Conference moira::parenting

    While I am a strong advocate of breast-feeding, and I think this is
    valuable information to pass along, I want to use this opportunity 
    to voice a concern (NOTE: I don't feel this here; this just presented
    an opportunity to bring up something that's bugged me a while): I feel 
    that we run risk of pushing breastfeeding on people for whom it is 
    simply not the best choice, and/or is not a viable option (there are 
    TWO people here to consider, not just the baby).  Pressing this on
    these individuals increases guilt, etc., and what new mother needs
    that?
    
    Breast milk is one of MANY important things to consider when it comes
    to a baby's health and well-being (Do people ever stop to ask you, "Is
    your child up on all their immunizations?"  "Do you give them flouride
    drops every night - their teeth will be with them a lifetime, you
    know?", or "Do you properly stimulate your child developmentally,
    socially, etc." 
    
    I attempted to breast-feed my son, with a doubt or two.  I had two breast
    biopsies for fibroid cystic disease, and during one of those biopsies,
    had at least 1 mammory gland removed.  I was concerned that scar tissue 
    and the likes would cause me problems.  
    
    Also, even though I read the most popular book on breast feeding and
    had coaching from other new moms, breast feeding for me was a very
    painful and unrewarding experience.  Some of this could've been avoided
    had the hospital staff been more sensitive to my attempts and
    intervened/helped, but they didn't.  I was determined to make it work,
    so I didn't have a "bad" attitude (was so determined that I buzzed a
    nurse while my son was still attached to see if I was doing it "right"
    - and perservered in my quest for knowledge despite the fact that in
    walked a male nurse!)  A week later I wound up with a breast infection,
    just as my milk was coming in, so despite attempts to pump the infected
    breast (my son refused it), all my milk came in on one side (what a
    sight THAT was).  After 2-3 weeks, things were actually starting to
    calm down into a nice bonding between son and Mom (after I got past the
    pain of his latching on, etc.), but was still somewhat disappointed
    that I could only nurse from one side.  I felt somewhat of a failure.
    
    When my son was 5 weeks old, he developed jaundice - breast milk
    jaundice.  While I know this is rather uncommon, part of me was
    somewhat relieved.  He wound up on soy formula and to this day (he's 2
    years, 8 months), is sensitive to dairy products.  Breast milk was just
    not for him!
    
    I'm glad he got 5 weeks of breast milk, but I know the chances are, if
    I were to do it again, I probably would skip the breast feeding. 
    Hopefully the attention I gave to other aspects of his health would
    make up for the additional 6-8 points in his IQ he'd miss out on, and
    on the added benefits to his immune system.  But since Lee is to be 
    our only one, I'm glad I don't have to make that decision.
    
    While I think it is good to promote breastfeeding, I just want people
    to remember that it truely is a personal decision.  I can't believe 
    the number of people who asked me before Lee was even born whether 
    or not I was planning on breast feeding (even men).  My first 
    instinct was to balk, wondering why these poeple were curious 
    as to what I was going to do with MY breasts, and felt the sudden
    impulse to cross my arms!  Then I just added it to that list of 
    other personal and well-meaning questions and comments I got from 
    seemingly caring and interested people that were perhaps not 
    particularly appropriate.
    
    I just caution people on how they approach the subject with other
    people.  Educating someone is quite different from forcing one's
    opinion on someone.  Be sensitive.
    
    

RE: .1

I appreciate and understand the difficulties you experienced nursing your
baby.  I believe that if there was more support in the community (from
doctors, hospital staff, support groups) that more women would choose
breastfeeding.  You had a medical problem that made nursing a problem,
however I think it's safe to say that your son's sensitivity to dairy
products was not a problem with your milk.  It's the lactose, protein, or
both in cow milk that babies under a year old (and some for life) cannot
digest (both of my children included!).

Breast milk has the precise mixture of protein and the right amount of
digestible sugar that your baby needs. 

I agree that it serves no purpose to guilt women into doing something they
find distasteful.  Whatever that something is.  I wonder, however, why
women would find a perfectly natural function for which their breasts were
designed in the first place, distasteful. 

Please understand here that I am not chastising anyone for choosing not to
breast feed.  I simply don't understand it.  Different values I suppose,
but before the turn of the century, breastfeeding was the only option for
babies - whether it came from mom or a wetnurse.  Where and why did this
value change?  Mostly, I feel, from the entrance of men into the formerly
female-dominated area of childbirth and childrearing, but that's a whole
'nother rathole.

I find it almost amusing that every formula bottle and can I've read (every
brand offered in the Big Y) states that breast milk is preferred for the
first full year of life....I wonder if they're trying to put themselves out
of business!

I agree - everyone must make their own choices, and I believe that if the
"educate" part is done well, that there won't be a question in anyone's
mind that "breast is best".

That's my opinion and I'm not trying to force it on anyone, just expressing
it.

~C

    >Where and why did this value change?  Mostly, I feel, from the entrance 
    >of men into the formerly female-dominated area of childbirth and 
    >childrearing,
    
    To my knowledge, women are still the only sex having babies. What does
    your comment mean? I'm fiercely involved in my wife's first pregnancy;
    I read all the literature and books and attend all the doctor vists as
    well as help to coach and care for my wife during this time. We also
    plan to take Lamaze classes together and I will be in the delivery
    room. However, I don't have any plans to breastfeed -- I'll leave that
    job up to the Mom!
    
    Mike

    
    I think one of the main reasons for the promotion on a world-wide scale
    is due to water supply. If you make up formula with dirty water - and
    lots of areas of the world have no clean water supplies, the baby will
    get ill. In these conditions, breast is best.
    
    If you have a clean water supply and the money to buy formula and all
    the kit needed then you have more choice, but breast is still better 
    for the baby in order to get the right anti-bodies etc in the first
    few weeks.
    
    We have a national breast-feeding week in the UK promoted by the Health
    Department and The National Childbirth Trust. 
    
    Breast feeding is not for every mother - in the West we have a safe
    choice. In the 3rd world that choice is not so safe.
    
          Seals (who's 14 week old baby has yet to taste formula, but it's
                 hard work especially now I'm back at work)
    
    

    Another thing....I saw this on the world news a few weeks ago.
    
    It seems the makers of Similac, Isomil, and the other one that
    claims to be closest to breastmilk....can't remember the name,
    are being taken to court for price fixing formula.  Since they
    are the most readily available and the largest producers, they
    are not allowing the low income families the ability to buy
    formula because their prices have increased at an enourmous
    rate.  They are investigating the justification for the price
    increase, especially considering their profit margin.  (I know
    when I priced them in May they were 4.97 can of powder Similac.
    They are now 8.07 a can....why????)   
    
    It also said that the poor families are putting babies on cans
    of evaporated milk or just dairy milk from birth.  The push
    for breast feeding around Atlanta has been, especially, geared to 
    these low income families.  I know my grandparents used evaporated
    milk.
    
    I wish I could have kept breastfeeding, and with my next, I will
    try harder to nurse a full year.  I only made it 4 months with
    Mitchell....
    
    Also, has anyone heard about the charges that were brought against
    a woman for nursing her baby 'til 4 years old?  She was charged with
    incest and her baby was taken away.  There was an article in Redbook
    I think and Geraldo Rivera (what a news source, I know) did a show
    on it.  The actress Lindsay Wagner nursed her babies till they were
    4 and 5 and this woman was on talking about the charges.  Anyone
    know the whole story?
    
    Kristen

    I read somewhere recently that breastfeeding saves about $1500 to
    $2000 in formula costs in the first year alone.
    
    Mike

    I'm curious....(and ignorant!)
    
    All the talk about the right "anti-bodies" - is a child who is not
    breastfed more likely to be sick? 
    
    How do formula-fed babies get the anti-bodies? Is the mother's milk the
    only way?
    
    I'm confused as to how anti-bodies can be introduced into a human through
    the digestive system? What produces anti-bodies in an adult? Bone marrow?
    
    Do they have studies that prove any of the above?
    
    JR

    re .2 / .3
    
    Actually, men have had a tremendous influence on birthing ... more to
    the point, one of the Louis of France had a big impact on birthing.
    He decided he wanted to SEE the birth.  Until that time, birthing was
    done in the squatting position, or sitting on a birthing stool.  After
    Louis decided he wanted to SEE, the court Doctors had the woman on a 
    high table to give birth in the horizontal position, and the practice
    became the norm.  No longer did women have gravity to assist them.
    
    As to "breast is best" for baby milk, there is probably general
    concensus that this is true ... although there are medical and
    psychological grounds where this is not always the case.  In the
    3rd world, there can be little doubt that this is true due to
    unsanitary water supplies.  BUT in the developed world, it comes
    down to what is best for family and child.  
    
    Granted formulae do cause certain problems, such as not conveying 
    antibodies to the child, allergic reactions and other intolerances, but 
    remember that many of the current generations were fed on dilute
    evaporated milk and cows milk.  Formula was just that ... a formula of 
    tinned milk, corn syrup and water!  There are suspicions of health problems
    attributable to this, but it is important to put this into the
    correct perspective ... How much of an impact did this actually have ?
    Was it cows milk that gave current generations their tendency to
    allergies as has been suggested or is it formaldehyde that gasses off
    just about every manufactured product these days ?
    
    My SiL decided that she was going to bottle feed her kids ... or more to 
    the point she didn't decide ... she did not even consider breast.
    When the murses in the hospital suggested she try, she decided,
    before trying it, that she wouldn't be able to get on with it and
    so gave up after the first day.  As a result, their already overloaded
    budget was hit with the cost of formula.
    
    Let's not blame not-breast feeding for everything.  Bottles and formula
    have a role in the nurturing of babies for many people and rightly
    so.  The important thing is to be aware and make an educated choice
    and be prepared to change it if conditions change.
    
    Stuart
    

    Re .7
    
    Good questions.
    
