In a message dated 1/22/02 4:17:36 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:


> So, what is best in the case that Kathy wrote about? Is it better for the
> baby to have his mother's milk for as long as possible even if it heightens
> the risk of the couple's not having this baby? Does it really heighten the
> risk? Will there be other complications with the birth mother supplying the
> baby's nutrition? Or will everything be better because of it?

Shouldn't the real question here be "What is best for the BABY?"  And isn't
the milk of another woman -- one who is not the baby's biological mother --
*third* best, just above formula in the WHO hierarchy?

While I understand the concern of the would-be adoptive parents and respect
their desire to provide the best  possible nutrition for the baby, babies
belong with their mothers, and mothers with their babies.

The birthmother has no idea right now whether or not she'll be able to bear
giving her child away.  If -- and only if -- she's really *sure* that she
cannot raise this child then it is in the baby's best interests to be raised
by strangers.

It's a hard situation for the would-be adoptive parents, but the interests of
the baby should come first -- not their own.

Diane D
LLLL
Brooklyn NY

             ***********************************************
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