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
|