    Normally the body manufactures its own antibodies after exposure to
    "foreign" substances ... generally bacteria; thus it takes some time
    for a baby to develop antibodies to many substances.  Thus the
    *potential* is there for a formula fed baby to get ill more easily.
    There are numerous other factors that influence whether a baby is
    going ot be sickly, but it is generally considered that the
    breast-fed baby does get a head start due to certain anti-bodies
    passed in breast milk.
    
    Antibodies are produced by a number of bodily processes, but generally
    through the action of white blood cells.  They can be passed in
    body fluids such as milk and can be digested.  Cows milk does not
    contain many antibodies of use to humans.
    
    Stuart

>    Antibodies are produced by a number of bodily processes, but generally
>    through the action of white blood cells.  They can be passed in
>    body fluids such as milk and can be digested.  Cows milk does not
>    contain many antibodies of use to humans.

My recollections on this are old, but I believe that

	- pasteurization would probably pretty much destroy any antibodies
	  present in cow's milk

	- it's a little misleading to speak of antibodies being "digested".
	  In a normal adult, any antibodies present in food and drink would
	  be pretty much irrelevant, since they cannot be absorbed into the
	  blood through the intestinal lining.  However, in newborns, the
	  intestinal lining is more porous, and for a limited time an infant
	  is able to absorb and utilize antibodies from its mother's milk.
	  (But I seem to recall that even after this time, the antibodies
	  in breast milk may provide protection from intestinal infections
	  in the intestinal tract itself.)

- Neil

    Thanks Neil, for filling in the blanks ... Human Biology classes were
    a LOOOOOONNNNGGG time ago when I remember talking about this ...
    (try about 24 years!  Amazing what the brain does hold onto though!)
    
    You are right, pasteurization does kill off most of the antibodies in
    regular cows milk, in evap. milk they get well and truly killed off
    and in dried milk too ...
    
    They apparently tend not to be passed across the placenta either,
    hence the importance of breast milk.  However, as another noter
    mentioned, there are many instances of sickly breastfed babies
    and healthy as a horse bottle fed babies.  So, basically in the
    developed world it really is more a matter of personal choice.
    
    Stuart
    
    

I do hope that people realize that the assertion that "breast-fed babies are
healthier than formula-fed babies" does *not* mean "every breast-fed baby will
be healthier than every formula-fed baby."  It is simply a short-hand way of
saying that if you compare a large number of breast-fed babies to a large
number of formula-fed babies, all other things being as similar as possible, 
the breast-fed babies will, on average, be somewhat (maybe very slightly)
better off than the formula-fed babies.  Thus, observations such as "I know
some healthy formula-fed babies and some sickly breast-fed babies" do not
contradict the assertion.

It is true that most of us grew up on formula in an age when formula was much
less nutritionally sophisticated than it is now, and we don't seem to be any
the worse for it.  Most of us survived childhoods before child safety 
restraints for cars were invented, too, but few people would use that
as evidence that child restraints aren't really very important.

Choices about child-raising are ultimately the responsibility of the parents.
The children of mothers who choose, for reasons of necessity, comfort, or 
convenience not to breast-feed them will almost certainly not be much worse 
off for that choice.  But I believe that there are convincing reasons to
believe that breastfeeding is better for infants.  I believe that the decision
not to breast-feed an infant *is* trading off its well-being (in whatever
slight degree) against other considerations.  And I find it unsettling when
this decision is characterized as *just* a matter of personal choice.

There are those who find the amount of propaganda in favor of breast feeding
today discomforting.  I would observe, though, that only a few decades ago,
breast feeding was almost a radical fringe choice; that it still doesn't appear
to be a particularly dominant choice across our society; and that it is 
obviously not really encouraged by our culture, even today.  (How many women
are really comfortable about breast feeding their babies in public?  What does
that say about the underlying cultural messages about breast feeding?)

	-Neil

    
    As far as antibodies....here's what I learned from my dr.
    
    A baby is born with about a 6 month supply of xtra antibodies.
    This is accomplished via the placenta.  They also have 4 month supply of
    iron stores.  After the 4th month, a breastfed baby needs to be
    placed on iron supplements.
    
    A breastfed baby will end up getting a little more antibodies
    from the mother than a bottlefed baby.  Hence, the statement: A 
    breastfed baby is a healthier baby.  The breastfeeding does not
    protect against all diseases, of course, but may give the baby 
    the upper hand in fighting colds/viruses.  After I delivered,
    I received the Rubella vaccine....believe it or not, my baby
    also received antibodies from that vaccine. 
    
    I believe La Leche will have more 'factual' information to backup
    this claim or you could get some books on breastfeeding.
                                
    
    

    Neil,
    
    You are definitely sensitive today ... but you are being far more
    articulate than I am ... it being Friday and the end of a very tiring
    short work week up here.
    
