I'd just like to make something clear, a codicil to the current sets of 
discussions.  When I've discussed the rights of the child, and not the 
rights of the mother, I've not been suggesting that the mother is not 
the main instigator of the need for an advocacy statement.  The rights 
of the child do not run contrary to the wishes of the mother.  Rather, 
it is an additional support, offered to the mother, in order for her to 
present to a hostile world, her legitimacy in protecting her child.

Every mother has the right to cease breastfeeding: it is her breast, she 
owns her own body, she gets the right to choose who has access to it.  
Her human rights as a person, means she has dominion over her body.  If 
the mother does not wish _others_ to impose rules and regulations upon 
her body, and the body of her child, by demanding weaning, or partial 
weaning, or absence during night time hours etc, _then_ the mother may 
need someone to stand up for the baby's rights and needs.

And that is done, by pointing out to 'whoever', that the baby has base 
physiological needs that are not personal choice by the mother: they are 
hard wired, primal instincts that should be met as a matter of natural 
course.  There is no element of 'personal decision' by the BABY: 
breastfeeding on demand, and bed-sharing is not a 'lifestyle choice'.  
It is essential biology.  Thus, you remove the pressure from the mother 
that is being used to whack her over the head: that she is simply 
wanting her 'choice'.  You are speaking for the baby's basic needs... 
that the mother is happy to meet if she was not being pressured to do 
otherwise.

There is no situation where an advocacy statement for a baby, would run 
against the mother's desires.  She's the mother. We act when the mother 
asks us to, on behalf of her child.

We often provide advocacy statements in court situations, where the 
mother herself is being accused, either by the State, or her partner, as 
being a bad mother.  That is not our business.  We cannot know any 
mother: but we can know the baby.  For the baby's biological needs are 
separate from the personality, or history, or attitude, of the mother.  
The balance of the baby's needs, and any risk to the baby from not 
breastfeeding, versus risk if they remain with the mother, is not part 
of our advocacy.  That is done by others: we ask only that the risks to 
the baby are _considered_.  They are part of the equation.  Risk 
assessment should include the risks to the baby from enforced 
separation.  We never address anything other than the baby's base 
biological needs.

That is why advocacy on behalf of the baby, can be important.  It can 
change the court's attitudes.  Equally, it can be as ignored as anything 
else in a legal file.

But many mothers simply feel supported, by having someone else speak for 
what they are fighting for: the rights of their own baby.  Especially 
when everything about that baby's care, is being negated as her 
'personal choice'.

Hope that makes sense.

Morgan Gallagher

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

Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome