In a message dated 1/22/1 4:55:44 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:

<< The babies of those mothers, who are already being handicapped in their

start in life by not receiving human breastmilk, are entitled - a word we

use way too frequently in the US, by the way! - to get the "best"

artificially-manufactured food we can figure out how to produce. >>

Now, this is where I have a problem. I think that babies who truly cannot
receive adequate mother's milk (most adopted babies, babies whose mothers
have passed on, babies whose mothers truly have a phsiological anomoly or
medical condition which prevents any or full milk production or babies who
cannot physically consume mother's milk) are absolutley entitiled to receive
the very best possible substitute. But, if these were the only babies who
received a substitute, the only financially viable sustitute would be banked
breastmilk. Otherwise making an AIM would be like making drugs for ophan
diseases--there are so few people who have the need that the drug company
cannot recoup its investment. I absolutely do not believe that mothers are
entitled to have a substitute for human milk just b/c they want one. As long
as we continue to support this idea of choice, we support the supposed
altruistic efforts of manufacturers to "protect and promote" infant
nutrition. Can I gag on that oxymoron?
Jennifer Tow, IBCLC, CT, USA

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