For me personally, I think that the proposal goes too far. It’s hard for me to articulate exactly why, but I think more than anything it comes down to doing more harm than good. I mean, to some degree you are preaching to the choir. Most of the women who are getting good prenatal care and seeing their doctor regularly are going to know about the importance of breastfeeding and are going to at least take a crack at it if possible. The ones who don’t see their doctor regularly are the ones least likely to breastfeed (as near as I can tell, given statistics on who breastfeeds) and so they are also the ones at risk to try to substitute something other than formula (something grossly inferior) when they can’t get it OTC.
The benefit that gets me enthused is the prospect that important partners in child health within the medical community would take BF more seriously. For example, I’ll bet maternity wards would hire more (and better) lacatation consultants, neonatal nurses would be more reluctant to give formula, lactation consultants would be covered by insurance, doctors would be even bigger advocates of BF, etc. There are all problems right now. BUT–I don’t think this benefit outweighs the risks.
I’d like to see other public health initiatives that increase BF, without going to the drastic step of making formula harder to get. What those are, I don’t know. I’ve been dying to see a pro-BF ad during the superbowl. Wouldn’t that be something?
The line should be drawn at what is HARMFUL or NOT HARMFUL to a child. What don’t you understand here? It isn’t HARMFUL to formula feed a baby. It’s HARMFUL to give babies poison.
I don’t think harmful is a good marker. After all, if a parents gives a child Frosted Flakes every morning, that child has an increased risk of obesity and diabetes. That is definitely harmful.
Giving a child formula gives them a lower IQ, more ear infections, more respiratory tract infections, viral infections, and gastroenteritis. This is also harmful.
Poor women would benefit the most under my plan. Now they are more likely to formula feed, and that’s expensive! Higher doctor bills, food bills, and lower IQs are things that harm especially low income families.
Some of the issues Cranky brought up can be resolved without mandating breastfeeding. We can mandate insurance cover an LC, and a breastpump rental - if its been prescribed by the physician (my insurance covered both, because they were both prescribed). The hospital I delivered at was very Pro-Breastfeeding, having an LC available 24x7 and nurses who wouldn’t bottlefeed a baby unless the paperwork indicated that was to be done - if anything, they were too pro-BF - my daughter was almost re-admitted to the hospital 24 hours after coming home for dehydration because of their insistance not to use a bottle or formula.
And I agree, to me this is the same topic as the “one drink could cause FAS” school. Yeah, you shouldn’t drink while your pregnant, but all the whole “one drink” school does is cause women who had a drink or two before they knew they were pregnant to panic for nine months - and it doesn’t impact the binge drinkers and regular consumers of alcohol that put their fetus at risk. Likewise, the BF propaganda machine helps a lot of women feel a lot of guilt for something they weren’t able to succeed at, while the women who are in greatest need of the advice and encouragment to BF don’t get it - they don’t self educate on the benefits (or the disadvantages).
Where should the line be drawn on government regulation - where the benefits of regulation outweight the risks and costs of that regulation. I don’t see anything here that is convincing me that the benefits are that huge that they’d outweight the risks of such a proposal (women feeding their babies homemade formula, formula perscriptions getting screwed up (my birth control perscription is currently screwed up - so no BC Pills for me this month!)) or the costs (which include the cost of the PR hit the government takes every time they interfere in my life).
Autz, formula is regulated to some degree through the FDA just like all other food products are. That’s as much regulation on my food as I care to have. The benefits are not so great as to make me want to give up the liberty of raising my children the way I see fit. I am also against mandatory bicycle (and motorcycle) helmets. But feel free you use 'em if you want! I personally would NEVER raise my kids on a vegetarian-only diet, but I’m not gonna tell the next person how to raise theirs!
When you look at the population that hasn’t been raised on breast milk, they perform just fine in society. And breast milk doesn’t guarantee ANY of the benefits you claim.
I’d like you to answer the following questions in this forum:
What kind of cleaning products do you use?
What kind of shampoos and bath soap do you use?
Do you broil or fry meat?
Do you have carpeting in your house?
When was the last time your water was checked?
Do you eat “no pesticide” vegetables?
Paper or cloth diapers?
Do your children drink juice or pop?
All of these items have pros and cons to them. Do you want all of this regulated, too? Personally, I am sick to death to see a study claiming one thing and then a year or so later, find it has been disproven in another study.
I’m glad you’ve had a positive experience breastfeeding. But that doesn’t give you (or anyone) the right to jump into everyone else’s life and start barking orders.
