Sender: |
|
Date: |
Mon, 3 Dec 2001 15:16:51 -0800 |
Reply-To: |
|
Subject: |
|
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" |
From: |
|
Comments: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Pamela writes:
> In places where formula feeding (F/F) is still considered the norm, is
> infant illness (such as chronic diarrhea or constipation, or serious
> problems resulting from viral or bacterial infection) also considered the
> norm?
>
> My pediatrician told me at one point that it was "normal" for a baby to
> have X amount of illnesses in the first year of life (I can't recall for
> certain what she said, but I think it was 6 in the first year).
> Does F/F as the norm = sick baby as the norm?
The answer is yes.
The way to change that is to change people's expectations. I routinely point
out to the medical students that rotate through our practice that the
breastfed babies are "healthier" than the formula fed babies - then when
they begin to see it on their own, I point out that since babies are
supposed to be breastfed, the formula fed babies actually are "sicker" more
often. {first I let them acknowledge that there's a difference - then I
work on their perspective}
When moms say that Johnny or Suzie was "never sick" when they were little -
I say "They must have been breastfed!" [The moms just beam!] 9 times out of
10 I'm correct - and when I'm not -I say "Wow, you got lucky. Formula fed
babies tend to be sick more often than the breastfed babies".
Always stirring up trouble : ) ....
Gail S. Hertz, MD, IBCLC
[log in to unmask]
***********************************************
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
|
|
|