    Anyway, I agree with your sentiments 100% ... it is not simply a
    matter of choice.  Education and support should be tipping the
    scales in favour breastfeeding, along with a rethinking of the social
    taboos of breastfeeding in public and so on.  It should not be an
    automatic decision to go to formula (as it was for my SiL) ... it
    should be a reasoned out decision.
    
    re .1 and the LaLeche League
    
    Our experiences with LaLeche were that the intentions of the people
    were great, but what was so disturbing and I know many people put off
    by them was the passion and emotion they show for breastfeeding.  The
    sentimentality was altogether too gushy.  It is very hard when reading
    their literature to separate the facts from the sentimentality.  My
    wife had many friends developed through LaLeche League, and that was
    great for they helped her through the early months when she nearly
    gave up from the pain of a "munching" baby.
    
    2 of our three kids were predominantly breastfed, although we used
    formula for those times when they needed food supplements and as they
    got older with "TEETH".  The third one only had a short time breastfed
    because my wife was in hospital for 5 weeks shortly after the birth and
    stayed on medication that prohibited breastfeeding.  Now for us it is
    academic, as our family is complete, but when we talk to people about
    it, we remove the sentimentality from the operation and present the
    facts.
    
    Education is the key.
    
    Stuart

RE: .3 - I meant no slight to dads who are involved in the birthing
process. My comment was referring to the entry of male doctors in the
birthing process.  Where midwives traditionally helped women through
pregnancy and childbirth, the medical profession, dominated by men (again,
no flames here, just facts) changed the way that women gave birth, for the
most part for the worse.  In proof I offer the fact that most of those
practices such as horizonal birthing, use of general anesthesia,
unnecessary use of invasive procedures and various instruments, etc. are
being done away with and a return to a more natural style of birthing.  I
feel that part of this process was the notion that mothers milk was
inferior to what could be made in the lab (or by other animals), and the
notion that there was something perverted about a baby nursing at his/her
mother's breast.

re: .12

I have found that breastfeeding is enjoying a comeback, at least in some
parts of the US.  I find that in New England, where I now live,
breastfeeding is still considered a "radical fringe" choice.  My Lamaze
class teacher did not even suggest that women should even try to
breastfeed, and that those who choose to bottle-feed should not feel 
guilty.

There seems to be some perception that those who espouse breastfeeding are
trying to force the bottle-feeding population into something.  I believe
that the emphasis in on educating the general public.

So much about how we raise children is changing from how it was a
generation ago - discipline, birthing, our roles within our families, food
(how many of us eat nearly as much Kraft Macaroni and Cheese as we did as
kids?!) - everthing!  Alot of these changes are toward a more natural and
common-sense way of dealing with life.  If nature gives us (free of charge,
even) the ability to nourish our babies, and if that ability has an added
benefit of making our children feel more secure and loved, then why
wouldn't anyone want to do it?

Yeah, it can be a pain if you want to be alone and your baby wants to
nurse, because dad can't do it for you like he can give a bottle, but on
the other hand, there are no bottles to buy or warm (until you go back to
work, whether you pump or switch to formula), no mixing, no worries if you
go away from home about bringing formula along, not to mention the expense
of buying formula.

Personally, it took me a little practice and a few deep breaths, but now I
feel perfectly at ease nursing my baby in public, with the confidence that
I am not exposing myself *even a little bit*, and have not even once heard
anyone remark or look at me in any strange or rude way.

On other replies:

I was very shocked (although I guess I shouldn't be) to read in a previous
reply to this note of the mother who was charged with a crime for nursing
her 4-year-old.  I would not personally choose to nurse my child for that
long (I'd like my body back a bit sooner!), I don't believe there is
ANYTHING SEXUAL about nursing a child, whether it be a newborn or a
4-year-old.

I will state again that I agree whole-heartedly that it is a personal
choice as to whether to nurse or bottle-feed.  I clearly feel that
breastfeeding is a better choice for both mom and baby, and that opinion
reflects my personal values.  Just as having that value doesn't make me
uncomfortable when I come across someone who chooses to bottle-feed, I
would hope that moms who choose to bottle-feed would not feel threatened
by those of us who choose to breastfeed.

I can see that this is quite a hot topic.  I guess I didn't realize just
how much so it was when I entered the base note.  The good thing is that
it's getting folks talking about it and looking at their choices.  Only
good can come of that, whatever the outcome is.

Thanx for all the participation here.  As a strong advocate of
breastfeeding, if anyone wants information or support, please feel free to
contact me.  If I don't have the answer, I can point you to someone who
does.

~Caryn

    
    Feeding in public is OK in Europe. I have fed Rebecca in pubs,
    restaurants, stranger's homes, shops, carparks, parks, museums and 
    even mother and baby rooms :-)
    
    Only twice have I had any comments - once from my GP as I nursed
    Rebecca in our village churchyard during the village fete - "why cannot
    all women be as relaxed as you about feeding?" - which I took as a
    great compliment. The other was in York when I sat on a bench in the
    middle of the shopping centre and got a funny look from another mother
    - I was sitting only 20 yards up the road from a very smart mother and
    baby room which I had not seen!! 
    
