Comments on: Breastfeed At Your Own Risk http://contexts.org/articles/fall-2009/breastfeed-at-your-own-risk/ Contexts is a quarterly magazine that makes sociology interesting and relevant to anyone interested in how society operates. It is a publication of the American Sociological Association, edited by Doug Hartmann and Chris Uggen at the University of Minnesota. Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:50:28 +0000 hourly 1 By: jmandvfox3 http://contexts.org/articles/fall-2009/breastfeed-at-your-own-risk/comment-page-1/#comment-120 jmandvfox3 Tue, 20 Jul 2010 13:51:58 +0000 http://contexts.org/?p=1144#comment-120 I would like to know if our experience was unique. We are first time parents. My wife chose breastfeeding and that's what everyone thought was going on since our boy was going through the suckling motion. After a 3 day stay, the last 2 under the bili-lights w/ a bilirubin count hovering beteen 11 & 13 we were sent home to come back for another blood test the next day. That one day we had at home was a nightmare. He could not be consoled. The crying and screaming was nonstop untill he hit total exhaustion and would rest up for the next round. He would no longer take my wife's nipple. All this transpired in the morning so we thought nothing of waiting till the the blood test that morning to bring it up to the pediatrician. We were so desperate for our baby get some nutrition we thought maybe he might drink the breastmilk from a bottle and we tried to use the breastpump. We could see the pumping action at work but after at least 20 minutes only a drop or two of milk had been coaxed out. We were horrified. His bloodtest that morning showed that his bilirubin count had doubled from 11 to 22 in less than 24 hours. He was a direct admit, put immediately on an IV, put under 3 sources of lamps round the clock, finally given formula but there was still a breastfeeding schedule. bloodtest were taken every 6 hours w/ dramatically positive results. The 2'nd day a state of the art, double barrel breast pump was thrown into the mix. After a half hour of pumping , no more than a thimblefull of milk could be produced. My wife was talked into buying one from the hospital at $270 in order to continue this exercise in futility at home. She tried for 3 weeks w/ no improvement in results. We were very lucky. Our child seemingly escaped any lasting damage from the episode. but a bilirubin count of 22 is dangerously close to 25 where he would have to be airflighted halfway acrass the state to a hospital that could do a total blood transfusion. The risk of brain damage everpresent. I'm not smart enough to blame any thing or any one for what we went through. I'm not here to knock breast feeding. For the vast majority of woman who choose it and have no problems, it's a good thing. I just don't happen to give a damn about all that bonding and crap. My only concern is the nutrition of the child. My ony wish is that medical staff didn't overassume every new mother's ability to produce milk. If only there could be some sort of screening process to ensure one's ability to produce milk. Even some as imperfect as the pump in the meantime while giving formula to supplement. I have no idea about these things, but this is where innovation and technology needs to step in and take care of a gap that desperately needs filling. It would have been nice if breast feeding had worked out for us, but my wife's heart isn't broken because our baby is now bottle fed. But our heart's were crushed during the time we didn't know if he'd be okay or not . . .or worse. I would like to know if our experience was unique. We are first time parents. My wife chose breastfeeding and that’s what everyone thought was going on since our boy was going through the suckling motion. After a 3 day stay, the last 2 under the bili-lights w/ a bilirubin count hovering beteen 11 & 13 we were sent home to come back for another blood test the next day. That one day we had at home was a nightmare. He could not be consoled. The crying and screaming was nonstop untill he hit total exhaustion and would rest up for the next round. He would no longer take my wife’s nipple. All this transpired in the morning so we thought nothing of waiting till the the blood test that morning to bring it up to the pediatrician. We were so desperate for our baby get some nutrition we thought maybe he might drink the breastmilk from a bottle and we tried to use the breastpump. We could see the pumping action at work but after at least 20 minutes only a drop or two of milk had been coaxed out. We were horrified.
His bloodtest that morning showed that his bilirubin count had doubled from 11 to 22 in less than 24 hours. He was a direct admit, put immediately on an IV, put under 3 sources of lamps round the clock, finally given formula but there was still a breastfeeding schedule. bloodtest were taken every 6 hours w/ dramatically positive results. The 2′nd day a state of the art, double barrel breast pump was thrown into the mix. After a half hour of pumping , no more than a thimblefull of milk could be produced. My wife was talked into buying one from the hospital at $270 in order to continue this exercise in futility at home. She tried for 3 weeks w/ no improvement in results.
We were very lucky. Our child seemingly escaped any lasting damage from the episode. but a bilirubin count of 22 is dangerously close to 25 where he would have to be airflighted halfway acrass the state to a hospital that could do a total blood transfusion. The risk of brain damage everpresent.
I’m not smart enough to blame any thing or any one for what we went through. I’m not here to knock breast feeding. For the vast majority of woman who choose it and have no problems, it’s a good thing. I just don’t happen to give a damn about all that bonding and crap. My only concern is the nutrition of the child. My ony wish is that medical staff didn’t overassume every new mother’s ability to produce milk. If only there could be some sort of screening process to ensure one’s ability to produce milk. Even some as imperfect as the pump in the meantime while giving formula to supplement. I have no idea about these things, but this is where innovation and technology needs to step in and take care of a gap that desperately needs filling. It would have been nice if breast feeding had worked out for us, but my wife’s heart isn’t broken because our baby is now bottle fed. But our heart’s were crushed during the time we didn’t know if he’d be okay or not . . .or worse.

