|
Letter Writing Opportunity - Glamour
This letter is in regards to Julia Glass' article, "The Truth About
Breast-feeding: If Breast-feeding is so Good for Babies, Why is
it so Hard for Mothers?" Please feel free to personalize it where
applicable.
Glamour
350 Madison Ave
New York, NY 10017
FAX (212) 880-6922
Letters@Glamour.com
Please make sure to include your email or phone number in the
last line of this letter.
To the Editor:
I was disappointed in Julia Glass' article, "The Truth About Breast-feeding:
If Breast-feeding is so Good for Babies, Why is it so Hard for Mothers?"
While I applaud her discussions of the obstacles faced by nursing
mothers seeking help from ill-informed medical professionals and
of the lack of support for breastfeeding within the workplace, I
feel that Ms. Glass herself was not especially supportive of those
mothers who continue to nurse despite numerous impediments. I believe
that Ms. Glass fell into the trap so common among writers discussing
breastfeeding: in an effort to present a "balanced" view and not
offend those who cannot or choose not to nurse their children, she
underrates the importance of breastfeeding to our children's health,
to women's health, and to our nation's social and economic health.
As a nursing mother, I was extremely offended by Dr. Harris Burstin's
characterization of breastfeeding women as "cows." Negative statements
such as this, especially by a pediatrician, discourage women from
breastfeeding as well as encourage mothers to wean prematurely.
Perhaps Dr. Burstin is unaware that the American Academy of Pediatrics
(AAP) recommends that pediatricians "promote and support breastfeeding
enthusiastically."
I was also very disappointed by the author's negative portrayal
of La Leche League (LLL). As noted in the article, breastfeeding
is most successful when the mother receives adequate information
and support, and LLL is the international authority on breastfeeding.
Discouraging women from seeking their assistance might make the
difference between a happy breastfeeding couple and a baby being
fed formula unnecessarily. It is very likely that the woman mentioned
in the article who called LLL for advice on weaning was told to
wean gradually. This is by far the most sensible approach to weaning
for both mother and child, since it will minimize discomfort and
the risk of breast infections for the former and emotional distress
for the latter. But to say the LLL is "about never stopping" breastfeeding
is unfair and untrue.
Similarly, mothers may be deterred from utilizing lactation consultants
by Ms. Glass' characterization of them as unreasonably overzealous.
It is the lactation consultant's responsibility to provide the support
and assistance to facilitate the nursing relationship, just as it
is the mother's responsibility to determine when enough is enough.
Thus, I was pleased to see a sidebar advocating the use of lactation
consultants despite Ms. Glass' negative statements in her article.
Perhaps most disturbing is that article leaves one with the distinct
impression that the author never bothered to read the AAP's policy
statement, "Breastfeeding and the Use of Human Milk." Had Ms. Glass
done so, she would have seen the abundant research proving incontrovertibly
that breastfeeding is not just "preferable" to formula feeding,
but that formula feeding carries significant health risks. The AAP,
in its policy statement, provides copious documentation that "human
milk and [the] breastfeeding of infants provide advantages with
regard to general health, growth, and development, while significantly
decreasing risk for a large number of acute and chronic diseases."
Furthermore, the AAP documents proven benefits to maternal health
as well as the social and economic benefits of breastfeeding. In
the latter case, a mother can save over $1200.00 in the cost of
formula if she exclusively breastfeeds for one year. Then too, formula
carries special risks for infants in low income families: its high
cost leads some mothers to over-dilute formula.
Given these facts, I find the author's statement that breastfeeding
"offers statistical advantages, not guarantees" disingenuous at
best. The corollary to this statement is "most children do just
fine on formula." Most children who aren't strapped into car safety
seats will not die or be injured in automobile accidents, but we
legislate the use of such seats because of the unacceptable statistical
risk. Most infants don't die when we put them to sleep on their
stomachs, yet pediatricians now recommend against this practice
because of the increased statistical risk of SIDS. Nonetheless,
as a society, we feel that the advantages of breastfeeding and the
risks associated with formula feeding should not be disseminated
because mothers who cannot or chose not to breastfeed might feel
guilty or like failures. Isn't getting our children off to the optimum
start worth risking a little maternal guilt?
Only 3% to 5% of all women are physically incapable of breastfeeding.
Despite this, less than 60% of mothers are breastfeeding at the
time of hospital discharge, and only about 20% are still breastfeeding
their babies at 6 months. Clearly, we must increase the numbers
of mothers who breastfeed if we have any concern for the health
of our children. By discounting the benefits of breastfeeding and
diminishing those individuals who support nursing enthusiastically,
we do nothing to further this goal.

|