she and her husband will offer the Ezzo course, they don't follow all of Ezzos' advice to the letter.

''I don't agree with the scheduled feedings,'' she says, as an example.

Since Ezzo claims his parenting advice follows God's voice, there is strong discouragement about listening to advice from others, including one's own family. Parents also are expected to live up to some unusually high standards.

The Ezzos ''are very focused on scheduling, creating an atmosphere so the baby is not the center of the family,'' counselor Miller says. ''But the schedule becomes the God -- any movement away from that schedule creates anxiety.''

Miller is also concerned about the belief that comforting a crying baby will cause it to be spoiled. ''When babies cry, there is a reason,'' she says. ''They are communicating a need of some sort.''

Health professionals around the country have requested the American Academy of Pediatrics to investigate the program. Miller shares the concern that the scheduled feedings can lead to undernourishment. She also worries about the Ezzos' emphasis on infliction of pain to cause changes in behavior.

''There is such a strong message of authority that their parents make so many of the decisions,'' she says. ''The children can end up developing a lesser or poorer set of (internal) moral values.''

But proponents of Ezzo parenting see the method as a godsend. The program's Web site contains dozens of enthusiastic testimonials. And parents see their duties as part of something much bigger: spiritual renewal. In the words of Gary Ezzo, the program wishes to ''establish a biblical mind set for parenting that can be passed on from generation to generation.''

For the Henrys -- who say they plan to bring the word of God and method of salvation through Jesus Christ, so there is less crime, less poverty and less destitution -- Ezzo is just part of the picture.

Of the criticisms, Zita Henry says, ''There is criticism of anybody that's got a name, anywhere.''
LOAD-DATE: September 22, 1999

[khakismom]

Liza, I, too, read it and followed some of his advice, and ignored some of it too. I picked and chose the ideas I wanted to follow when rearing my children, and ignored the stuff I didn't want. And I have the original version--I bought it after I had Kathleen, and re-read it after Ellen was born. And like you, I don't remember reading anything about spanking either. Very bizarre! I'm sure it's all in the interpretation. You can read it and glean some knowledge, or you can read it and focus on the negatives. But to me, all child-rearing books are that way. You pick and choose what works for you.

As a new mother, I found this book to be very helpful in a lot of ways.

[AngelaS]

I have never read Babywise. I have taken a GKGW class, had many of my friends follow BW and have done lots of reading on the Ezzos since the class.

To begin with, I DID follow a schedule with my babies, from the beginning. I from reading that babies needed to eat between 8 and 12 times a day. So...if I fed them every 2.5 or 3 hours, they were eating 'enough' times as according to the AAP.

GKGW is geared for kids older than 4 I think. It does advocate spanking. There are also a lot of verses in Proverbs that talk of spanking too....

I've had several friends who followed Babywise to the T. One did lose her milk. The others did not. Their babies did not cry from hunger, they were smart enough to know their babies were hungry and feed them!

It's like any other parenting book---take it with a grain of salt and use your own COMMON SENSE!

[mamahill]

WHAAAA?! Ok, I'll admit to not reading Babywise, but from what I've just read, I can't believe ANYONE would think it acceptable to let a baby cry because God didn't intervene with Christ on the cross. Goodness, this mentality is what scares me about religious fervor. This sounds like the same kind of people who advocate killing people of other religions. I wonder how many babies "learn patience" by crying by themselves. Patience, or is it despair. Ugh. Never mind, Tammy - return the book!:)

[deborah_r]

I'm with you Sarah. I tsounds to me like his philosophy is a great way to raise children who will be obedient and question nothing - and then they will be susceptible to people looking to hurt them or manipulate them. I can deal with some "disobedience" if it means my child will have a mind of his own.

[luvbeinmama]

Even in the christian version, there are (were in 2000 as well) several times where the book says not to ignore your baby's hunger. I read all the articles about it a few years ago, and came to the conclusion that in the cases where there was a failure to thrive, the moms were VERY (overly) strict about the schedule they put forth in the book and would not bend it a bit, AND they had babies that needed a different schedule. I, personally, followed the routine and CIO recommendations in the book for DS and it worked wonderfully, he took right to it. With DD, she would NOT cio, she just got more frantic, so I abandoned that technique with her. But she fell right into the "recommended" routine of feeding every 3 hours. So, like everything else, a good dose of common sense and awareness of your own child's needs is necessary.

I agree that their doctrine is off, The Bible doesn't really say anything about raising children. Oh, and a "rod" was a shepherd's staff, used to guide, not hit.