]]> By: zcato http://contexts.org/articles/fall-2009/breastfeed-at-your-own-risk/comment-page-1/#comment-105 zcato Fri, 07 May 2010 03:35:45 +0000 http://contexts.org/?p=1144#comment-105 This article was a great middle ground presenting many of the other factors going into whether or not a mother chooses to breastfeed her child. I trust in many of the "observational findings" that studies have shown, but I definitely wouldn't call them scientific fact, as the ad campigns declared. That being said, it's hard to say "we found this to generally be the pattern but it's not definite, but breastfeeding is still probably a good idea" on a poster and have anyone pay attention to it. I definitely agree with those who wish to be able to breastfeed in public. I think that the idea that breastfeeding is indecent must arise from the american obsession with sexuality, where anything that has been associated with sex can never thereafter be separated from it, no matter what the context. Attaching this label of indecency to a woman's body creates the air of degradation that we see being so prevalent. This article was a great middle ground presenting many of the other factors going into whether or not a mother chooses to breastfeed her child. I trust in many of the “observational findings” that studies have shown, but I definitely wouldn’t call them scientific fact, as the ad campigns declared. That being said, it’s hard to say “we found this to generally be the pattern but it’s not definite, but breastfeeding is still probably a good idea” on a poster and have anyone pay attention to it.

I definitely agree with those who wish to be able to breastfeed in public. I think that the idea that breastfeeding is indecent must arise from the american obsession with sexuality, where anything that has been associated with sex can never thereafter be separated from it, no matter what the context. Attaching this label of indecency to a woman’s body creates the air of degradation that we see being so prevalent.

]]> By: momonnet http://contexts.org/articles/fall-2009/breastfeed-at-your-own-risk/comment-page-1/#comment-88 momonnet Fri, 05 Feb 2010 22:05:31 +0000 http://contexts.org/?p=1144#comment-88 I thought that this article was one of the most sobering and neutral writings on the topic of breastfeeding. It is not anti-breastfeeding at all so I don't see any need to attack it. Artis does raise a number of otherwise silenced points in the breastfeeding debate which is hardly a debate at all in my opinion since the only acceptable choice for a woman is to breastfeed. I was not surprised to see the usual comments by disbelieving readers about how breastfeeding is natural and therefore right. "Natural" doesn't exist, only constructions which are so engrained that they seem "natural" govern every culture. To this respect I can only recommend books such as Anthropology of Breastfeeding: Natural Law or Social Construct by Vanessa Maher. Like other readers, however, I also share the view that true feminists want choices for all women and this includes the right to breast-feed or bottle-feed without essentialist standpoints. We should be ready to defend a woman's right to breastfeed in public, the maternity leave to carry out her wishes and also recognize that sometimes the risks or disadvantages do outweigh the benefits of breastfeeding and that some women cannot breastfeed at all. Though breastfeeding rates aren't as high as 100 years ago and not as high as in most developing countries today we still have healthier births, babies and mothers here and today. Supplementing is not new, for various reasons some babies have always had to use it in many cultures. Formula is the best alternative to date and is combined with the best medical care we have ever had. Women are also very different than in previous centuries and I believe that their participation in society as more than child-rearers is vital and desirable. As far as the comment about how parents should not choose to have kids if they won't put them first, who is to say what "putting kids first" actually means? It is only in this century that such a large cohort of women actually have time to do anything more than feed their children. They can actually play, teach, and take them places. Though I still think that only a limited number of women truly "choose" to have children at all because this society still puts undue pressure on women to marry and have children. I think that a woman who doesn't want to breastfeed is entitled to have a family too. Is no life in the first place really better than a bottle-fed baby? I thought that this article was one of the most sobering and neutral writings on the topic of breastfeeding. It is not anti-breastfeeding at all so I don’t see any need to attack it. Artis does raise a number of otherwise silenced points in the breastfeeding debate which is hardly a debate at all in my opinion since the only acceptable choice for a woman is to breastfeed. I was not surprised to see the usual comments by disbelieving readers about how breastfeeding is natural and therefore right. “Natural” doesn’t exist, only constructions which are so engrained that they seem “natural” govern every culture. To this respect I can only recommend books such as Anthropology of Breastfeeding: Natural Law or Social Construct by Vanessa Maher. Like other readers, however, I also share the view that true feminists want choices for all women and this includes the right to breast-feed or bottle-feed without essentialist standpoints. We should be ready to defend a woman’s right to breastfeed in public, the maternity leave to carry out her wishes and also recognize that sometimes the risks or disadvantages do outweigh the benefits of breastfeeding and that some women cannot breastfeed at all. Though breastfeeding rates aren’t as high as 100 years ago and not as high as in most developing countries today we still have healthier births, babies and mothers here and today. Supplementing is not new, for various reasons some babies have always had to use it in many cultures. Formula is the best alternative to date and is combined with the best medical care we have ever had. Women are also very different than in previous centuries and I believe that their participation in society as more than child-rearers is vital and desirable. As far as the comment about how parents should not choose to have kids if they won’t put them first, who is to say what “putting kids first” actually means? It is only in this century that such a large cohort of women actually have time to do anything more than feed their children. They can actually play, teach, and take them places. Though I still think that only a limited number of women truly “choose” to have children at all because this society still puts undue pressure on women to marry and have children. I think that a woman who doesn’t want to breastfeed is entitled to have a family too. Is no life in the first place really better than a bottle-fed baby?

