counselor and, more than that, an aspiring midwife. I've been lurking for over
a month, but haven't jumped in yet. It's a lot easier to read than to write
with a 17 month old baby (still breastfed, of course) on my lap. Anyway, with
all this talk of whether WIC is beneficial or detrimental to breastfeeding, I
just have to stick in my own .02, since, like most issues, it's not so
black-and-white.
The office I work from has a 74% breastfeeding rate, but there's a lot of
supplementing going on. Many of the mothers are told by the pediatrician
associated with the health center to supplement while still in the hospital.
The breastfeeding coordinator is not an IBCLC, just a nutritionist who happens
to be very committed to breastfeeding. So, it basically becomes a matter of us
vs the MD, and since there is a reverance of doctors somewhat akin to the fear
of G-d, guess who loses.
Also, the exclusively breastfeeding package, which is a fairly recent
innovation, is not as attractive to many as the one for supplementing with abm
(or is it sin?) Carrots and tuna fish just don't seem to cut the muster.
The whole problem, IMHO, is just another manifestation of the belief that
there's something inherently wrong with the female body. We, according to the
medical model, cannot give birth without technical intervention. Nor can we
nourish our babies without technical intervention. (I'm not saying that
intervention is never appropriate, nor that all MD's endorse this view.)
The answer, of course, is education, but it's a real uphill battle. We
need an entire paradigm shift. Myths die hard.
Now, I'll get off my soapbox.
Devorah Shulman (Using my husbands email address)
--
/\ /\
____/_ \____ ____/_ \____
\ ___\ \ / Moshe Shulman \ ___\ \ /
\/ / \/ / \/ / \/ /
/ /\__/_/\ [log in to unmask] / /\__/_/\
/__\ \_____\ /__\ \_____\
\ / \ /
\/ \/
|
