Here is the conclusion to my ethics paper. In the rest of the paper I discussed the benefits of BF to immune system maturation, and protective qualities of BF to the baby from opportunistic infections. Also, the nutritional qualities, social benefits, maternla benefits. I put into question the ethics of formula ditribtution, etc.... This is all information that everyone here on LactNet has and knows, besides it was 7 pages long.................... CONCLUSION Being that formula companies have been involved in this decision-making, we need to remember that their interests lie not in infant health, but in promoting their much inferior products. the end means of which = MORE profits for them It is in my opinion very unethical for the infant formula companies to have been involved int he deliberations concerning this policy, this needs to be looked at more closely by ethicists. Infant formula contributes nothing to immune system maturation, and by its very nature can be destructive to a maturing immune system. Thereby contributing to poor health, prejudicial to a possibly HIV+ child. Health is a "fundamental good". Distribution does not encourage the "right and healing action" either, a way to deal with the problem is more ethical, this is only treating the symptoms. Use of formula would create a financial burden on a family in the Third World, o they may not have access to obtain replenishment of it in a timely way. As often happens in developing countries, the ystem controlling the distribution may be corrupt, disorganised, haphazard, or inaccessible to those who live far from a major poplulation area. The families may try to stretch out the product or offer an even more inferiot substitute it this is the case. Funds to purchase the infant formula may "dry up". the formula companies may even reach the decision to no longer "donate their product" (if this is done). Without any breastfeeding available, the situation becomes even more hazardous for these children. We need to remember that children are our most vulnerable and fragile beings, we are supposed to be protecting them. Another thought ... the infant formula companies are not doing this in an empathetic way, this is not a desire to share their gifts with other persons. It is profit, that is the bottom line. Infant formula is not the solution to the problem of HIV/AIDS, more babies/children may die as a result of this new policy/decision. I inlcuded a quote from Pamela Morrison, IBCLC here...... (with 2 add-ins in () ). "While formulating an opinion, imagine a woman living in a little hut somewhere, who cooks on a wood fir, with no electricity, no running water, no fridge. Or she may live in a little one-roomed wooden/tin shack in a city and she might have the water and elcectricity, but the least expensive ABM may cost 63% (to 257%) of the minimum wage, and she has other children to feed and buy clothing for ..so ... stretching out the formula with water (and gruel) may seem attractive to families ... who are poor ..." (19) I want to thank my LactNet friends for sending me suggestions on how to "tie this together" and on how to do the format of the paper. Leila Elena Marcial, RN/CCE who had her ears pierced at the tender age of 2 weeks old by her Aunts in Puerto Rico. a budding medical ethicist........ _________________________________________________________ DO YOU YAHOO!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com