No one is minimising risks, or invalidating actual risks.

But the construction that women are inherently diseased, and must be 
tested and tested and tested, to maintain their purity, is one we cannot 
allow to stand.

That we live in a society where women are healthier, better fed, more 
intelligent and have more power to make informed decisions, than has 
ever occurred on the planet before... that is what needs to be the 
opening statement.   In that context, other women are a resource to help 
keep our babies alive.. a resource that has to be looked at where the 
majority of women are perfectly acceptable donors, with some work done 
to ensure risk has been minimised... is the one we should be aiming for.

That wonderful Chinese police officer, who breastfed, and kept alive 
safely, 5 babies, in an emergency, would, in terms of this discussion, 
being told to let them die, rather than infect them with whatever she 
couldn't prove she didn't have?  She was breastfeeding her own baby, so 
what?  She's AUTOMATICALLY too dangerous to feed another without a 
battery of testing?

The double standard here, is that we're asking for a level of purity 
that is nigh on impossible, from the cleanest, safest, healthiest 
nations on earth.

And this notion that we must assume disease, rather than work with each 
individual circumstance, is going to do so much harm, and harm so many 
babies, if we let this myth be constructed around us.

The vast majority of mothers in the countries considering milk sharing 
(which requires a huge amount of hygiene and money rich resources) have 
all been tested during their own pregnancy, just prior to their 
lactation.  Certainly, in the USA, where litigation is a more everyday 
fact of life, then more caution would have to be used.  but that's about 
context.

The spectrum of mothers available for donation, starts with the VAST 
majority being perfectly safe to donate, and all of whom, just about, 
have the blood work to prove it.  Only when you get into tiny 
percentages of overall population, do you run into the TINY percentage 
of the population, that should not donate.

Whilst we continue to discuss theentire spectrum as only the TINY 
minority, babies will be harmed.

Already, in the USA, double the newborns on formula, die as on 
breastmilk.  Seeing every mother who may give life giving milk to a baby 
without enough, as Typhoid Mary, is simply obscene.  And ignores the 
science, and the general population's actual behaviour and health.

Again, that heart warming story of the baby being breastfed by 5 young 
mothers, on a rota, as the baby's mother died in childbirth... gone.  
That baby is now on formula.

The double standard here is that you are asking more of a woman, than 
you are of a cow.  Even when we know the cow's milk has potentially 
lethal contanimation in up to 14% of the product.  Yes, there is merit 
in the cross-species argument, versus same species, but that's part of 
the balance of risks for that individual baby - not a huge banner 
statement that infection and disease is running rife through our mothers 
and babies.

And we know that far LESS than 14% of the lactating population, is a 
risk.  And that's before we get to the fact that most women are looking 
at both screening, and home flash heating with donated milk.

I can see a doctor's office, in the not to distant future, where a Dr is 
telling a mother not to breastfeed her own baby, until she can prove her 
milk is safe.

And the seeds of that horrible vision, are being sown in here, right now.

I grew up in a world where doctors and scientists had told mothers not 
to breastfeed, as their milk was not good enough.  I cannot comprehend 
that returning via well meaning intentions on fear based philosophies.  
And you will see it rise, I can assure you, in the wake of these 
discussions on the automatic dangers of diseased women, and their 
polluting bodily fluids, that must be sanctified as 'safe'... by science 
and technology.

The risks are relatively small, the base population immensely healthy.  
The way to mitigate the risks, quite easy and managable.  The decision, 
the mother's.  She should be supported in her decision, in either 
direction.  That's the baseline.

I've stood by women who are HIV positive, who were being told 
needlessly, that their babies would be removed at birth, and they would 
never see them again, if they breastfed.  I've listened to their anger, 
and their fury, and their fear.  I've heard them cry. I've had to inform 
them of the dangers of the drugs they were being forced to take, to dry 
their milk.  When there is no reason for this AT ALL.

Stand by the women I've stood by, and listen to their pain.  You may 
find yourself reflecting on how healthy our society is, rather than how 
diseased it is.  And how 'choice' is a dangerous, and load bearing, 
responsibility, that neither assumes, nor negates, hope.

Morgan Gallagher



On 29/11/2010 20:47, Amy West wrote:
> It's one thing to assess risks and make decisions for our own children; it's
> another for those risks to be considered for a donor milk recipient.  So, I
> don't think this is saying we need to employ these (or other, similar)
> standards to feed our own babies.
>
> We can generalize based on well-conducted research, but we can't generalize
> based on our own personal experiences....
>
> We have to remember that when we minimize/discount/invalidate real risks
> based on our own experiences, we're essentially doing the same thing as
> parents who point to their perfectly healthy formula-fed children to
> invalidate the risks of formula feeding (or the benefits of breastfeeding,
> however you'd like to say it).  When we consider how to handle this, we
> can't allow for any double-standards.
>
> Amy West, CLC
>
> On Mon, Nov 29, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Morgan Gallagher<
> [log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>
>> Of course, at base, it's also saying that mothers should do this in order
>> to feed their own babies....
>>
>> I'd fail several of those tests.  *looks at 5 year old*
>>
>> Doens't appear to have made any difference.
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Morgan
>>
>>
>> On 29/11/2010 20:29, Nikki Lee wrote:
>>
>>> Dear Lactnet Friends:
>>>
>>> Odd that the authorities are concerned about human milk sharing because of
>>> risk, yet authorities have no such compunction about handing out formula.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, in this day and age where nasty viruses can be
>>> transmitted in life-giving liquids (i.e. semen and blood and milk), it is
>>> worth it to be careful. Perhaps there could be universal safe guidelines
>>> for
>>> milk sharing, as there are for safe sex?
>>>
>>> Perhaps that is where the effort should go, to construct a set of
>>> guidelines
>>> for women that want to donate/receive milk? I made up some guidelines.
>>> What
>>> do you all think? (Could these be guidelines for a Licensed Wet Nurse?)
>>>
>>> 1) Regular   blood testing for nasty viruses (every 6 months?)  Cost to be
>>> shared between donor and receiver.
>>>
>>> 2) Donor to have a yearly physical, to ensure a basic level of health.
>>> (Cost
>>> to be shared between donor and receiver)
>>>
>>> 3) Random urine testing (once every 3 months) for tobacco, drugs of abuse
>>> and prescription medications.
>>>
>>> 4) Random culturing of the milk (once every 3 months).
>>>
>>>
>>> just speculating....
>>>
>>> warmly,
>>>
>>>
>>> Nikki Lee RN, BSN, Mother of 2, MS, IBCLC, CCE, CIMI, ANLC
>>> craniosacral therapy practitioner
>>> www.breastfeedingalwaysbest.com
>>>
>>>               ***********************************************
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>>> Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3286 - Release Date: 11/28/10
>>> 19:34:00
>>>
>>>
>>             ***********************************************
>>
>> 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
>>
>               ***********************************************
>
> 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
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 9.0.872 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3286 - Release Date: 11/28/10 19:34:00
>


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

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