Responding rather late to this thread, as I indulge myself with some
Lactnet catching-up this Sunday morning, but the wording below jumped out
at me from a recent much-needed response to Henry Miller about his reaction
to the recent WHO resolution. I am grateful that the author of the
response took the time and trouble, and I only use this as a generic
example, but I just want to make a small plea about the language we use
when we are being advocates for breastfeeding.
This was the wording:
>Artificial feeding does not contribute to empowerment of women *or* the
>health of babies in developing nations.
>Women deserve to have unbiased information so that they can make an
>informed choice.
The first statement is excellent, being absolutely true. Amen. The second
statement is a perfect example of how we phrase our advocacy in politically
correct language. It is especially tempting to invoke human rights in this
way, and we are not the only ones who do it; this kind of language is used
nowadays in many policy documents, both national and international. But I
would like to sound a note of caution about phraseology which portrays
infant feeding as something which is done to babies by mothers (or fathers,
or even sometimes by whole families). Or which suggests in any way that
our responsibility ends with the primary carers' decisions about what
method of infant feeding they will opt for. Why? Because it diverts our
attention from the end-user, *the baby*. And because it creates the
perfect loophole for those with a different agenda to promote breastmilk
substitutes as especially convenient and desirable because women themselves
have absolute control over their use. The glaring omission is that when it
comes to what information is given about infant feeding, it is not about
what "women deserve", but about what "babies deserve". While mothers
should have all the help and assistance they need, the ultimate consequence
of the mother's feeding choice is not, in fact, experienced by the mother
herself, but by the baby. And the health consequences for the baby can be
profound, notwithstanding the kind of information the mother received.
When we protect a mother's right to informed choice it also follows that we
endorse her right to exercise that choice, whatever it is. Does our
responsibility really end there? Or is there an obligation to think ahead
to the consequences of that choice, which fills whole libraries? If so, we
might need to re-think how we use the word "choice" and use something which
more appropriately fits this life-or-death outcome. And we might need to
clearly state the mother's *and* the baby's rights in the same sentence.
Like pregnancy and birth, the purpose of infant feeding is not merely so
that mothers can enjoy the experience, while feeling supported and informed
(although that is a very nice side-effect) - its ultimate purpose is to
have the baby survive and thrive. Once the baby is safely born, with the
rarest exceptions, this is achieved through breastfeeding. My plea, then,
is that when we review documents, or respond to contentious articles, we
keep the baby at the centre of our efforts, and don't allow others to
forget that he exists either.
Pamela Morrison IBCLC
Rustington, UK
[log in to unmask]
***********************************************
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(R)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|