Echo, How do you know I’ve had a positive experience breastfeeding? I’ve quite purposely omitted talking about my kids, how many there are, how old and whether I’ve had a great time nursing them.
My personal experiences are irrelevant, and so are yours.
If I’d started this debate by saying, “I’ve had a great experience breastfeeding my children, so everyone else should do it too.” then your objection would be relevant.
But I’ve simply stated that I think breastfeeding is important enoughto society and to individuals that formula should be available by perscription.
I’m still saddened that very few people have attempted an intellegent debate. I thought that was the purpose of this board. Most responses have been knee-jerk “no!” without much objective reasons.
I enjoy a good debate, hearing both sides, but I’ve been disappointed.
I’m jumping in late into this thread, so apologies if I’m raising a point that’s already raised.
When my wife was pregnant, she was also diagnosed with hyperthyroid activity. The pediatrician was worried that this could cause the fetus to develop a hypoactive thyroid as a result, so she went to see an endocrinologist who gave her medication to stabilize her condition. One side-effect of this treatment, however, was that she was not allowed to breastfeed – the medication was dangerous for infants in large doses, and breastfeeding would have transferred the medicine to the baby in the mother’s milk (she was strictly monitored during the pregnancy to ensure that the fetus was not overmedicated).
Needless to say, she was upset, since she likes the idea of breastfeeding and really wanted to get into it. And the assumptions in the OP about how formula-feeding mothers are somehow lazier/inconsiderate than breastfeeding mothers gets nothing but a :rolleyes: from me.
No. That’s not what the research says. The research says that breastfeed babies on average have higher IQs and on average have a lower incidence of those three maladies. That is not the same as formula “giving it to them” and more importantly, it it’s a far, far cry from saying that one individual infant, if formula-fed is going to get those things. Perhaps the baby will have an increased RISK of those things, but not a guaranteed problem.
In other words, you’remisinterpreting valid research studies, and this is when you give breastfeeding advocates a bad name.
rjung, in the OP I said that mothers who adopt, have medical problems, or are on medication would automatically get the formula perscription. I have never called any one lazy or inconsiderate.
A lot of women formula feed for legitimate reasons. A lot of women formula feed because they don’t know the benefits of breastfeeding, don’t want to go through the temporary discomfort involved, or don’t know how.
Canky, of course you can’t guarentee a formula fed infant will have these problems, but on average they do. Some have a lot more problems than average, some have fewer. But most formula fed babies will have significantly more problems than most breast fed babies
Which is why you always get ancedotal evidence in these debates. People who say “my breastfed child always had ear infections, and my friends bottlefed child NEVER had one.” Statistics measure populations, but they don’t do a very good job describing individuals. (predicting individuals - maybe).
(I have a girlfriend who’s parents put sweet wine in her bottle to help her sleep. She’s a doctor, in very good health, so it doesn’t SEEM to have done her (or her architect brother) any harm. And I know plenty of people who have introduced their toddlers to beer by letting them take a sip of Daddy’s - hey, in Wisconsin, its a tradition! ).
Autz, if you are unhappy with the quality of the debate, give us something to work with. Give us a cost benefit analysis of 3 fewer colds or 3 IQ points. Personally, I think most people in the US are pretty fed up at the government being in their lives, and your biggest problem with this proposal is that its gone over like a lead balloon here - how are your going to get it passed as a law? I wouldn’t want to be the representative that tries to push this through. Should everyone breastfeed that possibly can? Sure. Should everyone give to charity? Sure. Should we legislate these things - not in my opinion. (I’d be a libertarian if I didn’t think it was naive). You haven’t done anything to change my mind other than to rant about the quality of debate. You are the one interested in changing the status quo - its your responsibility to start by changing minds.
Cite MOST. Define SIGNIFICANT. Define PROBLEM. Three IQ points or three fewer colds is not a problem. Allergies - what percentage of children have significant issues with allergies. What percentage of breastfed children? What percentage of formula fed children? Do MOST children who are formula fed have problems with allergies (it isn’t my experience, where MOST people I know don’t have allergy issues regardless of how they were fed as an infant). I’ve seen a study where your chances of getting some form of Luekemia are halved if you were breastfed, that’s a problem, but the incidence of the form of Luekemia is so darn rare that I don’t know if its significant. It certainly isn’t going to affect MOST families.
Autz said, "A lot of women formula feed for legitimate reasons. "
ALL reasons for formula feeding are legitimate. You’re making this into a “you’re a bad parent” name-calling session.
