I spent a happy few days with extended family visiting, getting my baby
properly graduated from high school, and I didn't see the latest lactnet
flurry until Sunday.  Out of curiosity, I copied all the related posts into
a continuous document.  It runs to 41 pages.

Two thoughts came to mind in the discussions of whether there is harm done
to *every* formula-fed baby.

First was how we define harm.  If a person who becomes HIV-positive has not
been harmed, since the virus itself is nearly silent, then perhaps the
formula-fed baby has not been harmed.  What is lost in each case is a normal
immune system.  The person is still healthy until pathogens or errant
cells are encountered.  Is that harm?  Or if bread dough to which a little
too much salt and less than all of the yeast has been added is not harmed,
since the breast still rises, then perhaps the formula-fed baby, deprived of
cholesterol and receiving abnormal amounts of hundreds of other nutrients
and micronutrients, has not been harmed, since he still matures.  What is
lost in each case is the ability to rise to fullest capacity.  Is that harm?
 Certainly the person - or dough - in each case has been *altered* and is
measurably different from the product that would have been.  Is that harm?

Second was our failure as a group to point out that artificially-fed
babies cannot enter into a normal first relationship with their mothers.
They are denied the full-mouthed, embracing, skin-on-skin,
nurturing-as-much-as-feeding, frequent-contact, hormonally-driven
relationship that is the human introduction to relationships.  The effect of
eliminating that first relationship is poorly studied, but I think it would
be the height of culturo-centric arrogance (cool phrase!) to claim that its
elimination is without consequence.  Is that harm?  I'm surprised that no
one, in those 41 pages, went beyond the health implications.  In our
enthusiasm for the product, we overlooked the importance of the process.

We've all seen babies who are unable to nurse at first, but who refuse
bottles as soon as they can get by without them.  We see babies who can't
yet sustain themselves fully at breast nonetheless smile after nursing in a
way they never smile after bottle-feeding.  We see babies play silly games
at breast and slug down formula with stiffened fingers; root happily toward
their mother's breast anticipating access or turn fretfully and reflexively
toward a dry breast before turning away for a bottle; pat a breast or clutch
a blanket.  These are not interchangeable relationships, whatever one's
definition of harm.

But I was impressed to see, toward the end of the thread, how the group
pulled back together.  This is not an "I" and "you" issue, it's a "we"
issue, and it was lovely to see that aggressive word "you" fade from the
posts.  Everyone on lactnet is here because we want to see breastfeeding
become the cultural norm, and we've all made a personal journey to our own
perspective.  Toward the end, I could see us helping one another again,
instead of criticizing one another's stage in the journey.  It was a
tremendous relief to see that.  I think I'll throw the 41 pages out.  We
seem to have traveled past any need for them, and as Barbara Wilson-Clay and
others point out, there's *so* much else to talk about :-)

Diane Wiessinger, MS, IBCLC  Ithaca, NY
www.wiessinger.baka.com

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html