Finally, I've had time to open the latest JHL and am reading through the
abstracts from the 13th international conference of the International
Society for Research in Human Milk and Lactation.
I'm glad to know who is funding which research, though I will not pretend to
be glad that the ISRHML takes sponsorship funds from entities like formula,
drug and biotech companies who I think should be kept at a safe distance
from research on human milk and lactation. I was happy to see how much
research was presented that was funded by the researchers, or by their
public health employers. Another major player in this society is Medela,
who funded numerous studies presented at the conference. Together with
something called the 'Agency for healthcare quality', Medela funded a study
by a group including Paula Meier, presented as 'What is the cost of
providing 100 mls of own mothers' milk (OMM) for very low birth weight (VLBW
< 1500 g) infants?'
This is the kind of simple research we need to combat the notion that it is
insurmountably expensive, inconvenient, or impractical to expect that the
person the baby came out of, will be able to provide nourishment for that
baby, thus necessitating the growth of a completely new offshoot of the
pharmaceutical nutrient industry, namely the mass production of own mothers'
milk substitutes from pooled human milk from other women, subjected to a
costly industrial process under the guise of giving a gift to babies that
they have never before been able to receive.
From the abstract, as printed in JHL 23(1), 2007, p 87:
"The mean daily costs of providing 100 ml of milk with and without including
opportunity costs of the mother's time were $2.47 and $0.65, respectively."
The cost calculation included monthly rental fees for an electric pump, fee
for pump collection kit, and the mother's time. I take this to mean that if
mothers were willing and able to hand express it would likely cost the same
or less. Even with the cost of renting a pump the authors suggest that the
high daily output that results (presumably due to the use of such a pump,
but this is speculation on my part having only read the abstract) mitigates
the initial fixed costs of getting started.
If you consider the larger picture, such as what establishing lactation adds
to the quality of life for these families beyond its initial life-saving
features in the early days, how can anyone argue that this is NOT something
all health authorities should protect, promote and support, thus freeing up
resources in their own systems as well as in the entire funding picture that
could be used to solve other problems begging for solutions? Does anyone
here know of any other substance that can save a person's life for just
sixty-five cents per deciliter?
Rachel Myr
Snowed in, in Kristiansand, Norway
http://www.nrk.no/sorlandet/
***********************************************
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 email list is powered by LISTSERV (R).
There is only one LISTSERV. To learn more, visit:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html
|
