Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!
Court Asks Mother To Stop Breastfeeding
wcco.com — A woman in the middle of a custody battle is facing an unusual order from the court. A district court investigator is recommending that Christa Burton stop breastfeeding her 15-month-old child, Carter.
Burento- 658 diggs
- digg it
- sbader, on 10/10/2007, -1/+21There is something missing from this article, why would the same nurse practitioner say breastfeed and then when there is an investigation she says not to breastfeed, and why do they care about the nurse and not going straight to the original doctor? Are they just telling her to stop breastfeeding so the kid will be weened if the court decides to take it away from her? what the hell.
- Xspire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think it might be due to the fact that in these kinds of decisions the court makes up their mind based on who they think the child will be safest with. I think they told her this because of the fact that she is taking medications. The court probably won't care but they might think that it looks kind of bad if the mother is breastfeeding the child while on meds.
- Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"The court probably won't care but they might think that it looks kind of bad if the mother is breastfeeding the child while on meds."
True, and it may not only *look* kind of bad. :-p It's hard to tell what the implications are, but I sure wouldn't risk anything like this.- KizardLing, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Considering two people who more than likely know more than you (two doctors, one of which is the author of a text, "Medications and Mother's Milk") are quoted in the article affirming the safety of breastfeeding while on the medications, I would tend to say that it does indeed only look bad.
- miriclaire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It also said that the child is havin'f developmental delays--therefore, since all is NOT going well, the meds--though usually safe--may be causing the problem in this case. Personally, I would drink sleepy tea and use Tiger balm rather than ingest this stuff for my baby to drink vicariously through me. Anyway, he is going to stop nursing at some point--15 months is not too early. Bonding has been taken care of, and continues through play, music, touch, and more.
- KizardLing, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Considering two people who more than likely know more than you (two doctors, one of which is the author of a text, "Medications and Mother's Milk") are quoted in the article affirming the safety of breastfeeding while on the medications, I would tend to say that it does indeed only look bad.
- kooft, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4In custody battles with infants, or other young children, the court will usually appoint a guardian ad litem to look after the interests of the child. The guardian ad litem in this case noted that there were developmental delays in the child and that some of the drugs the mother is on can cause developmental delays. Store bought formula was probably deemed safer than breast milk with 3 different drugs. She's just erring on the safe side, and let's face it, it's the future well being of this child we're talking about.
- Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1"The court probably won't care but they might think that it looks kind of bad if the mother is breastfeeding the child while on meds."
- george@CASE, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4a nurse practitioner is different from a nurse. A nurse practitioner, as the name indicates, is a nurse that has received additional training to practice, in this case, well-child/pediatric care alongside pediatricians.
- Xspire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think it might be due to the fact that in these kinds of decisions the court makes up their mind based on who they think the child will be safest with. I think they told her this because of the fact that she is taking medications. The court probably won't care but they might think that it looks kind of bad if the mother is breastfeeding the child while on meds.
- sparkleyflowers, on 10/10/2007, -15/+67"Carter and I have been bonding for almost 15 months. Every meal that he takes has been from me," said Burton.
That's not healthy. The child should be eating whole foods by now. I don't see why it's so wrong to ask her to stop breastfeeding. Even if she doesn't lose custody of the child, there will be some sort of joint custody. The father should be able to have his child come to his home without having to worry about feeding the child breast milk.
Regardless... the child should have more to its diet than just breast milk at this point. It sounds to me like the mother doesn't want to ween the child for selfish reasons. She doesn't want to miss that closeness. The child is plenty old enough to be weened. Both of my children were weened from breast milk by 12 months old and put on solid food diets. They are/were both perfectly healthy.- silverchrysalis, on 10/10/2007, -1/+9weaned!!
- macguy815, on 10/10/2007, -12/+12There's a lot of mothers who nurse until age 2, and the article didn't say they got no solid foods, just that their diet was supplemented with breast milk.
- FalseProphecy, on 10/10/2007, -6/+27"Every meal that he takes has been from me."
Unless she vomits food like a mother bird..... - johndi, on 10/10/2007, -2/+15"Carter and I have been bonding for almost 15 months. Every meal that he takes has been from me," said Burton. That could be read in a couple different ways, but it strongly suggests the baby is only getting breast milk.
