Valerie writes:
"I respectfully disagree with your assessment.  I don't think the American
public knows that death is one of the risks of infant formula.  They have only
been educated about the benefits of breastfeeding.  No one tells them that they
might be risking their child's life by bottlefeeding.  On this list I have
heard over and over again from various IBCLCs that they cannot present the risks
of infant formula feeding to parents because the institutions they work for
won't allow it.   So I believe it is not the American public that accepts this
level of deaths, it is health care policy makers and health care professionals.
Parents have no clue and they have no clue because policies in various
medical institutions discourage health care professionals from speaking about risks
of infant formula. And why do health care professionals/instititutions know
infant formula is safe in developed nations? Because they have been told so by
the reps from the industry.  I believe that the assumption that poorly
prepared infant formula is the only reason there is a risk in developed nations is
erronous.  One only need look at the patents on human milk components to know
how coveted and treasured these components are by the pharmacetical and infant
formula industries. Death by a disease that could have been prevented by
breastfeeding is called what?  The government may call it pnemonia, diarrhea, or NEC
but I call it an infant formula death.  The questions one asks and the
perspective you have creates the kind of science-based evidence you accept."

I think this is a very important point. I do not believe that the avg person has any idea that there are risks to artificial feeding. Again, we can draw a correlation to birth--most Americans think "natural birth" is nice if you can do it, but not very important at all (and that most women can't do it, anyway).  As a rule, hospital childbirth classes train parents to be good patients and those educators who want to really educate are not "allowed" to address the inherent risks of brutally violating the physiologic norm (which is, of course, undisturbed birth).

This may be a risky question to ask, but if we follow the premise that it is the HCP's who accept the risks of AF, and thereby the deaths resulting from those risks, aren't we as LC's also accepting those risks when we allow ourselves to be curtailed in our education of parents?

Just as I believe that it is the absolute obligation of every CBE to tell a pregnant woman about the dangers of medicalized birth, I also believe it is our obligation to educate about the dangers of AF. We need to be the ones who refuse to allow infant death to be an acceptable risk of being fed.
Jennifer Tow, IBCLC, CT, USA

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

To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [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