>Kathy D. wrote:
>I guess I'll go out on a limb here and argue for the position that it should
>be the mother's (or parents') decision to make whether she takes the risk of
>the baby getting HIV from breastfeeding or she takes the risk of the baby
>getting some other disease from NOT breastfeeding

If there is research to support her yes... but when I'm seeing some
claiming 30% transmission rates that's way too high for *my* personal taste.<

Two points:

The studies which show rates like these did NOT differentiate between women who
gave their babies breast milk EXCLUSIVELY  and those who mixed fed.  The point
being that the study (the only study, the Coutsoudis study in The Lancet this
summer) which shows a different rate DID differentiate and showed that the rates
for exclusively breastfed babies and the exclusively replacement fed babies were
similar (although the replacement fed babies' was slightly HIGHER).  So the risk
of transmission *additional* to that already present via being in the womb and
being born was zero.

Also -- what I was saying earlier, and I think Kathy was indicating, is that it
matters *not*( if 30% or 3% is too high, low or otherwise for YOUR PERSONAL
TASTE.   Isn't our role to present the best info we have got (frighteningly
*poor* in this field) and support the woman making the decision???

OK, yeah, maybe some of you in jobs have to tow the line a bit more
circumspectly than that.

Magda Sachs
Breastfeeding Supporter, BfN, UK

             ***********************************************
The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(TM)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html