- george@CASE, on 10/10/2007, -3/+6I don't see anything wrong with a child who still gets breastmilk at 15 months. Like they say, breastmilk is a complete meal, it's not less nutritious than solid foods. As long as the child is not losing weight, etc.
- szembek, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1It's not normal for development mentally though. He should be learning to eat solid foods by now. Besides, isn't she getting sick of it?
- martalli, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8My wife's grandfather nursed until he was four or five (back in India). He was no "sissy" for it. Later on, he became a great hunter and fisherman. At one point, he even killed a tiger which attacked them while he and a nephew were hunting something smaller (deer I think). He could tie his own fishing nets, hunt, and ran several businesses. He still ties nets and gets around great at nearly 90 years old.
I would rank him up there as empirical evidence that you do not have to wean at 12 months. OTOH, other foods should start ebing introduced by then (earlier, even).- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2martalli.....if you presume to tell me that what is socially acceptable in India should be socially acceptable in the US, then I'll presume to tell you that what's socially acceptable in the US should be socially acceptable in India.
Get it ? I hope so. Because while I'm not trying to put you or your culture down, you need to understand the point I'm trying to make. But I'm not going to spell it out for you.- notque, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If you presume to tell me that what is socially acceptable is some how divinely right, then you're biased, and wrong.
- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Aren't YOU presuming to tell us what YOU deem socially acceptable ? Since you are. And don't say you aren't. Who gave YOU the right to tell me I can't make a statement that challenges you ? God ? Rama ? Buddha ? Please. Get real. No one said they were divinely righted to anything. But certainly no one is arguing with you about your divine right to say something asinine. Which, unless you're not terribly observant, you have.
- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -4/+2martalli.....if you presume to tell me that what is socially acceptable in India should be socially acceptable in the US, then I'll presume to tell you that what's socially acceptable in the US should be socially acceptable in India.
- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0Get real. RTA.......listen to what her words are. Someone might think "Oh what a loving mother, how tender." But the reality is, the BIOLOGICAL reason for breastfeeding, "Acquiring some of mother's immunological facilities, aside from nourishment" are LONG since acquired, and by 15 months, that toddler should've already started receiving the various shots that are COMMONLY REQUIRED for children that age, ALREADY ! So what's left ? The closeness, the bonding ? What ? That's not possible unless he's nursing from her ? Please, get real.
- notque, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's horrible. Do you have kids?
- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0No it's not horrible...and what does my having kids or not have anything to do with it ? I'll answer that myself. It has nothing to do with it. Do you have kids ? Have you nursed a cough or a cold ? Have you run out in the middle of the night to get a prescription filled in, or run your to the emergency room to get a cut stitched shut, or fallen asleep in the rocking chair next to your child's bed when they had a stomach flu ? Talk to me in concrete terms before you digg down because you think something they've said is disagreeable to you.
Digg me down people....It just goes to show the "herd" mentality some people have. Show me where you've slept or how far you've gone for your child's welfare. How you've not eaten so they can eat. THEN, talk self-righteously to me, eh ? puh-leeze....get real.
- FalseProphecy, on 10/10/2007, -6/+27"Every meal that he takes has been from me."
- siszam, on 10/10/2007, -11/+26That was your kid and your choice. You can't dictate what other peoples choices should be. It's not your place.
- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0And it's not your place to say otherwise either. As a culture we each have an opinion that for better or worse, we TOGETHER, as a culture will call acceptable or unacceptable. I don't LIKE certain speed limits at times, but that doesn't mean I'm not going to adhere to them. Why because enough people expressed and opinion who then voted someone into office who then enacted a law behind it. Sometimes some things require laws, sometimes not. This is one of those cases where it doesn't, but that does NOT negate that someone is perfectly within their right to disagree and lobby against any certain social more that they disagree with. There are plenty of those out there.
- ostracize, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1My name is Ron Paul and I approve of this message.
- FUBARSexyGirl, on 10/10/2007, -8/+3"Carter and I have been bonding for almost 15 months. Every meal that he takes has been from me," said Burton
that's not healthy.
that was gonna be my post. lol - Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -5/+10"That's not healthy."
Even less healthy if that food is spiced with muscle spasm and migraine meds. I seriously don't see the controversy in the decision.- KizardLing, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Then I'd suggest you read all of the article:
"Dr. Tom Hale, the author of "Medications and Mothers' Milk" e-mailed Burton, writing about the medications saying, "They are basically all fine, particularly in a 14-month-old infant who can metabolize drugs as good if not better than an adult."
