I just heard a story on CNN today about a family in (I think) Oregon; mom
HIV+ (but not sick, I gathered?), 6 wk. old baby removed from the family's
custody to foster care because the parents "didn't believe" that HIV virus
causes AIDS or that the virus can be transmitted by breastmilk. The state
will not allow the baby (HIV+ at this point, naturally) to be fed its
mother's expressed breast milk, and apparently the main point in this
custody case has to do with the mother's determination to continue to
breastfeed the baby. Mom says that breastmilk is more important for the baby
than treatment with AZT (which the parents have not permitted). The
commentator and a panel of 3 lawyers talked about this for about 10
minutes - all, of course, agreeing that the state had acted correctly, and
throwing around some pretty inaccurate info about HIV transmission via
breastmilk. Although they did say that in countries "like Africa" (sic), the
WHO did encourage BFing over ABM for these babies, all were 100% dead-set
positive that in the US formula-feeding was the only option.

I hope we'll hear more about this story - except I hope fervently that it
won't become just another "dangers of BFing" story! The director of our
local teen pregnancy program and another agency that works with "high-risk"
(not HIV risk, socioeconomic risk) families in our county already feel that
teens (categorically) should not be encouraged to BF because they "might" be
at risk for HIV. They thought we were "always pushing breastfeeding" at WIC.
(No fear of that now, of course, now that there's no longer anyone in charge
of "pushing" breastfeeding at WIC! ........ I say bitterly......

Cathy Bargar RN IBCLC