While I don't really recommend the book, there is some stuff in there that can help some people. Apparently, their children asked them to write down their techniques because they felt they wanted to use the same techniques with their children, thus, the book. So, I don't think it was researched outside of their own experiences raising their children.

[lizajane]

excellent info. thanks so much for all of your thoughtful responses to my question! i feel a lot more educated about this author now.

i am glad to know that it was NOT the version that i read that contained so much controversy. but knowing that the author has such a history of bad advice, and such an intense mentality that i completely disagree with (i am a christian, but i certainly don't use it to justify anything like spanking, etc etc.) i will definitely not recommend the book anymore.

i think the secrets of the baby whisperer has some similar ideas about routine without the "crap" that comes with ezzo. i realize this book makes a lot of people crazy, but it worked well for us. so unless some heinous information comes out about it, i will go with it as my recommended reading. but of course, along with a recommendation to read with a grain of salt and consult a lactation consultant or a pediatrician as much as possible!

[parkersmama]

You've gotten lots of good info to your original question so I just wanted to add one thing. As a Christian, it truly galls me that Ezzo calls his classes "Growing Kids God's Way"! To many people, this conveys the message that doing it any other way is not God's way when in fact that's not true! I in no way have followed Ezzo's teachings (BabyWise, KidWise, etc) and do feel that the way I'm raising my children is right. I think that people who are attracted to Christianity or are new Christians can be seriously (& dangerously) mislead by the way he presents his parenting message because he labels it "God's Way". A *big* gripe with me!!

[lizajane]

denise- i totally agree. i hate it when "christians" justify hatred with obscure bible passages. makes me mad. helllllo? love thy neighbor???? let's teach our children that!!

[MartiesMom2B]

Liza & Denise:

I totally agree too. It's people like this who give christianity and overall religion a bad name. I don't know why people can't focus more on the love that God has provided all of us.

Sonia
Proud Mommy to Martie 4/6/03

[sntm]

shannon
not-even-pregnant-yet-overachiever
trying-to-conceive :)
PREGNANT! EDD 6/9/03
mama to Jack 6/6/03

[NEVE and TRISTAN]

More wars are fought in god's name, and wife beating in god's name than I think folks even really sit back and think about...
It is so sad!!!!

I could go on and on but will stop...:)

[cdlamis]

Denise-
You said exactly what I was thinking but couldn't put into words.

Daniella
Mom to Julia 6-13-02
http://www.shutterfly.com/osi.jsp?i=67b0de21b32dc745c42b

[Tracey]

Have you ever seen those babies that are dumped into Romanian orphanages. They don't cry. What good does it do? A quiet baby with a broken spirit is not what I'm after.

[Thatchermom]

I remember in college failing my first reading quiz in my History 202-Ancient Mediterranean World class. We all did. The questions on the quiz were not about the content of the chapters we had read, but about the book itself, and we had no idea what most of the answers were. Who was the author? Where did he study? Where is he currently employed? When was the book written? Were there any published revisions? Who was the publisher? What other books/types of books did they publish? My prof, a very wise man, wanted to teach us all a lesson that we learned well - that we were foolish for allowing ourselves to be educated by something or someone that we knew nothing about. How would we know that we should hold anything as truth that the author had to say? That he had any authority to say it? That he was not a quack, involved in disseminating propaganda or something worse? The book in question was legitimate, but the lesson we learned was more important than the information it contained.

When the Preparation for Parenting materials were loaned to me by a friend I immediately went to work to find out who this guy was - and was glad that I did. I should say before I go further, in the interest of Dr. Scalberg’s wisdom, that I am a Bible-college educated (short a few credits for my BS) pastor’s wife, with no real affinity or distaste for any particular parenting style, strategy or discipline approach. Each family - and each child within that family - is different. I do have thoughts on Mr. Ezzo’s particular use (or misuse) of Scripture, but that is not the issue I would address here, as I know that we are all from many backgrounds and have different values. Even without such views, I would find problems with Mr. Ezzo and his teachings, and frankly whether he is qualified to teach anyone.

Gary Ezzo has lied about his education outright. “Ezzo stated in writing that he had an associate's degree in business from Mohawk Community College in Utica, New York, even specifying a major and a grade-point average. He never graduated from that school, officials say.” “GFI and Ezzo's publisher, Multnomah, have both said he earned a master's degree in Christian education, but he holds no such degree. The master of arts in ministry that he does have gives significant credit for life experience and is designed for noncollege graduates.”