                         seals
    
    PS do we need a new note on feeding in public?
                                    

Re .15

I did not want to breastfeed, but felt forced into it by the hospital staff
who continually berated me with 'breast is best' and 'the only way to be 
a nurturing, loving mother is to breastfeed'.  I get that same uncomfortable
feeling when I read your notes, and even though you are saying that it's a 
personal choice, you still say you don't understand why someone wouldn't 
choose to give the best to their babies (ie reading the labels of the formula
cans).  Personally, I hated and resented feeling like a cow.  That's what I
was to my kids, except it was more like a regular dairy cow since they could
only get my milk from a tube then a bottle due to their prematurity.  And I
had twins, so it just emphasized the 'mom as cow' feelings I had.  Pumping
was the only way my kids could get their milk for the first 7 weeks, so I
didn't get any of that supposedly nice, bonding feeling from nursing them.
And Brad couldn't tolerate breast milk, so it wasn't an option for him.

When I finally was able to attempt nursing, I found it incredibly frustrating
to have Jessica nurse for an hour then start looking for a bottle as though
I were just an appetizer.  Given the choice, which I clearly did not have this
time, I would not nurse again.  So I don't think lack of a supportive hospital
staff is a factor in mothers not choosing to nurse.  I had plenty of support
and lots of information (I was clearly told 'breast is best' and formula is
way down around 10th on the list -- what's in between?), yet I did not want
to nurse.  I felt guilty then for hating nursing, but I know that was the right
decision for me.

And there are a lot of reasons not to nurse including the mother being on a
medication that may harm the baby, so it bothers me to hear people say if only
a woman had all the information and was educated, she'd make the right
decision and choose breastfeeding.  I was informed and educated, and made the
right decision for me and my babies, and that was clearly not to breastfeed
but to use formula.  

The right decision for everyone is not always the same.

Cathy

    If mothers are passing antibodies onto the babies, why is it they
    are not then immune to anything the mother's already had? I have
    had every childhood disease (including scarlet fever and bronchitis)
    and yet my baby is still getting vaccines for it.
    
    On the question of breastfeeding - is it not also the choice of
    the mother in terms of her emotional wellness? As the previous noter
    said, there can be resentment towards breast feeding under certain
    circumstances. Although I would agree in principal to all the
    viewpoints here, there are ALWAYS circumstances that are exceptions.
    
    I have now breastfed Charlotte for three months. The experience was
    not unpleasant nor was it the bliss some people might tell me it is
    supposed to be. I felt good knowing that she was getting "the good 
    stuff" but she was also supplimented for the last 10 weeks since she
    simply was not getting enough milk to make her happy. 
    We are however starting to lessen the breastfeeding. As a migraine
    sufferer at the height of allergy season, anything I take that may
    be effective I would not want to pass onto her. 
    What's more is that she is getting less and less interested in 
    the breast. 
    
    I am going through a lot of emotional turbulence over this issue of
    weaning her, I think once she's totally on formula I will miss feeding
    her. On the other hand of the last 24 months I have been pregnant for
    16 months (2 pregnancies) and breastfeeding for 3, to have one healthy
    baby. I think I will also feel that my body is my own for the first
    time in a long time. (should I feel guilty for feeling this way?)
    
    At three months Charlotte weighs a robust 14 pounds 5 ounces. She
    has NO health problems at all aside from a suspected blocked tear
    duct. I feel good that I made the choice I did, but I think I 
    need to change now.
    
    Monica
    

    This reminds me of the debate over daycare vs. stay-at-home in the
    previous PARENTING.  I got really upset and defensive.
    
    I think we need to remember that for middle-class mothers in the
    industrialized countries, breastfeeding is an OPTION and that children
    may thrive on formula if they get lots of cuddling and attention.
    
    While some broad claims may be made for the advantages of
    breastfeeding, such as transferring immunities, the facts in each
    individual case vary.
    
    As mothers and fathers we are each doing the best we can.  Those who
    read this file are both working and raising children, and often dealing
    with tremendous obstacles such as inadequate daycare systems.
    
    It's hard not to take these discussions personally.  But please try to
    bear this in mind.
    
    L
    

    I think Caryn's getting a raw deal here. I didn't read anything in her
    postings which would infer that mothers who don't breastfeed are bad
    mothers. Caryn is enthusiastically touting a feeding alternative she
    obviously feels quite strongly about and I see no harm in that.
    
    Similarly, my wife and I are of the opinion that parents should do
    whatever they have to to see that one parent is home full time to raise
    the child(ren). While we are vehemently opposed to putting children in
    daycare, we understand it's necessary for some families so we
    acknowledge those situations and recognize that daycare is a good thing
    for many. However, we'd hate to be chastised for holding this opinion.
    
    Let's ease up on Caryn.
    