Autz also said, "Echo, How do you know I’ve had a positive experience breastfeeding? I’ve quite purposely omitted talking about my kids, how many there are, how old and whether I’ve had a great time nursing them.
My personal experiences are irrelevant, and so are yours. "
Why would you be pushing for something so hard if it didn’t work out for you? Just because of a few IQ points? Breastfeeding doesn’t guarantee any of the benefits you’ve gone on about, any more than formula feeding guarantees any of the HORRIFIC TRAGEDIES you’ve outlined. I can’t imagine you’d be on this crusade if you had a bad experience! And unless your children are grown adults, you don’t even know if they will reap the long term benefits.
And by the way, my personal experience is DAMNED WELL RELEVANT! It’s my body! I’m free to abort, nurse, or procreate like a rabbit if I so desire. (Not relevant…grrrrrrrrrr…)
Odd how we’re now fixated on guarentees. A car seat doesn’t guarentee that your child will survive a car crash, but the odds increase greatly.
Yes, I think personal experiences are irrelevant. My grandmother, a 2 pack a day smoker, died at 87 from a plane crash. Does this prove smoking is not harmful? Of course not. It’s a mere anecdote that says nothing of the overall effect of smoking on the general population.
Do a google search on the benefits of breastfeeding and you’ll find page after page about lower cancer rates, less multiple sclerosis, and even heart disease.
cites: http://www.prairienet.org/laleche/bfcost.html
Odd how we’re now fixated on guarentees. A car seat doesn’t guarentee that your child will survive a car crash, but the odds increase greatly.
Yes, I think personal experiences are irrelevant. My grandmother, a 2 pack a day smoker, died at 87 from a plane crash. Does this prove smoking is not harmful? Of course not. It’s a mere anecdote that says nothing of the overall effect of smoking on the general population.
Do a google search on the benefits of breastfeeding and you’ll find page after page about lower cancer rates, less multiple sclerosis, and even heart disease.
cites: http://www.prairienet.org/laleche/bfcost.html
Autz, I’m the closest thing to an advocate of your position that has come around so far, but even I have to know where you get the idea that any individual FF baby will have “significantly more” problems. Since the breastfeeding benefits are based on parametric measures, the term “significant” has a real meaning–it means the difference stand up to statistical tests.
Here is how a study like that works, grossly simplified.
Take 100 babies who were BF, and 100 babies who were FF. Some of the babies in each group develop gastroenteritis. Let’s say 2 of the BF group and 5 of the FF group. That means the FF group seems to have more than twice the rate of gastroenteritis of BF babies. Let’s say they apply every control for otehr risk factors and the like to these two gorups and it’s still true. Okay. Now we can honestly say that more FF babies have gastroenteritis than BF babies. We can even put a figure on that like “twice as likely.” That’s all legitimate.
But what you’re saying is that if you take any two individual babies, one who was BF and one who was FF, the FF baby will have “more problems” than the BF baby. But if we’re talking about gastroenteritis, you can see where 95 times out of 100, the FF baby you choose in that group is going to be fine. S/he won’t have “significantly more” problems. S/he just has a higher RISK of being one of those five babies who contracts gastroenteritis. That’s a different concept.
Every single one of your cites could be valid, or you could have the same well-researched sources I have. Together we could find 100 studies that prove that BF babies have a lower incidence of nasty problems than FF babies. But the fact is, you CANNOT take any individual baby and make the statements about him or her that you have. It’s an easy mistake to make, but it’s critical to be precise. Otherwise credibility goes right out the window.
I’m hopeless at debating, so I’m just going to throw out a couple of ideas that sprung to mind.
I think its dumb to compare how you feed your baby to the issue of child seats. The reason why child seats are a good idea and the government has made them compulsory is to protect children from the actions of OTHERS as well as YOURSELF. YOU may be the world’s greatest and safest driver, but many other people aren’t and we can’t be sure we won’t get in an accident with them.
However, feeding your child is an action decided by YOU (ie. the parents). As with feeding kids Doritos and Coke, wiping whiskey on their gums, letting them watch TV til 11pm. These are things which you decide as a parent, and hopefully you decide these things based on what is best for you and your child. Because of this, AFAIC, the government cannot regulate breast feeding, unless they regulate every other aspect of child raising.
Does that make sense?
And WHAT is the deal with IQ? Is a high IQ the be all and end all of a person’s life? And since when has measuring IQ been an exact science anyway?
I’m sorry, but I’d give up 11 IQ points in order to have a happy child and a sane mother, thanks very much.