He has several times allowed untruths to be presented about him without correction. “Ezzo has remained silent on at least two occasions when he has been publicly but erroneously referred to as "Dr. Gary Ezzo." One of these was a national radio ad for one of his books.”

As well, Ezzo has misrepresented the statements the American Academy of Pediatrics has made in response to his program. “The AAP does not support scheduled feedings and has in fact issued a media alert about the poor weight gain and dehydration that may result. More specifically, AAP officers have passed both district-level and nationwide resolutions clearly stating that Ezzo's PDF program "outlines an infant feeding schedule inconsistent with AAP recommendations." Nevertheless, Ezzo told CR that the pediatricians' association is "starting to agree with us on a number of issues—we're feeling pretty good about it."

Which of us, if we found that our pediatrician had lied about his education, allowed others to portray him as something he is not, or gave us false or misleading information would take advice from that person again? Regardless of whether our previous experiences with him were positive or negative, our relationship with that physician would most certainly end, and most likely the consequences we would seek for him would not end there. Most certainly, Mr. Ezzo has done all three of these things (and more!) and does not deserve the role of educator in our homes and families. Regardless of his message, it is the messenger that first has the problem.

(Quotes taken from a Christianity Today article) Link: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/013/6.70.html

[MartiesMom2B]

I sincerely want to thank you for sharing this message. It is important to know this.

Sonia
Proud Mommy to Martie 4/6/03

[MamaKath]

Entirely too scary!

[NEVE and TRISTAN]

Thatchersmom,

I want to preface this with I have ZERO opinion about Ezzo so this is not against nor for him...

BUT wanted to thank you for an excellent "lesson" here, I honestly think I will forever remember your first paragraph and what your prof expected of you that day, what an amazing test.

I thankfully feel like I live by much of what you said in the first paragraph and 1/2 I am amazed how folks just "accept" what is told (and I am not referring to Ezzo, or even necessarily child rearing), but I thankfully feel I can "filter" well, and also have no "parenting style" that I choose to fit under. I don't need a label...infact if my parenting style did fit under a label I know my personality and I'd purposely not call it that "label"...I'm proud to say that I can only assume each child is different and that they are handled differently. Annette one of the wisest moms I've ever met said once "you won't find all of your answers in a book"...and I am thankful that some answers are found there (for example sleep issues, and nutristion for those that need it) but I am also really happy that my answers are found playing in the floor with my child and taking natural ques from him...

Thank you for giving me a lesson that I promise you I will pass on and keep this example for the rest of my life-I loved it!!!!
Neve
AKA "mama2be"-forgot password
and Baby Boy Tristan born @UNC
Feb 25, 2003
Brother to 3 pups "gees" and 2 kitties

[kristine_elen]

What a great post, Thatchermom! Excellent information, and well stated.

[houseof3boys]

Thank you for that information. I despise that book and now I know why.

[new_mommy25]

I had never heard about Babywise until this post and was disgusted after reading the links posted. I saw it at a thrift store today for $1.50 and picked it up out of curiosity. It is copywright 1998. Ugh, thank goodness I only paid $1.50 because I was disgusted by the end of the first chapter. I don't think I have the version with the scripture and spanking although I only skipped around the book. He is just so anti-AP and goes on and on about everything I believe in such a baby-wearing, co-sleeping, feeding on demand etc. I can't imagine limiting an newborn or young infant to 2 1/2 -3 hour feedings nor can I imagine letting an infant CIO. And he says its okay to let them wail ear-piercing for 15 minutes if need be. I'm not saying I will never use CIO but never on a baby so young. I'm just imagining a little baby lying in his dark room so confused as to where his mommy is and why no one loves him. :( Also not to be against anyone who does this but I spend all my time playing with DS when he is up rather than placing him in a playpen to play alone. There is nothing better than seeing him smile..

Sorry to jump on this train a little late but now I truly see what you all are talking about.

[llcoddington]

Very strange. I have read BabyWise and while I don't have a baby yet (due Dec. 7th), I thought some of it made sense. Some of it seemed too strict to me, so I am planning to pick and choose what I use. I have several friends who have used this book as a guideline for feeding, napping, etc. and had success. Particularly with getting a baby to sleep through the night early on. And, believe me, these babies are not underfed!

I must have read the new version. I don't remember any of the strange things you guys mentioned!

Lana

[AngelaS]

I agree Lana, some of it truly does make sense. I have used a relaxed form of it with both my girls who were happy, fat and well adjusted babies. :)