    Mike
            

I second Cathy's (re.17) feelings on formula and breastfeeding. When Kevin was
born he was formula fed.  I received ALOT of pressure from the nurses in the
maternity ward to breastfeed him.  It just wasn't for me . I was made to feel
like such uncaring and unloving mother for not to wanting to try and bond with 
my baby in this manner. Well I went thru over 52 hours of labor and spent over 
28 hours in L&D.  I was exhausted, but my main concern was for him to be fed.  
I was given such a difficult time about it. Even before that I decided that 
I wanted to formula feed him. This was my choice yet I was made to feel like 
a criminal for it.

So, with my second I decided to try to nurse.  Mike would NOT nurse. The 
maternity nurses felt it was because I didn't know how to do it. I had a nurse 
spend from 4 a.m until 7 a.m. with me trying to get him to nurse. It was a
nightmare the next 5 days. I had very little milk, my baby was sick. I personally
feel if I had formula fed him I would have realized he wasn't eating and been 
able to get him medical treatment earlier than I did. As it was, we came within
a couple of hours of losing him. If I hadn't insisted in seeing the pedi that 
day because I tried to pump and very little was expressed and Mike was so 
lethargic then I wouldn't have him today. What was suppose to be a happy and
a loving bonding period ended for me to be a nightmare. For 4 days we were in
limbo as Mike and the doctors' and nurses at Boston Childrens' NICU fought for
his life, then another week of recovery and tests.  

Yes this was an isolated and unfortunate instance. However, IMO that if I had 
followed my feelings we could have caught Mike's illness that much sooner.

As Cathy said in re.17 "The right decision for everyone is not always the same".

- Pat K.

    In hospitals where breastfeeding is pushed to the point of humiliation,
    the incident should be reported to the Administrator. Additionally, I'm
    sure the formula companies would like to be advised of this practice
    since they provide a great deal of funding for maternity programs at
    hospitals.
    
    Mike

re .16

In saying that education is required, I'm NOT saying that with education
you'll choose breast feeding ...  What I am saying is that there are many
people who simply go with formula and reject breastfeeding "becuase their
mother bottle fed them", "because their best friend bottle feeds their
baby", "because they advertise formulas so they must be good"  etc.  These 
are obviously not reasons to choose formula over breast.  These are reasons
heard incredibly regularly.

What education will do is provide women and their families the ability to make 
an educated decision on what to try.  If a woman cannot breast feed for
medical reasons, fair enough.  If she cannot breast feed for psychological
reasons, fair enough.  If she chooses not to breast feed because of work
and family committments, fair enough.  If she cannot breast feed because
of a difficult child, fair enough.  If she tries to breast feed and cannot
cope etc fair enough.  And it's OK to change.

It's important to make your decision on how to feed your baby for the
right reasons ... and that ability comes with education.


This is also why I have a real problem with many organisations like LaLeche
League ... they add a lot of psychological pressure to the decision, like
it  being the only way to bond with your baby and so on.  Get rid of the
emotional clap trap and make your decision on the facts.

Stuart

     I think that a lot of this "debate" is misdirected, and/or constitutes
"preaching to the choir."
     There are only three replies (.1, .17, and .21) that express (unintended
pun) the bottle feeding side of the issue.  Each of these notes is a personal
anecdote written by a person WHO ATTEMPTED TO BREASTFEED and for whom
breastfeeding was a negative experience.  Not one of those replies asserted
that bottle feeding was _better_; they simply said that breastfeeding didn't
work out for them, and their anger and frustration was directed at those who
made them feel guilty for not continuing to breastfeed, not against
breastfeeding per se.  In my opinion, every one of those notes presented a
compelling case that bottle feeding was best IN THAT SITUATION.  The reaction
of .1 is particularly understandable, since all she had to react to was the
base note, which contains a statement that, quite unequivocally says "As a 
global goal, ALL infants should be fed EXCLUSIVELY on breast milk from birth 
to 4 -- 6 months of age" [emphasis added].  This statement is inconsistent 
with any opinion that there might be a situation in which bottle feeding might 
be better.  
     .4 gives some important context to the article in the base note.  WHO
and UNICEF are both organizations whose primary focus is in the undeveloped
or underdeveloped world.  In many of those parts of the world, there is no
safe water supply.  In addition, some of the formula vendors reportedly have
a sordid history there, including some misleading marketing practices such as
having their representatives dress in white coats and dresses (which implies
that they are doctors/nurses, and doing nothing to dispel that), and
generally, not properly educating the target audience (there were some
reports that when the supply of formula ran out, and a new supply was either
unavailable or prohibitively expensive, that some mothers would mix _any_
white powder, such as flour, with water to feed their infants.  Given the
conditions in the underdeveloped world, "All infants should be fed exclusively 
on breast milk" probably IS a reasonable generalization. 
     But those conditions simply aren't true for most of readership of this
notesfile.  Virtually all of those reading this note have access to a sterile
water supply and IMO are sufficiently educated to understand that the
"technical" arguments, and understand what formula is and isn't.  I haven't
seen, nor do I expect to see, anyone advocating bottle feeding their infant
cow's milk or evaporated milk.  Nor have I seen anyone advocating bottle
feeding for mere convenience.  

re: .20

     I disagree.  I don't think Caryn is getting a "raw deal".  She entered
a note that contains some strong opinions and absolute statements.  Most of
the negative reactions have been to statements made in the article, not to
anything Caryn has said.

