LACTNET Archives

Lactation Information and Discussion

LACTNET@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Reply To:
Lactation Information and Discussion <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 21 Jul 2005 23:53:06 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (77 lines)
Nikki posed an interesting question about the theory behind payment (or not)
for breastmilk 

 

A couple of ideas come to my mind. 

 

First it's patronizing to think that women need to be protected from
themselves and from decisions they might make on behalf of themselves and
their families. Is there anyone out there who truly thinks that making
people dependent on someone else's idea of what is their best interest is a
good idea? The vicious cycle of welfare and the culture of entitlement in
the US would be the obvious example. 

 

Is there any evidence that a woman providing breastmilk to two babies gives
poorer quality milk? Does someone with a singleton who pumps enough milk for
a second baby in anyway damage her own child? Mothers of twins will be all
ears to hear this loop of logic. 

 

I suspect that one of the reasons that women don't value breastfeeding is
simply because it is "free". Formula must be better because it's expensive
and even in charity programs is carefully rationed. You don't, for example,
get all the formula your baby needs for the first year in the WIC program.
The poor mom who accepts this "generosity" ends up paying out of pocket
using her limited resources after the child weighs about 10 pounds. Do women
who know that banked breastmilk is several dollars an ounce value breastmilk
over formula more? Modern culture places value on expensive things. I would
argue that not allowing women to be compensated fairly for their breastmilk
actually supports a formula culture. 

 

Men routinely sell their sperm to sperm banks where infertile couples
happily use it without batting an eye. Why should a product unique to
women's bodies be treated so very differently? Breastmilk is more difficult
to provide and certainly takes greater commitment. Infertile folks often
choose an individual sperm or ovum donor based on individual
characteristics. College newspaper ads offer large sums ($10k) for egg
"donation". Is it such an outrageous leap to wonder why breastmilk isn't
similarly recruited? 

 

Susan Small RN BSN

 

 

Nikki wrote:  One argument I've heard is that poor women might be tempted to
sell their milk instead of giving it to their own babies.  Another is that
women might be exploited somehow, although I haven't exactly thought that
theory through.

 

 


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

To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]

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

ATOM RSS1 RSS2