Another expert, Dr. Jack Newman wrote, "I think you are being railroaded by people who don't know what normal is for breastfeeding.
"It's a tough call on some of these issues," according to Brian Ansberry, manager of the 7th District Court guardian ad litem program. He said his investigator was "not a medical expert herself" and "erring on the side of safety."
So on one hand, we have two experts saying it's perfectly safe. On the other hand, we have some tool without a clue saying he's interfering just because he thinks it could be bad. So for no legitimate reason, the mother's rights are being violated.- McHoffa, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0But the father has a right to his child and he obviously cannot breastfeed... since the child is PLENTY old enough, he needs to be weaned so that he can be fed by his father as well... this is the child's rights we are talking about, not the mother's... glad to see a judge doing what is best for the child rather than the mother for a change
- miriclaire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dad should be able to take him to Mcdonald's by now!!!
- theholycow, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Nice selective quoting. Here's some selective quoting from the other side:
"nurse practitioner that originally recommended breast feeding. She told the investigator "she recommended that given the developmental delays that Christa stop breast feeding" as the various medications can cause delays." - maffiou, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Yaeh, and in 15 years, she'll sue everybody because these drugs were bad after all...
I think the nurse encouraged breast feeding initially, because the benefits were greater than the risks, now the kids can go on solids, why contiune taking the risk...- miriclaire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1When I nursed my kids, I was told my meds were fine--but i STILL WOULD NOT TAKE THEM. No meds given to a baby is fine, unless prescribed to the baby. That she would nurse her baby this long--just because it fills a whole in her life--while taking ***** SLEEP medication--she is a selfish bitch.
- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Yet another angle no one had thought off. Well formulated post. You AND miss miriclaire.
The funny part is when this child grows up, hopefully he won't have any recollection of any of this, and the two fo them will be able to discuss things in an adult manner. Perhaps.
- McHoffa, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0But the father has a right to his child and he obviously cannot breastfeed... since the child is PLENTY old enough, he needs to be weaned so that he can be fed by his father as well... this is the child's rights we are talking about, not the mother's... glad to see a judge doing what is best for the child rather than the mother for a change
- KizardLing, on 10/10/2007, -0/+11Then I'd suggest you read all of the article:
- Herostratos, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11The article said the kid had been born premature. Probably he is not as developed as his peers, hence he need to wait longer before being put on diet.
That said, mothers milk is the heatlhiest thing for kids. It is the result of literally millions of years of evolution.- enicholas, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4He was only born six weeks premature -- while that carries risks and is no fun for anyone, it's generally not in "child is still showing the effects of it a year later" territory.
As the father of two preemies and uncle of a third, I've got quite a bit of experience in this area. And except in extreme cases, by a few months old they're generally indistinguishable from full-term babies.
Most babies start eating solid foods around six months old. Developmental delays might push that back a couple of months. The article did say "delays", not "the child is profoundly retarded", so there is simply no way that he shouldn't be eating solid foods at 15 months old. At 15 months old my older son was eating table food three meals a day, and as I said he was a preemie too. (My younger son is only a month old so I have no data there yet.)- martalli, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I wouldn't split hairs about delays and profoundly retarded. If there is no intervention, many children with delays would end up permanently behind to some degree or another. "Profoundly retarded" is a fairly charged phrase and probably used very little by the medical community anymore. The article does not explain the delays whatsoever, and so one cannot really say much about it. My kids hardly talked until 18-24 months, and yet the two oldest are chatterboxes now. In our case, we speak 3 languages at home (English, Kannada, and Tamil). A slow uptake on expressive language skills is normal in our situation, but a newspaper might still run an article about our kids' "developmental delays". Who really knows what is going on with this particular little boy, and to what degree.
- miriclaire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The child is likely delayed because of the over-protective and insecure mother preventing him from developing normally and exploring the world. He should be holding cups and playing with food.
- martalli, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I wouldn't split hairs about delays and profoundly retarded. If there is no intervention, many children with delays would end up permanently behind to some degree or another. "Profoundly retarded" is a fairly charged phrase and probably used very little by the medical community anymore. The article does not explain the delays whatsoever, and so one cannot really say much about it. My kids hardly talked until 18-24 months, and yet the two oldest are chatterboxes now. In our case, we speak 3 languages at home (English, Kannada, and Tamil). A slow uptake on expressive language skills is normal in our situation, but a newspaper might still run an article about our kids' "developmental delays". Who really knows what is going on with this particular little boy, and to what degree.
- enicholas, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4He was only born six weeks premature -- while that carries risks and is no fun for anyone, it's generally not in "child is still showing the effects of it a year later" territory.
- sparkleyflowers, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Weaned, indeed. Sometimes my fingers do the thinking while they type.
@macguy815
The article said, as I quoted above, "Every meal that he takes has been from me." In fact, the word "supplemental" isn't used once in the article.- TypeEE, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Damn, no solid food for 15 months? They should start stage 1 baby food at 6months old. Or even solid food the baby ate were from mom? Oh no, the baby eat mother's stools?
- PrettyLadyGrace, on 10/10/2007, -9/+17Ambien is really serious. It messes up the dream cycle in your head so that you don't dream correctly, which, if taken every day will cause you to go insane. By breastfeeding the child, especially every meal, he is going to become dependent on it and serious problems could ensue. No wonder she was ordered to stop breastfeeding.
- arielrae, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Actually the excretion of Ambien into breastmilk is less than 0.02% of a dose, very small. It hasn't been shown to create dependencies in breastfeeding children. It also has a very short half-life which means when it comes to sleeping, it lengthens your slow-wave sleep so that you will (hopefully) stay asleep. By the time it wears off, you should begin going into REM sleep. It doesn't actually disrupt REM sleep, but delays it due to the lengthening of slow-wave... so no you don't go insane if you take it every day.
- sappari, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Glad someone got to it before I did. The OP is a prime example of the root of the problem. She, like the father and guardian ad litem, are being overly concerned with things they know nothing about. Sure, Ambien is a psychoactive compound but how listening to guy with actual knowledge of drug metabolism: the doctor.
- miriclaire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1When her son is put into special classes, she can look back and be thankful for the good nights' sleep she had.
- mdmadph, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Away with your facts and carefully worded arguments. Be gone!
- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0What carefully worded arguments. 0.02% ? This from a pharmaceutical industry that gives us such miracles as Vioxx, and a medical industry that can't make up it's mind if CAFFEINE is good for you ( no it's not, yes it is, no it's not ) ? Get real.
Here's a clue for you. When in doubt ( and there is NO reason why ANYONE here shouldn't doubt ), cut it out. If there is even an 0.02% of ANYTHING that wouldn't be good for my baby. On that basis ALONE would say, "Guess what, I'll deal with a little insomnia". If it'll reduce 0.02% of a chance of anything adversely affecting a child. Do without it. PERIOD.
Theres.....your facts and carefully worded argument. Argue with that. A problem averted is a problem averted. Some problems you can't avoid, some are totally avertable. Choose on the side of the child. EVERY TIME.
- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0What carefully worded arguments. 0.02% ? This from a pharmaceutical industry that gives us such miracles as Vioxx, and a medical industry that can't make up it's mind if CAFFEINE is good for you ( no it's not, yes it is, no it's not ) ? Get real.
- sappari, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Glad someone got to it before I did. The OP is a prime example of the root of the problem. She, like the father and guardian ad litem, are being overly concerned with things they know nothing about. Sure, Ambien is a psychoactive compound but how listening to guy with actual knowledge of drug metabolism: the doctor.
- mikesbaker, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1small dose small baby - also from ambien's website " Sleepwalking, and eating or driving while not fully awake, with amnesia for the event, have been reported." but hey major corporations have never done anything to endanger the people using their products right? (note to self get ambien prescription to aid in sex/kill somnia defense in court)
- martalli, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You will not go insane if you take Ambien every day. However, if you give up on the Ambien, you will eventually fall asleep. Most people feel a need for sleep meds because of their own bad sleep habits or expectations.
- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Quoting myself - "Here's a clue for you. When in doubt ( and there is NO reason why ANYONE here shouldn't doubt ), cut it out. If there is even an 0.02% of ANYTHING that wouldn't be good for my baby. On that basis ALONE would say, "Guess what, I'll deal with a little insomnia". If it'll reduce 0.02% of a chance of anything adversely affecting a child. Do without it. PERIOD."
I know how many sleepless nights I spent taking care of mine, and still had to get out to work in the morning. All WITHOUT the benefit of sleep meds.
- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Quoting myself - "Here's a clue for you. When in doubt ( and there is NO reason why ANYONE here shouldn't doubt ), cut it out. If there is even an 0.02% of ANYTHING that wouldn't be good for my baby. On that basis ALONE would say, "Guess what, I'll deal with a little insomnia". If it'll reduce 0.02% of a chance of anything adversely affecting a child. Do without it. PERIOD."
- arielrae, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9Actually the excretion of Ambien into breastmilk is less than 0.02% of a dose, very small. It hasn't been shown to create dependencies in breastfeeding children. It also has a very short half-life which means when it comes to sleeping, it lengthens your slow-wave sleep so that you will (hopefully) stay asleep. By the time it wears off, you should begin going into REM sleep. It doesn't actually disrupt REM sleep, but delays it due to the lengthening of slow-wave... so no you don't go insane if you take it every day.
- Unknown1987, on 10/10/2007, -8/+30when they are old enough to ask for the boob they are too old
- martalli, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3That is just you sexualizing a toddler.
- Hellahulla, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Bitty!
- aukxsona, on 10/10/2007, -3/+11she should drop the drugs if she wants to breast feed. NONE of those are life threatening. I have asthma and I drop down to only an inhaler when I breast feed, ONLY because it IS life threatening not to.
- martalli, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Well, I don't know if they mentioned why she is on Topamax, but since it is a seizure medicine, I might guess it might be life threatening for her to stop taking it.
- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1It's not JUST a seizure medicine. It's also prescribed for Migraines. Though why I would allow 0.02% of any drug KNOWN ( and published as so ) to affect MEMORY, concentration, sensation in the limbs ( paresthesia ) to get into my child ....especially an infant, is beyond reasoning. Especially when the drug when taken has it's dosage schedule that has to be ramped up, and cannot be suddenly stopped. That's because it maintains a level of the drug in the body, and THIS is something a mother wants to allow to enter her childs body ? A child who's mind is just STARTING to develop ?
- aukxsona, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1should have used formula if she has too many drugs in her system...one med is better than the cocktail she is consuming.
- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1It's not JUST a seizure medicine. It's also prescribed for Migraines. Though why I would allow 0.02% of any drug KNOWN ( and published as so ) to affect MEMORY, concentration, sensation in the limbs ( paresthesia ) to get into my child ....especially an infant, is beyond reasoning. Especially when the drug when taken has it's dosage schedule that has to be ramped up, and cannot be suddenly stopped. That's because it maintains a level of the drug in the body, and THIS is something a mother wants to allow to enter her childs body ? A child who's mind is just STARTING to develop ?
- martalli, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Well, I don't know if they mentioned why she is on Topamax, but since it is a seizure medicine, I might guess it might be life threatening for her to stop taking it.
- RetlawST, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Just for clarification, the nurse changed her advice to breastfeed because of developmental problems.
"She told the investigator "she recommended that given the developmental delays that Christa stop breast feeding" as the various medications can cause delays."- Amusing, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5The fact that the child was premature alone will put them developmentally behind for about the first 2yrs of life, maybe more depending on how early the baby was.
http://parenting.ivillage.com/newborn/ncare/0,,rf81,00.html- enicholas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Six weeks early can be rough at first, but it generally isn't in "has long-term effects on the child" territory. Very few babies born six weeks early will be so affected by it as to be noticeably delayed even a year later, let alone two.
My older son was a preemie, and he was caught up by the time he was two months old. Now at 23 months, you'd never know it -- he's 75th percentile of height and weight, and he talks as well as a lot of three year olds.
- enicholas, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Six weeks early can be rough at first, but it generally isn't in "has long-term effects on the child" territory. Very few babies born six weeks early will be so affected by it as to be noticeably delayed even a year later, let alone two.
- Amusing, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5The fact that the child was premature alone will put them developmentally behind for about the first 2yrs of life, maybe more depending on how early the baby was.
- dainfagerholm, on 10/10/2007, -9/+19I have never understood the controversy about breastfeeding, apparently breasts should be used for everything BUT what they were designed for, namely that of nursing a child. Odd world we live in.
- Hayaemsay, on 10/10/2007, -3/+5RTFA?
- vawksel, on 10/10/2007, -4/+4You might get some digg's if you correct your statement from "what they were designed for" to "what they evolved for", and they obviously evolved for other reasons, otherwise we men wouldn't be so interested in them.
- martalli, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Maybe dainfagerholm is a creationist =)
- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0What does THAT have to do with anything ? Answer: Absolutely nothing.
Grow a real comment, martalli. Then plant it.
- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0What does THAT have to do with anything ? Answer: Absolutely nothing.
- martalli, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Maybe dainfagerholm is a creationist =)
- giskard88, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1actually men's interest in breasts is probably due to their use in child rearing i.e. they demonstrate a potential mate's capacity to adequately feed a child
- modusop, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1No kidding - though most other parts of the world breastfeed past a year, in the USA you're vilified for spoiling your children if the feed for over a year, despite the fact most people now know of the health benefits for both mom & baby. I guess we'd better feed them soy or pop tarts or fruit roll-ups or something else, right? Please.
- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0You and modusop. Get real. The "health benefits" are primarily to transfer some ( and I mean SOME ) of the mother's immunological defenses to the baby. Which by one year is PROVEN to be of only some small value because by then, most children unless SERIOUSLY developmentally impaired, would start receiving NORMAL immunological innoculations. The societal construct of "breastfeeding" then devolves to one of nurturing. Which quite frankly, by 15 months, the child can receive by OTHER means.
Sure, her words in some context might be construed as "just nurturing", but c'mon, there's no REAL biological reason why she NEEDS to. So the whole thing devolves to "choice". Well, as I said in an earlier post. Some people may disagree, and that's fine, they're entitled to their opinion. But there are probably just as many who'll agree with that by that age, there's NO plausible biological or developmental reason why a child MUST be kept on breastfeeding.
- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0You and modusop. Get real. The "health benefits" are primarily to transfer some ( and I mean SOME ) of the mother's immunological defenses to the baby. Which by one year is PROVEN to be of only some small value because by then, most children unless SERIOUSLY developmentally impaired, would start receiving NORMAL immunological innoculations. The societal construct of "breastfeeding" then devolves to one of nurturing. Which quite frankly, by 15 months, the child can receive by OTHER means.
- orangester, on 10/10/2007, -6/+10As much as I think the child should start developing a diet that doesn't include breast milk at the same time it's not the court's place to tell a mother how to raise her child.
- Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9"it's not the court's place to tell a mother how to raise her child."
Even if she may indirectly feed the kid with stuff toxic to its body? Migraine meds and muscle spasm medicine doesn't sound like something I'd risk indirectly feed my 15 month child with. I think it's the judge's business as much as it's the judge's business to not have parents let their 10 year olds drink alcohol. This is a health issue, not a "women's rights to breastfeed" issue.- cespee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I don't think health issues are the judge's business. "Medical conventions" are not necessarily healthier. Everyone's vaccinated and bottle-fed today, and the rates of autism and learning disabilities have skyrocketed. I wouldn't want a judge to tell me I had to vaccinate and wean my kid because the judge just trusts brainwashed doctors. The judges and doctors don't live with the consequences of the decisions, but the parents do.
- 35263526, on 10/10/2007, -7/+4Would it be the court's place to tell the mother not to beat her child? I think the answer would invariably be "Yes!", and with good reason. Children should not be the domain of parents; if a parent is doing something harmful to his or her child (and this is potentially harmful according to medical professionals) then the legal system should treat it no differently than an adult doing something harmful to an adult. Kids are people too.
- superbonbon, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I think that if a parent is potentially placing their child in harms way, that it is 100% appropriate for the courts to intervene.
- Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9"it's not the court's place to tell a mother how to raise her child."
- heystoopid, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0Wowser
- Jugalator, on 10/10/2007, -6/+21In case article goes down, this is why she can't:
"She takes Topomax to ease migraine headaches, Baclofin for muscle spasms because of a car accident and Ambien to help her sleep."
Since I don't know how these meds can potentially affect the child, I can't judge the situation, and to be honest, I really doubt that many other Diggers can eiter.
The article also says this:
"Carter Burton was born six weeks premature. Christa Burton said, her doctor told her that breastfeeding would be best for Carter."
So that's why she wants to. However, one needs to weigh the risks here. Can't she play it safer and by this time of 15 months feed the kid with a substitute?
Finally, this quote:
""I just think mothers everywhere need to fight for the right to breastfeed their children, because it can be taken away just like that"
Yes, but this is about the physical well being of the child. You don't want the kid affected by muscle spasm or heavy migraine medicine, now do you? This has absolutely nothing to do with a judge trying to "stop" women's rights to breastfeed kids out of being a jerk!- KizardLing, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6You left out the quotes where two medical experts (MDs, both) state that there is no risk. No risk, no reason the judge should be getting involved.
- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Again, this from an industry that can't make up it's mind whether CAFFEINE is good for you or not ? Get real, kizzy.
Grow a comment. Then plant it.
- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Again, this from an industry that can't make up it's mind whether CAFFEINE is good for you or not ? Get real, kizzy.
- KizardLing, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6You left out the quotes where two medical experts (MDs, both) state that there is no risk. No risk, no reason the judge should be getting involved.
- tounchin, on 10/10/2007, -7/+12What a ***** dick. If all the medication is deemed safe, then WTF? I wish I was breastfed; then I wouldn't have bad teeth, asthma, and allergies.
- mikesbaker, on 10/10/2007, -6/+3for adults moran medicine for adults
- mike17032, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Its ***** milk, not some magic elixer that will cure all thats wrong with you. You would still be a freak, even with tit milk.
- jerem747, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1breast feeding is shown to pass much needed antibodies from the mother that she has aquired over the course of her life. this helps the baby develope a healthy immune system which does help prevent allergies and also makes the baby less prone to infection. and if studies have deemed the meds safe than what is the big ***** deal? courts shouldn't make decisions for mothers (unless they are way out of line) and this mother is doing everything right 15 months of breast feeding is not unusual and is more a parental preference than an "unhealthy choice". the baby is probably better off drinking breast milk than eating processed baby food. why does everyone try to tell people how to live their lives? do people not have enough problems of their own that they need to try and solve other peoples problems? sometimes you people need to take into account that you dont know the whole story.
thank you and good night- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Which leaves the door open for YOU not knowing the whole story. That being said, at the age of 15 months. Unless the child is SEVERELY developmentally impaired, ANY antibody buildup that they were going to receive will have LONG been established. And in most states, by the age of 12 months, most babies are REQUIRED to start receiving innoculations against most infectious diseases. Presuming that the mother has taken good care of the child ( and not without that information ANYONE here is simply guessing if they go further ), then the need to breastfeed on the basis of transmission of antibodies, is LONG past. Period. Biologically, anatomically, etc. All that aside, what's left is the psychological aspects, which overwhelmingly most child psychologists will say that at 15 months. They should not only have started to have been weened, but weened altogether for the most part.
Disagree if you like. That doesn't mean you're not still wrong, which you would be.
- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Which leaves the door open for YOU not knowing the whole story. That being said, at the age of 15 months. Unless the child is SEVERELY developmentally impaired, ANY antibody buildup that they were going to receive will have LONG been established. And in most states, by the age of 12 months, most babies are REQUIRED to start receiving innoculations against most infectious diseases. Presuming that the mother has taken good care of the child ( and not without that information ANYONE here is simply guessing if they go further ), then the need to breastfeed on the basis of transmission of antibodies, is LONG past. Period. Biologically, anatomically, etc. All that aside, what's left is the psychological aspects, which overwhelmingly most child psychologists will say that at 15 months. They should not only have started to have been weened, but weened altogether for the most part.
- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Because tounchin didn't do his research and actually DELVE into the details, I'll make this simple for him.
Because even if 0.02% of a medication known to have memory loss, difficulty in concentrating or knowing where you are, or loss of sensation in your skin and fingers or limbs can enter an infant who's mind is JUST STARTING to develop, then that's an 0.02% chance that a parent who's responsible shouldn't take.
A parent, which it is ever so obvious you are not, wouldn't consider it "putting themselves out" to deal with some back pain, and some loss of sleep, if it meant their child had even the slightest smidge of being better off for it. Perhaps when YOU have children, you'll have learned that well enough before then to "get it".
- patricklynch, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3This shouldn't be the government's decision, and I have the utmost respect for all that is great about womens' breasts, but the woman really needs to lay off the drugs if she breastfeeds. While it can't be as bad as letting the baby take bong hits or bars of xanax, children aren't meant to grow up with pharmaceutical cocktails in their systems. Her own intuition would help here:
"At first, Burton said she didn't think she could breastfeed, because she's taking three medications." - Good idea.- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Which leads you to wonder why she didn't go with her supposed first instinct as a mother. Just because a doctor says "Oh yeah, it's safe, go on..it won't hurt the kid". Stop and think about it. If your instinct as a mother say "uh, no". That's a pretty definitive answer. Or at least it should've been.