Clay

  Babies can be passed HIV (the AIDS virus) through breast milk.  There is a 
phenomenon whereby some babies, although HIV+ at birth, convert to HIV- status
(and are not infected) at some time during the first two years.  I wonder if 
this is a reason not to breastfeed if a woman is unsure of her status, or in
countries where the rate of HIV infection is high.
	Linda

    The reason those babies test positive at birth is that it is really the
    *mother's* positive antibodies that are showing up. Once the baby
    outgrows the mother's antibodies (or they stop being introduced i.e.,
    breastmilk) the baby, if truly negative will revert to a negative
    status.

    	Unfortunately this means that all babies who are born HIV+ don't
    really know if they are or not for at least 1 1/2 years after their
    birth.

    	There are some people who use this statistic to claim that they are
    "curing AIDS". Nope, they are just treating those babies who were
    really negative to begin with. 

    	If a woman is high risk, she should be tested (preferably before)
    *during* the pregnancy so that she would then know not to breastfeed,
    if she were positive.

    	It is routine to check for Venereal Disease and Small Pox in newly
    pregnant women, it will just be a matter of time before an AIDS test
    will be just as routine.

        			Wendy
    	

    It's sad that the countries which are too poor or underdeveloped to
    have clean drinking water also have inadequate health systems.  AIDS is
    now a mass epidemic in parts of Africa and expected soon in India and
    southeast Asia.  I don't think most people get tested in such countries
    even if they suspect they have the disease.
    
    How do you choose between a baby dying of AIDS or of ameobic dysentery?
    
    Even in the U.S., we're not much better.  The Federal government has
    cut back funding for WIC, which provides food for pregnant women and
    young children.  Many American AIDS mothers may never be tested before
    birth because they get no prenatal care, and then they have no money 
    to buy formula anyway.
    
    Sigh,,,
    
    Well, this is really a soapbox topic.  
    
    L
    L

    Here's a tricky question: Remember the old days of the "wet nurse"?
    Since the nursing woman was not the mother of the baby, did her
    anitibodies have a positive effect on the baby or a neutral effect?
    If an adoptive mother nurses, will this benefit the baby, though they
    are not related?
    
    Cyn

Why should it make a difference?  Adults have lots of antibodies because
they've been exposed to lots of diseases.

> Why should it make a difference?  Adults have lots of antibodies because
> they've been exposed to lots of diseases.

It's been a long time since I read any immunology, but my recollection is
that antibodies not only contain regions to bind with the molecules that
they're "against", but also contain a region that identifies them as being
part of your immune system.  Then, antibodies from someone else would 
participate in antibody-mediated immunity in your system, but not in cell-
mediated immunity (where the antibody effectively brings a foreign molecule
"to the attention of" your body's immune system).

This is all pure speculation, but it strikes me as a good question.  However,
my guess would be that any immunity conferred by maternal antibodies is
antibody-mediated rather than cell-mediated, so the origin of the antibodies
wouldn't matter.  

And as I *really* start dredging the recesses of my memory, I have vague
recollections that the whole self/nonself identification mechanism may
not even be switched on during the period of early infancy that all this
"maternal immunity" mechanism is functioning.

	-Neil

>And as I *really* start dredging the recesses of my memory, I have vague
>recollections that the whole self/nonself identification mechanism may
>not even be switched on during the period of early infancy that all this
>"maternal immunity" mechanism is functioning.

If this were so, then we wouldn't have "blue babies" in utero from rhesus
and kell antibodies (blood typing ... kell being a far less commonly
measured and occuring blood factor).

Stuart

    
    *lite*
    
    Why we should breastfeed, according to a male friend of mine.....
    
    
    You always have the right amount
    It's always the right temperature
    The formula is always exactly right
    
    and......
    
    
    It comes in such cute packages!
    
    
    :-)
    Jamd

    
It's National Breastfeeding Week again in the UK.

I was delighted to see on the local TV news the other evening an item on my
local Woolworths cafe. It appears that because it welcomes nursing mothers, it
has become the local gathering place for mothers and babies who meet for a
coffee and a chat while they nurse their children.

What a pity they were rebuilding this Newbury store when Rebecca was tiny and
needed lots of tops-ups while I was shopping. I had to use the cube in
Mothercare, the park or race back to the car.

To think that most people only use Woolies for cheap tapes and sweets :-)

                      seals

    
    tops-up - what a great term.
    
    			Wendy

    Not international, but... heard on the news this morning that New York
    (state? City?) has made it illegal to prevent breastfeeding in public!
    
