I am way behind on all my mail, but wanted to respond to this, as it has come
up several times on Lactnet.


In a message dated 6/19/0 6:17:35 PM, [log in to unmask] writes:

<< I agree to a point.  Breastfeeding is just one part of mothering, but I
would say breastfeeding is THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF MOTHERING.  It's
certainly *as important* as not using cocaine during pregnancy, not smoking
during pregnancy or afterward, not drinking during pregnancy, using a car
seat til the child is 4 years old. >>
<snip>

I completely agree with this!!

<<But I still say all health care professionals should consider themselves
morally and ethically obligated to be 100% truthful about the risks of
infant formula/not breastfeeding.>>

And this...but...

<<Putting a child in a car seat is just "one part of mothering" -- and not one
that happens all that often (1-2 times a day on average?) -- yet we have
LAWS in every state MANDATING that mothers put their children in car seats.
Getting a child their immunizations is just "one part of mothering" -- and
not one that happens all that often, a couple of times in the first few
years, and then occasionally tehreafter -- yet we have LAWS in every state
MANDATING that mothers get their children immunized (or else they can't go
to school).  Cocaine use during pregnancy lowers a child's IQ on average 3
points, while formula lowers it on average 5-8 points.  We have LAWS against
cocaine use, for everybody, all the time.  But formula is still considered
"just as good" or "almost as good" or "good enough."  It is time that
formula-use *when it is not necessary* (the vast majority of the time) be
recognized as *reckless endangerment of a child* with appopriate penalties.
If people don't want to breastfeed, they shouldn't be having children.>>

... I find it quite an affront to personal freedom and the intelligence of
those of us who consciously choose *not* to vaccinate our children to use
that issue as an analogy. I do not think it is appropriate to compare the
biological imperative of breastfeeding with the issue of vaccines. I
understand, Kathy, that you are saying that the "state" imposes consequences
on those "risk" factors it deems unacceptable and that is certainly a valid
analogy. From that argument, we can see clearly that the "state" does not
value breastfeeding. Vaccines are not one part of mothering at all--they are
one of the choices (or in many cases default actions) that many parents make.
Your statement implies that to *not vaccinate* is analogous to artificial
feeding and that this is generally accepted by bf advocates to be true. Among
the many bf advocates I know, however, it is certainly not true and IMO, it
dramatically weakens your whole argument. Indeed, quite a few of us would
consider vaccinating to be analogous to AF, and avoiding vaccines to be a
part of mothering. Without getting into the debate of vaccination, however, I
would like to ask that those who write about such issues consider that this
is a very controversial topic.
    Your last sentence, however, is a statement I think more of us need to
have the courage to make!
Jennifer Tow, IBCLC, CT, USA

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