So, because you've witnessed counsellors (how many - one, two?)
> "deriding formula as poison, and claiming formula is tantamount to
> child abuse", we're slightly unhinged and irrationally paranoid?
Have I touched a nerve? I am not saying you are unhinged - my wife is a
counsellor and I would not criticise her at all! However, you need to ask
widely and you will find it is a common perception - not of course among
counsellors so do not ask amongst your peers!! The number of counsellors is
probably around 20 - but I think they are a sad minority!
You talk about "rational discussion" winning the argument - rational
> discussion is fine. But there is no argument. There are facts. You
> talk about "acceptance of different opinions" - opinions are fine.
> Except when they're not based in fact.
If there is no argument why are you reacting so strongly. Whenever there is
a contrary opinion there is argument, and this is why we need to build a
careful case in order to influence people to choose breast feeding as their
option. The whole point of evidence based practice is to rationally argue a
case and to prove it with research. A simple fact - which you will dislike
[as do I] - is that millions of babies mature and develop perfectly well on
a diet of artificial milk.
You talk about "practical
> advice". Advice is not what we do. We do evidence-based information.
> You talk about families having the right to choose. What would the
> baby choose?
Where I spoke of advice it was in terms of how to avoid scenarios which many
women find embarrassing - this is in no way going to undermine the ethos of
counselling. My experience of formula fed babies is - I suspect - much
wider than yours. These babies were all very happy with formula. I think
that it is important to realise that babies seem to be non too discerning.
Your argument is based on emotion and not on evidence.
And, as Gonneke has already said, there are no benefits to
> breastfeeding. Breastfeeding is not "superior in every way".
> Everything else is a disbenefit and inferior.
You have made the same mistake as Gonneke - if there is a disbenefit [is
this a word in a dictionary or just a neologism?] then
there is also a benefit.
I stand by my argument - if everything else is of a lower standard then BF
is both superior and has benefits.
Tony Knox
----- Original Message -----
From: "GoochJones Family" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2001 7:07 PM
Subject: Unhinged - who, me?
> Tony
> So, because you've witnessed counsellors (how many - one, two?)
> "deriding formula as poison, and claiming formula is tantamount to
> child abuse", we're slightly unhinged and irrationally paranoid?
> Rabid, even? Whose "general perception" is this? Yours, the DoH's,
> paediatricians, academics?
>
> You talk about "rational discussion" winning the argument - rational
> discussion is fine. But there is no argument. There are facts. You
> talk about "acceptance of different opinions" - opinions are fine.
> Except when they're not based in fact. You talk about "practical
> advice". Advice is not what we do. We do evidence-based information.
> You talk about families having the right to choose. What would the
> baby choose?
>
> And, as Gonneke has already said, there are no benefits to
> breastfeeding. Breastfeeding is not "superior in every way".
> Everything else is a disbenefit and inferior.
>
> Jessica Gooch
> Trainee Supporter, The Breastfeeding Network
> London, UK
>
> ***********************************************
> 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
>
***********************************************
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
|