]]> By: theresaellie http://contexts.org/articles/fall-2009/breastfeed-at-your-own-risk/comment-page-1/#comment-87 theresaellie Fri, 29 Jan 2010 06:19:44 +0000 http://contexts.org/?p=1144#comment-87 Although I am not yet a mother, I find the topic of motherhood a very interesting subject worth discussing. I myself was not breastfed, but have not suffered from any serious illnesses and am intelligent enough to be an honors student in college. I found this article to be incredibly enlightening to the difficulties of breastfeeding. I have always assumed that once I became a mother, I would breastfeed my child for at least a year. Being a young adult, I never considered the logistical difficulties of being able to supply one's child with milk around the clock, while it is not socially acceptable to bare one's breast in public for any purpose. It is interesting that sex is portrayed in popular culture and advertising every day, but a mother providing nourishment to her child in public is unacceptable. I can now understand why some women may feel like it is too difficult to manage their newly busy lives and incorporate time to breastfeed. There need to measures implemented in work places and other places of business that allow for women to breastfeed their children in nice, comfortable places if they are going to be attacked for doing so publicly. I certainly hope that better procedures are in place once I have children so that I can work to support them, and carry out my other duties as a mother and citizen, all while being able to provide them with the greatest level of nutrition. With all of the money being spent to promote the benefits of breastfeeding and educate women, there should also be money put towards finding a solution to the issues discussed above. Although I am not yet a mother, I find the topic of motherhood a very interesting subject worth discussing. I myself was not breastfed, but have not suffered from any serious illnesses and am intelligent enough to be an honors student in college. I found this article to be incredibly enlightening to the difficulties of breastfeeding. I have always assumed that once I became a mother, I would breastfeed my child for at least a year. Being a young adult, I never considered the logistical difficulties of being able to supply one’s child with milk around the clock, while it is not socially acceptable to bare one’s breast in public for any purpose. It is interesting that sex is portrayed in popular culture and advertising every day, but a mother providing nourishment to her child in public is unacceptable. I can now understand why some women may feel like it is too difficult to manage their newly busy lives and incorporate time to breastfeed. There need to measures implemented in work places and other places of business that allow for women to breastfeed their children in nice, comfortable places if they are going to be attacked for doing so publicly. I certainly hope that better procedures are in place once I have children so that I can work to support them, and carry out my other duties as a mother and citizen, all while being able to provide them with the greatest level of nutrition. With all of the money being spent to promote the benefits of breastfeeding and educate women, there should also be money put towards finding a solution to the issues discussed above.

]]> By: classwarrior http://contexts.org/articles/fall-2009/breastfeed-at-your-own-risk/comment-page-1/#comment-85 classwarrior Sun, 20 Dec 2009 06:10:38 +0000 http://contexts.org/?p=1144#comment-85 These are the reasons (not necessarily in order) breastfeeding rates are so low in the United States: 1. The lack of paid maternity/family leave coupled with the need for most women to work outside the home. This is absolutely the main reason most women do not breastfeed beyond three months, or, in many cases, even less. I'm not sure why there is even a debate about this. Women in the US get three unpaid months of maternity leave, which many working-class and poor women cannot take because their families depend on their income. This is especially true for single mothers. In addition, most work sites are not required to accommodate women who wish to pump at work, so they might have to pump in a bathroom or not at all. Women have no choice but to turn to formula to provide nutrition for their infants. In other words, being able to breastfeed exclusively for six months (as recommended by the AAP, WHO, UNICEF, the Surgeon General, and others), let alone three months, is a privilege enjoyed by those who are able to take time off from work and have time to pump while at work. This, in my opinion, is unacceptable. 2. Aggressive marketing of formula by its manufacturers. Ever seen a picture of a breastfeeding mother/infant pair in a mainstream parenting magazine? Probably not. But you'll see a lot of bottle feeding. This is a small example of this marketing at work. Formula compaines aim their marketing powers not only at individual women, but also by working with hospitals. They promote their products in a fashion similar to pharmaceutical corporations. Their specialty is providing free formula for the doctors to give away. Describing all of their marketing practices is beyond the scope of a brief comment. By the way, it is not disingenuous to refer to the marketing practices of formula manufacturers as predatory - I can't think of a better word to describe it. When you're trying to sell your product by marketing it aggressively in countries with large proportions of their population not having access to clean water, sending in representatives to hospitals in so-called third world countries posing as nurses, or billing your product as superior to breastmilk, then your actions are predatory (or insert your own negative descriptor, if you wish). See books by Gabrielle Palmer and Naomi Baumslag and Dia Michels for more examples. Thankfully, these companies can't get away with as many of these activities now because of the vigilance of groups dedicated to monitoring their practices. 3. Lack of a support network for women who want to breastfeed. Women often have to go it alone when it comes to breastfeeding. Traditional support networks - ones that would pass along knowledge of how to breastfeed, among other things - do not exist to the same degree as in the past. Physicians receive little to no training in breastfeeding. There are not enough lactation consultants in healthcare facilities. Nearly all hospitals in the US allow formula companies to give away their products in their maternity wards. 4. The emphasis on breasts as sources of male pleasure. When women use them for other purposes (i.e., feeding infants), it is seen as an attack on male ownership of breasts. Combined with our country's prudish attitude toward sex, breastfeeding is seen in a negative light, despite laws in most states protecting the right of women to breastfeed. Linda Blum (cited in the above article) wrote about this - her analysis is more or less correct, if a bit overstated. 5. As stated in the above article, African-American women face particular obstacles with breastfeeding - see above for more info. --- As we can see, breastfeeding is a challenge for women in this society, to say the least. What's the solution? If the US had six months of paid maternity leave, its breastfeeding rates would jump. We should train and hire more people to help women with breastfeeding and promote the establishment of Baby-friendly healthcare facilities (as defined by UNICEF/WHO). Make it illegal to market formula in hospitals, along with other curtailments to this industry. These changes, especially the first, will happen a)when pigs fly or b) we have a better, more rational socioeconomic system. I'm pulling for the latter. Despite what the above article states, low breastfeeding rates are a serious public health problem - the government is correct to focus on it. However, teling women to breastfeed but not helping to make it more realistic is not a good policy. These are the reasons (not necessarily in order) breastfeeding rates are so low in the United States:

1. The lack of paid maternity/family leave coupled with the need for most women to work outside the home. This is absolutely the main reason most women do not breastfeed beyond three months, or, in many cases, even less. I’m not sure why there is even a debate about this. Women in the US get three unpaid months of maternity leave, which many working-class and poor women cannot take because their families depend on their income. This is especially true for single mothers. In addition, most work sites are not required to accommodate women who wish to pump at work, so they might have to pump in a bathroom or not at all. Women have no choice but to turn to formula to provide nutrition for their infants.

