"...the only financially viable sustitute would be banked breastmilk."

In an ideal world, no question about it. But that's not happening - yet! -
and in the meantime, why should the babies be stuck with a far, far inferior
alternative? When an alternative that's even *slightly* less inferior could
be available?

"I absolutely do not believe that mothers are
entitled to have a substitute for human milk just b/c they want one."

Well, perhaps the *mothers* aren't, but the babies sure are!

I understand your argument, and I admire your ability to maintain such a
"take no prisoners" stance, but I guess I'm old and jaded, and not so
willing to throw the babies out with the artificial formula. My years
working at WIC taught me that it's often better to deal with the reality
that's staring you in the face right here, right now, this mother & this
baby, than to cling to ideal-world scenarios.

I follow your argument, and suspect that in terms of pure "shoulds", you are
right. And I value those of you who are able to maintain that position - you
have my respect and my support. But I'm gonna stick to Rule #1: Feed the
Baby, and in doing so I guess I sometimes have to compromise what I
"believe".

Respectfully,
Cathy Bargar, RN, IBCLC
Ithaca NY

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