How to Know
a Health Professional is not Supportive of
Breastfeeding
All health professionals say they are supportive
of breastfeeding. But many are supportive
only when breastfeeding is going well, and
some, not even then. As soon as breastfeeding,
or anything in the life of the new mother
is not perfect, too many advise weaning or
supplementation. The following is a list of
clues which help you judge whether the health
professional is supportive of breastfeeding,
at least
supportive enough so that if there is trouble,
s/he will make efforts to help you continue
breastfeeding.
How to know a health professional is not
supportive:
 |
S/he gives you formula samples or formula
company literature when you are pregnant,
or after you have had the baby. These
samples and literature are inducements
to use the product, and their distribution
is called marketing. There is no evidence
that any particular formula is better
or worse than any other for the normal
baby. The literature or videos accompanying
samples are a means of subtly and not
so subtly undermining breastfeeding
and glorifying formula. If you do not
believe this, ask yourself why the formula
companies are using cutthroat tactics
to make sure that your doctor or
hospital gives out their literature
and samples and not other companies'?
Should you not also wonder why the health
professional is not marketing breastfeeding?
|
|
S/he
tells you that breastfeeding and bottle-feeding
are essentially the same. Most bottle-fed
babies grow up healthy and secure and
not all breastfed babies grow up healthy
and secure. However, this does not mean
that breastfeeding and bottle-feeding
are essentially the same. Infant formula
is a rough approximation of what we knew
several years ago about breastmilk which
is in itself a rough approximation of
something we are only beginning to get
an inkling of and are constantly being
surprised by. The differences have important
health consequences. Certain elements
in breastmilk
are not in artificial baby milk (formula)
even though we have known of their importance
to the baby for several years-for example,
antibodies and cells for protection of
the baby against infection, and long chain
polyunsaturated fatty acids for optimal
development of the baby's vision and brain.
Moreover,
breastfeeding is not the same as bottle-feeding;
it is a completely different relationship.
If you have been unable to breastfeed,
that is unfortunate (though most times
the problems could have been avoided),
but to imply it is of no importance is
patronizing and just plain wrong. A baby
does not have to be breastfed to grow
up happy, healthy and secure, but it is
an advantage.
|
|
|
S/he tells
you that formula x is best. This usually
means that s/he is listening too much to
a particular formula representative. It
may mean that her/his children tolerated
this particular formula better than other
formulas. It means that s/he has unsubstantiated
prejudices. |
|
S/he tells
you that it is not necessary to feed the
baby immediately after the birth since you
are (will be) tired and the baby is often
not interested anyhow. It is not necessary,
but it is very helpful. Babies can nurse
while the mother is lying down or sleeping,
though most mothers do not want to sleep
at a moment such as this. Babies do not
always show an interest in feeding immediately,
but this is not a reason to prevent them
from having the opportunity. Many babies
latch on in the hour or two after delivery,
and this is the time that is most conducive
to getting started well, but they cannot
do it if they are separated from their mothers.
If you are getting theimpression that the
baby's getting weighed, eye drops and vitamin
K injection have priority over establishing
breastfeeding, you might wonder about someone's
commitment to breastfeeding.
|
|
S/he tells
you that there is no such thing as nipple
confusion and you should start giving bottles
early to your baby to make sure that the
baby accepts a bottle nipple. Why do you
have to start giving bottles early if there
is no such thing as nipple confusion? Arguing
that there is no evidence for
the existence of nipple confusion is putting
the cart before the horse. It is the artificial
nipple, which no mammal until man had ever
used, and even man, not commonly before
the end of the nineteenth century, which
needs to be shown to be harmless. But the
artificial nipple has not proved harmless
to breastfeeding. The health professional
who assumes the artificial nipple is harmless
is looking at the world as if bottle-feeding,
not breastfeeding, were the normal physiologic
method of infant feeding.
By the way, just
because not all or perhaps even not
most babies who get artificial nipples
have trouble with breastfeeding, it
does not follow that the early use
of these things cannot cause problems
for some babies. It is  often
a combination of factors, one of which
could be the using of an artificial
nipple, which add up to trouble.
|
|
|
|