In other words, being able to breastfeed exclusively for six months (as recommended by the AAP, WHO, UNICEF, the Surgeon General, and others), let alone three months, is a privilege enjoyed by those who are able to take time off from work and have time to pump while at work. This, in my opinion, is unacceptable.

2. Aggressive marketing of formula by its manufacturers. Ever seen a picture of a breastfeeding mother/infant pair in a mainstream parenting magazine? Probably not. But you’ll see a lot of bottle feeding. This is a small example of this marketing at work. Formula compaines aim their marketing powers not only at individual women, but also by working with hospitals. They promote their products in a fashion similar to pharmaceutical corporations. Their specialty is providing free formula for the doctors to give away. Describing all of their marketing practices is beyond the scope of a brief comment.

By the way, it is not disingenuous to refer to the marketing practices of formula manufacturers as predatory – I can’t think of a better word to describe it. When you’re trying to sell your product by marketing it aggressively in countries with large proportions of their population not having access to clean water, sending in representatives to hospitals in so-called third world countries posing as nurses, or billing your product as superior to breastmilk, then your actions are predatory (or insert your own negative descriptor, if you wish). See books by Gabrielle Palmer and Naomi Baumslag and Dia Michels for more examples. Thankfully, these companies can’t get away with as many of these activities now because of the vigilance of groups dedicated to monitoring their practices.

3. Lack of a support network for women who want to breastfeed. Women often have to go it alone when it comes to breastfeeding. Traditional support networks – ones that would pass along knowledge of how to breastfeed, among other things – do not exist to the same degree as in the past. Physicians receive little to no training in breastfeeding. There are not enough lactation consultants in healthcare facilities. Nearly all hospitals in the US allow formula companies to give away their products in their maternity wards.

4. The emphasis on breasts as sources of male pleasure. When women use them for other purposes (i.e., feeding infants), it is seen as an attack on male ownership of breasts. Combined with our country’s prudish attitude toward sex, breastfeeding is seen in a negative light, despite laws in most states protecting the right of women to breastfeed. Linda Blum (cited in the above article) wrote about this – her analysis is more or less correct, if a bit overstated.

5. As stated in the above article, African-American women face particular obstacles with breastfeeding – see above for more info.

—

As we can see, breastfeeding is a challenge for women in this society, to say the least.

What’s the solution? If the US had six months of paid maternity leave, its breastfeeding rates would jump. We should train and hire more people to help women with breastfeeding and promote the establishment of Baby-friendly healthcare facilities (as defined by UNICEF/WHO). Make it illegal to market formula in hospitals, along with other curtailments to this industry. These changes, especially the first, will happen a)when pigs fly or b) we have a better, more rational socioeconomic system. I’m pulling for the latter.

Despite what the above article states, low breastfeeding rates are a serious public health problem – the government is correct to focus on it. However, teling women to breastfeed but not helping to make it more realistic is not a good policy.

]]> By: joschmidt http://contexts.org/articles/fall-2009/breastfeed-at-your-own-risk/comment-page-1/#comment-84 joschmidt Sat, 19 Dec 2009 04:48:50 +0000 http://contexts.org/?p=1144#comment-84 Regarding the drop-off in exclusive breast-feeding rates at three months - the provision of parental leave entitlement may be one factor, but if you talk to actual woman who actually breastfeed, some of them do find it restrictive, and may choose to cease exclusive breastfeeding for reasons of their own. In New Zealand, breastfeeding rates also drop at three months - yet formula manufacturers cannot market formula for those under six months. Marketing cannot therefore be the sole, or in this context even a dominant factor. While those marketing formula in the third world (the context in which WHO, UNICEF and others work) are working to the detriment of infants and their families, in the first world this is usually the case - with appropriate information and support, formula feeding simply does not present the same risks to infants as in third world context. Furthermore, presenting formula manufacturers as 'predatory' is somewhat disingenuous. People have sought alternative to (exclusive) breastfeeding across cultures and history - formula and the related equipment represents one of the few successes in this regard. Another successful alternative is cross-nursing, but in contemporary western contexts this has become an extremely marginalised activity. I would not dispute that breastmilk is more nutritious, but I do think that other 'benefits' such as those linked to issues such as ear infections and gastro-intestinal problems could well be ameliorated with appropriate education around formula feeding. Until that happens, we will never really know what happens because of formaul itself, and what happens because parents who formula feed aren't appropriately educated and supported. I also have issues with how the health 'benefits' of breastfeeding are reported, which often mask the actual levels of these benefits. Research suggests the 'breast is best' message has penetrated the majority of its target audiences with effectiveness. In spite of this, breastfeeding rates have plateaued, and do not appear to be increasing. In light of this, it seems reasonable to assume that parents are making decisions based on a number of factors. Again, I would suggest that formula represent a viable alternative to breastmilk that some parents seem to find preferable, for a range of reasons. Rather than marginalise them, it would seem that some of the money being spent on 'breast is best' campaigns (which seem to have reached market saturation) might be better directed at educating and supporting those parents. Regarding the drop-off in exclusive breast-feeding rates at three months – the provision of parental leave entitlement may be one factor, but if you talk to actual woman who actually breastfeed, some of them do find it restrictive, and may choose to cease exclusive breastfeeding for reasons of their own. In New Zealand, breastfeeding rates also drop at three months – yet formula manufacturers cannot market formula for those under six months. Marketing cannot therefore be the sole, or in this context even a dominant factor.
While those marketing formula in the third world (the context in which WHO, UNICEF and others work) are working to the detriment of infants and their families, in the first world this is usually the case – with appropriate information and support, formula feeding simply does not present the same risks to infants as in third world context.
Furthermore, presenting formula manufacturers as ‘predatory’ is somewhat disingenuous. People have sought alternative to (exclusive) breastfeeding across cultures and history – formula and the related equipment represents one of the few successes in this regard. Another successful alternative is cross-nursing, but in contemporary western contexts this has become an extremely marginalised activity.
I would not dispute that breastmilk is more nutritious, but I do think that other ‘benefits’ such as those linked to issues such as ear infections and gastro-intestinal problems could well be ameliorated with appropriate education around formula feeding. Until that happens, we will never really know what happens because of formaul itself, and what happens because parents who formula feed aren’t appropriately educated and supported. I also have issues with how the health ‘benefits’ of breastfeeding are reported, which often mask the actual levels of these benefits.
Research suggests the ‘breast is best’ message has penetrated the majority of its target audiences with effectiveness. In spite of this, breastfeeding rates have plateaued, and do not appear to be increasing. In light of this, it seems reasonable to assume that parents are making decisions based on a number of factors. Again, I would suggest that formula represent a viable alternative to breastmilk that some parents seem to find preferable, for a range of reasons. Rather than marginalise them, it would seem that some of the money being spent on ‘breast is best’ campaigns (which seem to have reached market saturation) might be better directed at educating and supporting those parents.

