That's "Nursing Matters" Karleen!  Had we known we'd end up on the world 
stage, we would not have landed on "Nursing" but at the time I was keen 
to reclaim the word in the UK breastfeeding context.  :-)

And yes, advocating on behalf of the baby, is the way forward, we've 
found.  Mother's right are easily dismissed, especially in context of 
feeding.  In a mainstream culture that still positions breastfeeding as 
a mother's personal choice, the follow on effects are always positioned 
on her, and that doesn't matter very much.  She chose to breastfeed and 
it was interrupted, so what?  Give the baby formula, it's not an issue.

However, turn it round to the baby, and it becomes as issue that 
officials soon recognise.  Hathor has encapsulated this perfectly this 
week, in the second of these cartoons:  No Papers!.  
http://www.thecowgoddess.com/

In the cartoon, which is in support of the issue we've got going here 
about breastfeeding in public, an off page official is asking the _baby_ 
for its identity papers, whilst the mother is not a player.  This is far 
more powerful than asking the mother.  For, after all, it's the baby who 
breastfeeds, and the baby who is being asked to stop.

Switch the Tennessee story round:

"A baby was separated from its mother yesterday, whilst officials sorted 
out a transfer from hospital to jail for releasing the mother.  The 
baby, who had been in the mother's arms and breastfeeding on demand 
whilst the mother was treated in hospital, was taken from the mother for 
over 34 hours.  Thanks to the prison officials then refusing to let the 
mother pump during this period, the baby was then fed formula as there 
was no mother's milk to give it.  The baby's suffering over the loss of 
contact with the mother, and the increased risks of infection from the 
formula, do not appear to have been considered by officials.  In 
addition, the mother suffered severe engorgement, putting her in pain 
and threatening the baby's milk supply in the future."

Suddenly, it's a whole different ball game.

There are other advantages to advocating on behalf of the baby.  It 
means you're not concerned with whatever situation the mother is 
involved in, so removes you from any discussion or stress over why the 
separation is occurred.  Whenever I've phoned Social Services management 
about a baby being threatened with removal from the mother, I start with 
"I just want to say up front I'm not commenting on the situation at 
all.  None of my business why you are doing this, or what it's about.  
Not for us to discuss your procedures or why you feel it's appropriate 
to remove the baby.   I'm just talking for the baby."  This has been 
immensely helpful.  Simply, they often listen, as you're not attacking 
their decisions, just informing how they manage their decisions.

The other advantage is that you're advocating on science and evidence 
based research - not the mother's feelings.  When we prepare an advocacy 
statement for a baby, we tailor it to the precise psycho biological 
needs of that baby, by name.  Let's make up a pretend one for Baby 
Angela Smith...

"We are righting to advocate on behalf of Angela Smith.

Angela is a breastfeeding, bed sharing baby.  This means that she is 
used to feeding at least 5-7 times a night, and gains a great deal of 
her nutrition from these feeds.  If you remove her, she will become 
distressed by the lack of skin to skin contact with her mother, and may 
lose weight as a result in the loss of calories."

You then back it up with scientific references, and if possible, actual 
letters from BF specialists.  (And thank you everyone!).  But they write 
about Angela too.

"I understand you are considering removing Angela....this will impact on 
Angela's emotional and psychological health...."

After you've highlighted Angela's needs, you move onto to the costs of 
protecting Angela's milk supply. 

"If you do decide to night wean Angela during this period, her mother 
will require an appropriate pump for collecting her milk.  This is to 
prevent engorgement and risk of infection, to provide Angela with milk, 
and to maintain Angela's milk supply.  We have appended details of the 
pump hire in your area, with costs.  We've also supplied courier 
details, on how can courier over fresh milk to Angela during the night, 
to maintain her feeding schedule."

On this, we have  European Court of Human rights ruling, stating that 
they must keep baby and mother on the breast frequently, as well as pump 
etc.  So they are a bit tied into costs at that point.

You then move onto formula risks...

"As you know, formula increases health risks.  If Angela's mother is one 
of those women who cannot pump, or if you do not courier over fresh milk 
frequently, and Angela ends up being fed formula, you increase Angela's 
chances of developing diabetes, heart disease and cancer."

By the time you've finished, suddenly everyone sees what a big deal it 
is, what they're proposing to do to Angela.  Of course, some still 
ignore everything, but you then have documentation for Angela's lawyers 
to sue them afterwards.  And they know that too.  So a proper risk 
assessment: risk of  enforced weaning versus risk of remaining with 
mother, has to be considered.

Advocating for babies is vital.  They have to have a voice.  Once a 
mother has requested help for their baby, the baby's needs should then 
be highlighted and protected with all vigour!

In one recent case of accidental injury being pronounced 'deliberate' by 
the paediatrician, the paed also decided the baby was underweight.  So 
we contacted the WHO office in charge of the weight charts, and they, in 
turn, made a statement about the health of a baby on that percentile.  
And we added that into the advocacy statement, as well as providing the 
name and contact number to phone Geneva if they wanted more info.

Strangely, weight gain disappeared from the court paperwork.

Morgan Gallagher
www.nursingmatters.org.uk

ps - it is not illegal to breastfeed in public in England and Wales, and 
the Indecency laws do not apply.  But we forgive Hathor her not knowing 
that, as even the BBC have been reporting otherwise.  But cartoon 3 
should be ignored!!!!   
http://thedevilsalternatives.blogspot.com/2008/07/breastfeeding-is-not-illegal.html

Karleen Gribble wrote:
> Arly,
> I would suggest that already existing breastfeeding organisations in 
> the US (or if they are not willing, a separate org could be created) 
> could follow the lead that Morgan Gallagher has provided in the UK 
> with her Breastfeeding Matters organisation. Focussing on the rights 
> and needs of the infant and the health issues for the mothers (duty of 
> care and all) might be fruitful.
>
>> Re: this week's story in the Tennessean:
>>
>> "[The woman's attorney] said officers would not allow her to take a 
>> breast pump with her from the hospital even though she was separated 
>> from the baby for more than a day after she was discharged from the 
>> hospital, causing painfully engorged breasts...[Sheriff's 
>> spokeswoman] Weikal said Villegas' baby was with her for about 40 of 
>> the 60 hours she was in the hospital, but agreed that she was 
>> separated from the baby for about 34 hours between the time she was 
>> released from the hospital and the time she was released from jail."  


No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com 
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.1/1560 - Release Date: 7/18/2008 6:47 AM

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

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