>We see babies who can't
>yet sustain themselves fully at breast nonetheless smile after nursing in a
>way they never smile after bottle-feeding. We see babies play silly games
>at breast and slug down formula with stiffened fingers; root happily toward
>their mother's breast anticipating access or turn fretfully and reflexively
>toward a dry breast before turning away for a bottle; pat a breast or
clutch
>a blanket. These are not interchangeable relationships, whatever one's
>definition of harm.
I am afraid I have fed hundreds of babies with a bottle of formula and have
found that they do smile and play. It is great when you get mischievous
little imps who tease you and grin - much the same responses my own kids
gave when BF. I also found my kids responded as well when bottle fed EBM.
Although unless the bottle is introduced early it is less satisfying to give
EBM via bottle as the baby will be less keen on an artificial nipple.
Introduce early and problems are eliminated. I would advocate EBM feeds as
being a good way for dads to bond too....
>If a person who becomes HIV-positive has not
> been harmed, since the virus itself is nearly silent, then perhaps the
> formula-fed baby has not been harmed. What is lost in each case is a
normal
> immune system.
I appreciate the point but I think it is an inexact and exaggerated analogy.
HIV is a darned sight more deleterious than formula.
With research suggesting that there may be 2-3% of mums who cannot BF, added
to those who 'fail' due to a variety of causes I would respectfully suggest
that using such an argument will stress families unduly.
Tony Knox
----- Original Message -----
From: "Diane Wiessinger" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2001 3:34 PM
Subject: 41 pages, harm, and pulling together
> I spent a happy few days with extended family visiting, getting my baby
> properly graduated from high school, and I didn't see the latest lactnet
> flurry until Sunday. Out of curiosity, I copied all the related posts
into
> a continuous document. It runs to 41 pages.
>
> Two thoughts came to mind in the discussions of whether there is harm done
> to *every* formula-fed baby.
>
> First was how we define harm. If a person who becomes HIV-positive has
not
> been harmed, since the virus itself is nearly silent, then perhaps the
> formula-fed baby has not been harmed. What is lost in each case is a
normal
> immune system. The person is still healthy until pathogens or errant
> cells are encountered. Is that harm? Or if bread dough to which a little
> too much salt and less than all of the yeast has been added is not harmed,
> since the breast still rises, then perhaps the formula-fed baby, deprived
of
> cholesterol and receiving abnormal amounts of hundreds of other nutrients
> and micronutrients, has not been harmed, since he still matures. What is
> lost in each case is the ability to rise to fullest capacity. Is that
harm?
> Certainly the person - or dough - in each case has been *altered* and is
> measurably different from the product that would have been. Is that harm?
>
> Second was our failure as a group to point out that artificially-fed
> babies cannot enter into a normal first relationship with their mothers.
> They are denied the full-mouthed, embracing, skin-on-skin,
> nurturing-as-much-as-feeding, frequent-contact, hormonally-driven
> relationship that is the human introduction to relationships. The effect
of
> eliminating that first relationship is poorly studied, but I think it
would
> be the height of culturo-centric arrogance (cool phrase!) to claim that
its
> elimination is without consequence. Is that harm? I'm surprised that no
> one, in those 41 pages, went beyond the health implications. In our
> enthusiasm for the product, we overlooked the importance of the process.
>
> We've all seen babies who are unable to nurse at first, but who refuse
> bottles as soon as they can get by without them. We see babies who can't
> yet sustain themselves fully at breast nonetheless smile after nursing in
a
> way they never smile after bottle-feeding. We see babies play silly games
> at breast and slug down formula with stiffened fingers; root happily
toward
> their mother's breast anticipating access or turn fretfully and
reflexively
> toward a dry breast before turning away for a bottle; pat a breast or
clutch
> a blanket. These are not interchangeable relationships, whatever one's
> definition of harm.
>
> But I was impressed to see, toward the end of the thread, how the group
> pulled back together. This is not an "I" and "you" issue, it's a "we"
> issue, and it was lovely to see that aggressive word "you" fade from the
> posts. Everyone on lactnet is here because we want to see breastfeeding
> become the cultural norm, and we've all made a personal journey to our own
> perspective. Toward the end, I could see us helping one another again,
> instead of criticizing one another's stage in the journey. It was a
> tremendous relief to see that. I think I'll throw the 41 pages out. We
> seem to have traveled past any need for them, and as Barbara Wilson-Clay
and
> others point out, there's *so* much else to talk about :-)
>
> Diane Wiessinger, MS, IBCLC Ithaca, NY
> www.wiessinger.baka.com
>
> ***********************************************
> 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
|