]]> By: jon http://contexts.org/articles/fall-2009/breastfeed-at-your-own-risk/comment-page-1/#comment-83 jon Fri, 18 Dec 2009 22:09:12 +0000 http://contexts.org/?p=1144#comment-83 Anyone following the comments on this thread may be interested in the <a href="http://contexts.org/podcast/2009/12/13/the-sociology-of-breastfeeding/" rel="nofollow">Contexts Podcast interview</a> with Julie Artis about this article. Anyone following the comments on this thread may be interested in the Contexts Podcast interview with Julie Artis about this article.

]]> By: classwarrior http://contexts.org/articles/fall-2009/breastfeed-at-your-own-risk/comment-page-1/#comment-82 classwarrior Fri, 18 Dec 2009 19:07:08 +0000 http://contexts.org/?p=1144#comment-82 This article has several deep flaws. The first is that the author talks about breastfeeding initiation, but not duration or whether the mother breastfeeds exclusively. The latter two are much more important when discussing breastfeeding. Focusing on initiation leads one to believe that women are breastfeeding much more than is actually the case. In the United States, wompen tend to not exclusively breastfeed infants, especially after the infant turns three months of age. This is a result of our country's lack of a paid maternal leave policy. This needs to be mentioned in any discussion of the social context of breastfeeding in the US. Looking at initiation rates is misleading, at best. The article ignores completely the political-economic context of breastfeeding in the US. In addition to the absence of paid maternity leave, infant formula companies undertake a huge marketing campaign to get women to use their products. This marketing effort has a profound effect on duration of breastfeeding. It is not mentioned at all in this article. The effort to downplay the benefits of breastmilk is not convincing. While I sympathize with the critique of IQ studies - I don't feel that reducing human capabilities to one number is a helpful or accurate way to analyze ourselves - most of the other health-related studies appear solid. Human infants have been drinking breastmilk for all of human history, with the exception of the last century. Of course it's going to be better for them! This is not to say that artificial formula is poison, but that it is probably not possible to improve on the beverage our infants have enjoyed throughout our evolutionary history. Finally, the main reason breastfeeding rates have increased around the world is the presence of strong social movements acting against the predatory practice of formula companies, not the "ideology of intensive mothering". Intensive mothering did not make the World Health Organization, UNICEF, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other public health agencies recommend exclusive breastfeeding - social movements did. There is more I could say, but I will stop now. This article has several deep flaws. The first is that the author talks about breastfeeding initiation, but not duration or whether the mother breastfeeds exclusively. The latter two are much more important when discussing breastfeeding. Focusing on initiation leads one to believe that women are breastfeeding much more than is actually the case. In the United States, wompen tend to not exclusively breastfeed infants, especially after the infant turns three months of age. This is a result of our country’s lack of a paid maternal leave policy. This needs to be mentioned in any discussion of the social context of breastfeeding in the US. Looking at initiation rates is misleading, at best.

The article ignores completely the political-economic context of breastfeeding in the US. In addition to the absence of paid maternity leave, infant formula companies undertake a huge marketing campaign to get women to use their products. This marketing effort has a profound effect on duration of breastfeeding. It is not mentioned at all in this article.

The effort to downplay the benefits of breastmilk is not convincing. While I sympathize with the critique of IQ studies – I don’t feel that reducing human capabilities to one number is a helpful or accurate way to analyze ourselves – most of the other health-related studies appear solid. Human infants have been drinking breastmilk for all of human history, with the exception of the last century. Of course it’s going to be better for them! This is not to say that artificial formula is poison, but that it is probably not possible to improve on the beverage our infants have enjoyed throughout our evolutionary history.

Finally, the main reason breastfeeding rates have increased around the world is the presence of strong social movements acting against the predatory practice of formula companies, not the “ideology of intensive mothering”. Intensive mothering did not make the World Health Organization, UNICEF, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and other public health agencies recommend exclusive breastfeeding – social movements did.

There is more I could say, but I will stop now.

