To clarify for some who seem confused on this point -- the parents in the
Oregon case have physical custody of the child. They just don't have legal
custody. That means the child lives with them full time, but certain
decisions are made by the court -- such as how the child is fed.
Also, please recognize that in my postings on this topic I was not saying
that *I* believe any of this stuff -- like that HIV doesn't cause AIDS. I
was stating, at various times, either what the parents were arguing, or what
arguments *might be* raised against Dr. Jack's various options.
Someone wrote:
I would never take that risk with my own child. How could I justify it
later on if she
contracted HIV? "I know you're HIV+ honey, but at least you don't have
eczema or ear infections."
This is quite inflammatory. It still assumes that formula is a risk-free
option, or at least a lower-risk option, and the truth of the matter is that
there is no way to predict, ahead of time, which children will DIE because
they were formula-fed. Imagine saying to your 10-year old, dying of
lymphoma -- "Well I know you're dying of lymphoma honey, and that could very
well have been prevented if I'd breastfed you, but at least you're not dying
of AIDS, so I'm guilt-free." Ha. Or how about "Yes, daughter, you are
dying of breast cancer at 35, leaving behind 3 small children, and the only
risk factor in your case is that you were formula-fed, but your dear
departed mother was worried that she might give you HIV if she breastfed
you, even though the scientific literature at the time was clearer on the
risks of formula for breast cancer than the risks of breast milk for HIV.
She can rest in peace knowing that you had 35 years of life before dying
because of the choice she made."
One of my relatives declined to breastfeed her child because she (the mom)
has Hepatitis C, even though the medical research shows it is not a problem.
She said quite clearly that she would rather her child have lots of problems
that were common to all other babies who formula-fed, than take ANY risk
that SHE might give him Hepatitis C. She was willing to accept all the
risks of formula use, partly because lots of other people use formula, so no
one would single her out as behaving irresponsibly (except me, perhaps).
There is no way to make a numerically valid decision on the HIV issue based
on comparative risk, because the risk of formula-feeding varies from child
to child, and because of our relative lack of research data on HIV
transmission. It is estimated that between 300 and 3,000 children die each
year in the US from causes DIRECTLY RELATED TO BOTTLE-FEEDING WITH
FORMULA/LACK OF BREASTFEEDING.
If you knew ahead of time that your child's chance of getting HIV from you
was 14-30% and your child's chance of being one of those kids who die from
formula was 45-50%, then clearly, the choice should be made to breastfeed,
even with HIV.
If you knew ahead of time that your child's chance of getting HIV from you
was 14-30% and your child's chance of being one of those kids who die from
formula was 14-30%, then it would be a toss-up. If the chance of dying from
formula was less than 14%, then I suppose the choice should be for formula,
even though I think much more is affected when breastfeeding doesn't happen
than just the health risks.
But to repeat, the problem is that the risks of formula for any specific
child are unknown ahead of time.
Kathy Dettwyler, feeling feisty
***********************************************
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
|
