Nicely said, may I add that truly whatever the current mortality rate is
today, whether it is 1 in 1000 or 2 in 1000 or 4 in 1000, the exact number
is not really relevant. What is relevant is that children DO die from
formula feeding and that for EVERY other leading cause of death HCP counsel
mothers on how to lower their risk. This includes folic acid to prevent
birth defects and drink water to prevent premature labor and when should you
bring your child in for a cold and let's not forget the HUGE emphasis on car
seats to prevent MVA deaths (mind you not even a leading cause of death) .
What is important is that of the top say 10 leading causes of infant death
BREASTMILK/BREASTFEEDING has the ability to significantly reduce the likely
hood that illness or death occurs. Christine Betzold NP
In a message dated 3/1/01 9:16:07 AM Pacific Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
>
> Now, on a related topic, I fail to see why the same people who are willing
> to use other epidemiologic studies to support their health education
wording
> of "if you do this, you'll increase your risk of this" are not willing to
be
> as forthright about formula. As the oft quoted presentation from
> illustrious and captivating "the Kathy and Cathy" team, guilt is what you
> get when you KNOW what you are doing is not the right or best thing (I
still
> cherish my copy of their tape on this from a conference 5 years ago). We
> use guilt all the time in health education and medicine. As a Certified
> Health Education Specialist, I've read a huge amount of this literature and
> the theory behind behavior change. True fear is not the best motivator,
but
> it IS a motivator. And, my intent with the use of these epidemiologic
> statistics is more to motivate hcps to act, not throw them at moms
directly.
> I have many times spoken to physicians about their tenacious insistence
that
> ALL babies be immunized exactly on schedule and that ALL children under 40
> lbs ride in a cert. restraint. The reality is that not all (or even most)
> unvaccinated kids will come in contact or contract the microbe in question
> and not every unrestrained child will be in an accident. YES, I cringe at
> saying this, and I'm certainly NOT implying that we stop pushing the
> message. We use relative risk, attributable risk and odds ratios all the
> time in health. What I am saying is that we are using and reinforcing a
> double standard. These same physicians tip toe around the issue of
> breastfeeding--fearing that they'll make a mom feel "guilty for not
> breastfeeding." They don't see formula as a significant threat to the
> health of babies. IMNSHO (and many others on this list), it most certainly
> IS when it is used to replace breastmilk and when that formula undermines
> the success of breastfeedingI know many of us are nonconfrontational and
> surely we would rather "win" people over with honey rather than vinegar,
but
> folks someone has got to send this message home. Just think about it for
a
> minute and substitute in the wording that we use most of the time into
other
> health campaigns (say smoking, mammograms, or any others). There are many
> instances where the "evidence" is much shakier than with breastfeeding and
> yet we deliver a much stronger message.
>
> Yes formula is necessary for certain situations, but its pervasiveness in
so
> many aspects of our society demonstrates how "normal" it is and how much of
> a near equal. Even non-formula ads contain subtle messages reinforcing
> this. State Farm is now running an ad about now that we're getting older,
> women's life concerns shift from this and that to blah, blah, blah and
> <<bottles>>. Refrigerator ads have bottles in them and Seasame Street
> antropomorphises animals with bottles.
>
> Perhaps if we, as advocates, were a bit more direct with other hcps we
could
> make safe donated human milk banks ubiquitous for those who cannot
> breastfeed. There are industrialized nations where women are paid well for
> pumping milk so that EVERY hospitalized child under the age of 5 is given
> heat-treated human breastmilk to aid in their recovery from any illness.
> Why don't we do this? Because there is a cheap (relative to expressed
human
> milk) alternative that is perceived as "almost" as good.
>
> So, I'm sorry (really) if I've insulted anyone, but that's a risk I'm
> willing to take.
> --
> --Chris Hafner-Eaton, PhD, MPH, CHES, IBCLC [log in to unmask]
> INFANT CUISINE AND MOTHER CARE: Lactation Consulting, Perinatal Health
> Education and Attachment Parenting Classes for parents and practitioners
>
>
> -----------------------
***********************************************
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
|