]]> By: kv617 http://contexts.org/articles/fall-2009/breastfeed-at-your-own-risk/comment-page-1/#comment-81 kv617 Sun, 13 Dec 2009 05:13:31 +0000 http://contexts.org/?p=1144#comment-81 I will start out by saying that I was not breast fed as a child. My mom is a nurse and my dad is a technician. At that time (80s), however, working women probably did not have the rights and benefits that working women do today in regards to child care. My parents did a great job, and I turned out okay. It was never suggested that anyone was not a "worthy" parent because they did not breast feed. It was stated that they should consider the needs of a child before they had one. This need includes appropriate nutrition. It is also true, but unmentioned in this article, that infants who breast feed are less likely to catch illnesses such as ear and respiratory infections, reduces the risk of SIDS and reduces risk of uterine, ovarian and breast cancer in the mother. Breast milk is also not "merely" better than formula or other milk beverages, Sugars other than lactose found in formulas have a vegy negative effect on a child's teeth and digestion. There is also not enough fat in other mammalian milks to support the proper growth of an infant. When you bring a new person into this world, you are responsible for their well being and outcome. This involves choices you make as a parent that can, and will impact your child, Including your own health, as a parent, (which is why it was never suggested that breast feeding is the only option). As a professional social worker, and a person who has been in the care of children for many years, I am well aware of the situations faced by parents in our "current day." The majority of families require two incomes, and those that rely on one, are often in very difficult cirucumstances that can put other family needs ahead of the individual baby's. If there is no food on the table for mom to have, kids don't get any either. However, for working mothers, if they want, to be able to use time on work, and have free access to the tools that will make it possible, easier and less stressful for working women who think that it is the best choice. Also, as a social worker, I am well aware of the impact of not being able to spend adequate time, or offer appropriate developmental care with your child. The early years of development are the most important, and fundamental to get right. Once you have a child, the world isn't about you, or your needs. Clearly, parents need time to themselves, time to rest, and time to take a break now and then. Having children is stressful, so is providing for them. Sometimes, there can be issues that may impact a woman's ability to breast-feed that are more important than the breast feeding itself. There are other things in life that people "choose" to do, that are not "wrong", but are less correct or appropriate than other options in the majority of situations. If this seems "essentialist" or "absolutist" to you, that's fine. It was not meant to mean that 100% of all mothers everywhere need to breastfeed or they are terrible mothers who should have their children taken away, far from it. The general meaning of conveyance was to support the appropriate human development from day one. If you don't want to breast feed, fine. Its not my kid. I was just stating reasons that it should be supported, and shoud be advocated for in the majority of situations. Having a child is a life long commitment, and yes, some women don't want to breast feed, I would just ask these women and parents who decide not to, to sincerely and completely examine their reasons for not doing it, because the economic (you don't need to buy anything, less medical costs for childhood diseases), health, nutritional, social and developmental benefits are quite important. I will start out by saying that I was not breast fed as a child. My mom is a nurse and my dad is a technician. At that time (80s), however, working women probably did not have the rights and benefits that working women do today in regards to child care. My parents did a great job, and I turned out okay.

It was never suggested that anyone was not a “worthy” parent because they did not breast feed. It was stated that they should consider the needs of a child before they had one. This need includes appropriate nutrition. It is also true, but unmentioned in this article, that infants who breast feed are less likely to catch illnesses such as ear and respiratory infections, reduces the risk of SIDS and reduces risk of uterine, ovarian and breast cancer in the mother. Breast milk is also not “merely” better than formula or other milk beverages, Sugars other than lactose found in formulas have a vegy negative effect on a child’s teeth and digestion. There is also not enough fat in other mammalian milks to support the proper growth of an infant. When you bring a new person into this world, you are responsible for their well being and outcome. This involves choices you make as a parent that can, and will impact your child, Including your own health, as a parent, (which is why it was never suggested that breast feeding is the only option).

As a professional social worker, and a person who has been in the care of children for many years, I am well aware of the situations faced by parents in our “current day.” The majority of families require two incomes, and those that rely on one, are often in very difficult cirucumstances that can put other family needs ahead of the individual baby’s. If there is no food on the table for mom to have, kids don’t get any either. However, for working mothers, if they want, to be able to use time on work, and have free access to the tools that will make it possible, easier and less stressful for working women who think that it is the best choice. Also, as a social worker, I am well aware of the impact of not being able to spend adequate time, or offer appropriate developmental care with your child. The early years of development are the most important, and fundamental to get right.

Once you have a child, the world isn’t about you, or your needs. Clearly, parents need time to themselves, time to rest, and time to take a break now and then. Having children is stressful, so is providing for them. Sometimes, there can be issues that may impact a woman’s ability to breast-feed that are more important than the breast feeding itself.

There are other things in life that people “choose” to do, that are not “wrong”, but are less correct or appropriate than other options in the majority of situations. If this seems “essentialist” or “absolutist” to you, that’s fine. It was not meant to mean that 100% of all mothers everywhere need to breastfeed or they are terrible mothers who should have their children taken away, far from it. The general meaning of conveyance was to support the appropriate human development from day one.

If you don’t want to breast feed, fine. Its not my kid. I was just stating reasons that it should be supported, and shoud be advocated for in the majority of situations. Having a child is a life long commitment, and yes, some women don’t want to breast feed, I would just ask these women and parents who decide not to, to sincerely and completely examine their reasons for not doing it, because the economic (you don’t need to buy anything, less medical costs for childhood diseases), health, nutritional, social and developmental benefits are quite important.