    Leslie

    Leslie,
    
    It is now illegal to harass breastfeeding mothers in the entire state
    of New York.  While I deplore the necessities of laws like this, I am
    glad to see that breasfeeding is being recognized for its value to
    infants and mothers.
    
    meg

    RE -35
    
    I also heard on the news this morning that a state had made it illegal
    to breast feed in public, even public restrooms.   I thought I heard
    Minnesota, but I'm beginning to wonder if I just misunderstood what I
    heard and that it was actually the clip about "New York making it
    illegal to harass a woman for breastfeeding in public".   I'm not sure
    now what I heard, but I could have sworn that the news said that this
    particular state (and the state wasn't New York) had made it illegal to
    breastfeed in public.  Oh well,  maybe someone else will come forward
    and mention whether or not they heard if another state has made
    breastfeeding illegal in public , while at the same time New York is
    making it illegal to harass someone.
    
    Sarah

    
    Whoops - I think I meant top-up in my note!! Still tops-up is so much
    better :-)
    
    As far as I am aware, there is no country in Europe where
    breast-feeding in public is illegal. I've only done it in France and
    Cyprus!!
    
    How can it be illegal to feed a child? This makes me very sad.
    
                     seals
    

    RTw  03/30 1149  Breastfeeding may prevent appendicitis, study finds

    LONDON, March 31 (Reuter) - Breastfeeding a baby for more than three
    months could protect the child against appendicitis, Italian
    researchers reported on Friday.

    In a report in the British Medical Journal, Alfredo Pisacane and
    colleagues at the University of Naples said children breast-fed for
    about 130 days were less likely to suffer attacks of acute appendicitis
    than those breast-fed for shorter times.

    They examined the cases of 222 children admitted to a hospital in
    Naples with appendicitis in 1993, comparing with another group of 222
    children randomly selected as controls.

    "The mean duration of breastfeeding was 96.9 days for cases and 130.2
    days for controls," they wrote.

    They checked other factors, such as weight, sex, maternal education or
    number of children in household and found no correlation with
    appendicitis.

    "Our data indicate that children with acute appendicitis were less
    likely than controls to have been breast fed for a prolonged length of
    time," the report said.

    There could be several reasons for this, they added. "The immune
    components of human milk provide an antigen avoidance system that can
    decrease the severity of infection and probably the inflammatory
    responses associated with this."

    "This milder inflammatory response could programme the immune system of
    the infant, its effects lasting for several years," they added.

    "Alternatively, prolonged breastfeeding may be a marker of some unknown
    socioeconomic characteristic that could be associated with a low risk
    of illness."

    Breastfeeding has been associated with many benefits for babies,
    including a lower chance of digestive upsets, chest, ear and urinary
    tract infections and higher intelligence.

    REUTER

    -Study: Breastfeeding benefits last to adolescence


    (c) 1995 Copyright The News and Observer Publishing Co.
    (c) 1995 Reuter Information Service

    LONDON (Oct 20, 1995 - 17:54 EDT) - Children who have been breastfed
    are less likely to develop allergies such as asthma and the protective
    effect lasts until they are teenagers, Finnish researchers reported on
    Friday.

    Dr Ulla Saarinen and colleagues at the University of Helsinki said they
    found children benefited from breastfeeding up to the age of 17.

    The doctors, who started their research in 1975, followed the same
    group of children from birth through to 17.

    Volunteer families were watched and the babies' diet was monitored
    carefully.

    In a report in the Lancet medical journal, Saarinen said 20 percent of
    the children showed some sort of allergy at the age of one. By 17 that
    figure had risen to 47 percent.

    Those babies fed no other milk but breast milk up to the age of six
    months were much less likely to develop allergies. Eczema, asthma or
    food allergies developed in 65 percent of 17-year-olds who had received
    little or no breastfeeding compared with 40 percent of those who had
    more than one month.

    "Breastfeeding for longer than one month without other milk supplements
    offers significant prophylaxis (protection) against food allergy at
    three years of age, and also against respiratory allergy at 17 years of
    age," the doctors wrote.

    "Six months of breastfeeding is required to prevent eczema during the
    first three years, and possibly also to prevent substantial atopy
    (allergy) in adolescence."

    The researchers, who will continue their study, said human milk may
    help mature the lining of a child's intestine and the immune system. It
    is believed that allergens somehow stimulate the immune system too
    early, causing allergies later in life.

    Dozens of studies point to the benefits of breastfeeding, showing it
    protects children from disease, affects intelligence and behaviour and
    can protect premature babies from brain damage.

    It also prevents ovarian and premenopausal breast cancer, prevents gut,
    chest, ear and urinary tract infections in young children, and helps
    manage diarrhoea.
                     

    This has a little to do with promoting breastfeeding.  When I was
    trying to find out a little more about the Century carseat recall
    (check the recall note for info on that) I came accross this little
    item in USA Today (I found it on the web).
    
    
    Police in Eureka, Calif., fear that a woman who has been grabbing
    babies, breast-feeding them and giving them back could ultimately 
    kidnap one of the children or transmit a disease to them.  "Every 
    child needs lactate nourishment", the woman told one shocked mother.  
    The suspect wears spandex clothes and wraparound sunglasses.