]]> By: joschmidt http://contexts.org/articles/fall-2009/breastfeed-at-your-own-risk/comment-page-1/#comment-80 joschmidt Sat, 12 Dec 2009 21:37:41 +0000 http://contexts.org/?p=1144#comment-80 This argument is flawed on many levels, including: (a) essentialism; (b) a lack of consideration of the real situations faced by actual parents in the society we DO live in; (c) an assumption that the relatively small nutritional benefits offered by breastmilk should outweigh any and all other factors parents might take into account when making choices about infant feeding; (d) a lack of insight into the actual experience of breastfeeding across cultures and historical periods (e.g. the previous and non-western acceptance of cross-nursing as a solution to breastfeeding problems); (e) an assumption that women can AND would want to express milk during their working day; (f) a moral imperative which suggest the 'choices' parents make should only be supported if they concur with your perspective, both in relation to breastfeeding, and in relation to how parents should show that they prioritise their infants wellbeing. My research with new parents suggest that this sort of perspective is frequently (more often than not) experienced NOT as supportive, but as limiting and constraining, making mothers (and sometimes fathers) feel either inadequate, or pushed into situations that are not working to their benefits, to the extent that many labelled those who adopt this position in extremely negative terms, using language I will not reproduce here because of the context. This is the problem with the 'lactivist' position - it is PRESENTED as offering women/parents 'choice', but really only one option is presented as the 'right' choice. I, and others who adopt a truly pro choice position, are NOT anti-breastfeeding. We support the rights of women to choose to breastfeed, to breastfeed in public, and to have support from health and other professional, and society at large, in this decision. However, we also suggest that for some parents in contemporary western society, for a range of reasons, breastfeeding may not be the best option. We suggest that these parents should also be supported, provided with relevant education, and not be made to feel like they are less 'worthy' parents. With this sort of support, many of the issues that currently exist around formula feeding would be ameliorated. This argument is flawed on many levels, including:
(a) essentialism;
(b) a lack of consideration of the real situations faced by actual parents in the society we DO live in;
(c) an assumption that the relatively small nutritional benefits offered by breastmilk should outweigh any and all other factors parents might take into account when making choices about infant feeding;
(d) a lack of insight into the actual experience of breastfeeding across cultures and historical periods (e.g. the previous and non-western acceptance of cross-nursing as a solution to breastfeeding problems);
(e) an assumption that women can AND would want to express milk during their working day;
(f) a moral imperative which suggest the ‘choices’ parents make should only be supported if they concur with your perspective, both in relation to breastfeeding, and in relation to how parents should show that they prioritise their infants wellbeing.

My research with new parents suggest that this sort of perspective is frequently (more often than not) experienced NOT as supportive, but as limiting and constraining, making mothers (and sometimes fathers) feel either inadequate, or pushed into situations that are not working to their benefits, to the extent that many labelled those who adopt this position in extremely negative terms, using language I will not reproduce here because of the context. This is the problem with the ‘lactivist’ position – it is PRESENTED as offering women/parents ‘choice’, but really only one option is presented as the ‘right’ choice.

I, and others who adopt a truly pro choice position, are NOT anti-breastfeeding. We support the rights of women to choose to breastfeed, to breastfeed in public, and to have support from health and other professional, and society at large, in this decision. However, we also suggest that for some parents in contemporary western society, for a range of reasons, breastfeeding may not be the best option. We suggest that these parents should also be supported, provided with relevant education, and not be made to feel like they are less ‘worthy’ parents. With this sort of support, many of the issues that currently exist around formula feeding would be ameliorated.

]]> By: kv617 http://contexts.org/articles/fall-2009/breastfeed-at-your-own-risk/comment-page-1/#comment-79 kv617 Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:41:10 +0000 http://contexts.org/?p=1144#comment-79 I suppose that I don't think people should have children if they are not willing to put their children's needs first. Obviously I don't expect women to breastfeed if it causes them illness, severe injury or infection, because this is not good for the mother or the baby. It certainly is far less natural to attach a machine to a cow, and drink her milk (which is intended for her baby (who was most likely stolen and sent to a veal farm) and drink that instead. Breast pumps help women to stimulate lactation for women with a low milk supply, or who have not just given birth. A breast pump may be used to relieve engorgement, a painful condition whereby the breasts are overfull, possibly preventing a proper latch by the infant. If the mother needs to take medication that affects the breast milk and may be harmful to the infant, the mother may "pump and dump" the breast milk to keep up her milk supply during the time period that she is on the medication and may resume nursing after the course of medication is completed. Finally, pumping may be desirable to continue lactation and its associated hormones to aid in recovery from pregnancy even if the pumped milk is not used. It also makes it possible for working parents to make sure that the nutrients received by the baby are the best it possibly can be. This is why I advocate that all parents should have extended (paid) leave from work (for all jobs), that pumps (manual or electric) are provided, and that moms are edcuated about the benefits of breast feeding. Whether we like it or not, as women, if we did NOT have the technology or substitutes to make it possible to bottle feed, we would all have to breast feed. Just because it is "inconvenient" or "annoying" doesn't mean it isn't the right thing to do. I suppose that I don’t think people should have children if they are not willing to put their children’s needs first. Obviously I don’t expect women to breastfeed if it causes them illness, severe injury or infection, because this is not good for the mother or the baby.

It certainly is far less natural to attach a machine to a cow, and drink her milk (which is intended for her baby (who was most likely stolen and sent to a veal farm) and drink that instead. Breast pumps help women to stimulate lactation for women with a low milk supply, or who have not just given birth. A breast pump may be used to relieve engorgement, a painful condition whereby the breasts are overfull, possibly preventing a proper latch by the infant. If the mother needs to take medication that affects the breast milk and may be harmful to the infant, the mother may “pump and dump” the breast milk to keep up her milk supply during the time period that she is on the medication and may resume nursing after the course of medication is completed. Finally, pumping may be desirable to continue lactation and its associated hormones to aid in recovery from pregnancy even if the pumped milk is not used.

It also makes it possible for working parents to make sure that the nutrients received by the baby are the best it possibly can be.

This is why I advocate that all parents should have extended (paid) leave from work (for all jobs), that pumps (manual or electric) are provided, and that moms are edcuated about the benefits of breast feeding.

Whether we like it or not, as women, if we did NOT have the technology or substitutes to make it possible to bottle feed, we would all have to breast feed. Just because it is “inconvenient” or “annoying” doesn’t mean it isn’t the right thing to do.

]]> By: joschmidt http://contexts.org/articles/fall-2009/breastfeed-at-your-own-risk/comment-page-1/#comment-78 joschmidt Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:57:29 +0000 http://contexts.org/?p=1144#comment-78 I'm sorry, but this 'natural' argument is such a red herring - it's not 'natural' to attach a milking machine to your breasts, to feed your baby from a bottle, to have a baby cut out of you or sucked out of you ... but we don't argue against any of these things if they're in the best interests of the mother and/or baby. I don't think anyone argues that breastmilk isn't the *best* form of nutrition for new-born babies - but this doesn't make it the only viable option. If we are wanting to support women's capacity for making choices, one of those should be the choice whether or not to breast feed her baby. In contemporary western society, with appropriate education (at the same level as all the education women are offed to support breast feeding), formula feeding has negligible risks. These risks may well be balanced out by what many parents experience as advantages of formula feeding - for us, the biggest was that our child's father could be equally involved in the care of our baby, and I could have a life that wasn't totally ruled by an infant. (This may make me a *bad mother* ... but my son seems to think I'm pretty OK, so I don't really care what other people say about that.) While six weeks of debilitating mastistis, infections throughout my body, and a baby that will only latch on when screaming (*in spite* of every ounce of assistance midwives and lactation consultants could offer) was the cause of our decision to exclusively formula feed, the benefits *for us* were such that, were we to have another baby (which we're not), I'm not sure that we would even bother trying breast feeding again. Given the relevant information, presented in a fashion that doesn't obfuscate the 'science', and given appropriate education, parents will make the choices that are best for their infants AND themselves. We should respect this. I’m sorry, but this ‘natural’ argument is such a red herring – it’s not ‘natural’ to attach a milking machine to your breasts, to feed your baby from a bottle, to have a baby cut out of you or sucked out of you … but we don’t argue against any of these things if they’re in the best interests of the mother and/or baby.

I don’t think anyone argues that breastmilk isn’t the *best* form of nutrition for new-born babies – but this doesn’t make it the only viable option. If we are wanting to support women’s capacity for making choices, one of those should be the choice whether or not to breast feed her baby. In contemporary western society, with appropriate education (at the same level as all the education women are offed to support breast feeding), formula feeding has negligible risks. These risks may well be balanced out by what many parents experience as advantages of formula feeding – for us, the biggest was that our child’s father could be equally involved in the care of our baby, and I could have a life that wasn’t totally ruled by an infant. (This may make me a *bad mother* … but my son seems to think I’m pretty OK, so I don’t really care what other people say about that.)

While six weeks of debilitating mastistis, infections throughout my body, and a baby that will only latch on when screaming (*in spite* of every ounce of assistance midwives and lactation consultants could offer) was the cause of our decision to exclusively formula feed, the benefits *for us* were such that, were we to have another baby (which we’re not), I’m not sure that we would even bother trying breast feeding again.

Given the relevant information, presented in a fashion that doesn’t obfuscate the ‘science’, and given appropriate education, parents will make the choices that are best for their infants AND themselves. We should respect this.

]]> By: kv617 http://contexts.org/articles/fall-2009/breastfeed-at-your-own-risk/comment-page-1/#comment-77 kv617 Sun, 06 Dec 2009 02:41:54 +0000 http://contexts.org/?p=1144#comment-77 While I 100% completely agree that there are socio-cultural contexts and expectations for mothers to breast feed, It is unnatural to give your child anything else. Support for nursing mothers should include the right to have access to a pump and bottles etc, that can be borrowed from a hospital (as these materials can be sterilized and re-used), friend, etc. I think that as a nation, we need to give the best support to mothers and thier children, and that means making sure all mothers have the ability to breast feed (if they choose), or at least have their children drink breast milk from a bottle (which can be administered by anyone, including the father). This can be done through the distribution of said pumps and making sure that mothers, and fathers have access to maternity/paternity leave to take care of their children. Obviously women who drink alcohol or use drugs have other more important issues regarding their own health and well being than breast-feeding their child. Better social services that will help pregnant/nursing mothers kick the habit, can only serve to better the community. It is pointless to argue whether or not breast feeding is the best form of nutrition for your child because 100% hands down it is for the vast majority of women and children. The issue here, should be making sure that all mothers regardless of race and class have the opportunity to give their child the best start in life that they can, and this includes breast feeding. As a nation, we need to do a better job in allowing new parents to have more time off from work, better access to health care and social services, as well as the materials necessary to make breast milk the primary source of nutrition for a baby. It is unhealthy and unnatural to drink milk from a source that is not your own mother. While I 100% completely agree that there are socio-cultural contexts and expectations for mothers to breast feed, It is unnatural to give your child anything else.

Support for nursing mothers should include the right to have access to a pump and bottles etc, that can be borrowed from a hospital (as these materials can be sterilized and re-used), friend, etc.

I think that as a nation, we need to give the best support to mothers and thier children, and that means making sure all mothers have the ability to breast feed (if they choose), or at least have their children drink breast milk from a bottle (which can be administered by anyone, including the father). This can be done through the distribution of said pumps and making sure that mothers, and fathers have access to maternity/paternity leave to take care of their children.

Obviously women who drink alcohol or use drugs have other more important issues regarding their own health and well being than breast-feeding their child. Better social services that will help pregnant/nursing mothers kick the habit, can only serve to better the community.

It is pointless to argue whether or not breast feeding is the best form of nutrition for your child because 100% hands down it is for the vast majority of women and children. The issue here, should be making sure that all mothers regardless of race and class have the opportunity to give their child the best start in life that they can, and this includes breast feeding.

As a nation, we need to do a better job in allowing new parents to have more time off from work, better access to health care and social services, as well as the materials necessary to make breast milk the primary source of nutrition for a baby. It is unhealthy and unnatural to drink milk from a source that is not your own mother.

]]>