I think the answer is a little deeper than what the article's slant says. If there's an issue of custody, and there are state laws involved custody and breastfeeding, and there's a question about fitness, etc. Then you get into legal maneuvers where someone ( and this is not to say he/she are or aren't) may not be exactly saying "the truth and nothing but the truth". Perhaps the whole "he only breasfeeds from me" is a convinient ploy. It's not that far of a stretch.
- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0Which leads you to wonder why she didn't go with her supposed first instinct as a mother. Just because a doctor says "Oh yeah, it's safe, go on..it won't hurt the kid". Stop and think about it. If your instinct as a mother say "uh, no". That's a pretty definitive answer. Or at least it should've been.
- Scheissen, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6It sounds like the court just asked her to stop breastfeeding, not ordered her to stop.
- holygram, on 10/10/2007, -1/+19Yeah, the courts did that same ***** to my mom when I was about 14.
- fortressgame, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5"Ambien is really serious. It messes up the dream cycle in your head so that you don't dream correctly, which, if taken every day will cause you to go insane."
Wow, talk about making ***** up. Do you have evidence that taking it every night will make you go insane?- danielgary, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I know this is a new concept, but Digg features a reply link right below the comment you want to reply to. You should check it out sometime. It's pretty exciting.
- mikesbaker, on 10/10/2007, -4/+6great mix babies and prescription sleep aids - this woman should have her baby taken away like they do with crack addicts
http://www.askdocweb.com/ambien.html
"During longer-term treatment (28 to 35 nights) in controlled clinical trials at doses less than 10 mg, the most commonly observed adverse events associated with the use of Ambien and seen at statistically significant differences from placebo-treated patients were dizziness (5%) and drugged feelings (3%)."
http://www.babycenter.com/refcap/1428.html
"Most newborns sleep 16 to 18 hours a day, but unfortunately, they tend to sleep in two- to three-hour increments, even at night." - hey being passed out cold is a great way to take care of a baby right? - Redrosie, on 10/10/2007, -1/+13 Dr. Jack Newman wrote, "I think you are being railroaded by people who don't know what normal is for breastfeeding."
Dr Newman is a world renowned breastfeeding expert and has been studying and writing about the subject for decades. He knows more about breastfeeding and the issues surrounding it than the court, or the commenters here combined. If he thinks she's being railroaded, then she's being railroaded. No question.- Bundledad, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Dr. Jack Newman is also renowned for the sharpness of his axe after all these years of grinding it.
There are some pretty nasty political issues around breast feeding.
Doing some searches on "breast nazis" and "breast bullies" pulls some very interesting information on how the political drive the hurt companies that make formula is causing unneeded distress for new mothers and their children. There are a lot of reasons why it may not work and my experience is that the pro-breastfeeding camp has lost their perspective in favour of a "breast at all cost" mentality.
That said... at 15 months having a child nourished exclusively on any one thing is wrong. Even if you buy in 100% to La Leche propaganda. Hell, if we hadn't had my oldest on solids at that point I'm pretty sure we would have seen a dip in the local cat population as he took care of it himself. By 18 months he would tear apart a full english breakfast when he could.- sarazen, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The reason that Breastfeeding advocates have to fight so hard is BECAUSE there are so many powerful companies making lots of money off formula. Nobody makes a dime when a woman breastfeeds so there is no great funding pool of money to get the message out. And it shows in the rates of breastfeeding here in the US and in GB. Despite recommendations from the American Academy of Pediatrics, WHO, and other groups that babies should be breastfeed until 1 year or longer we have only about 20% getting breastmilk beyond about 2 months. Sure there are some individuals who have gone too far in their desire to get the message out, but check out the stats, despite all the benefits to mother and baby, despite the fact that it produces less waste to the environment, heck, despite the fact that it is FREE, the vast majority of babies in the US and GB are only breastfed for a few months if at all. It is sad really.
- gomezfreak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1As a new father I can say that the hospitals try their hardest to get you to use formula. Not only do they give you cans of the stuff they give you a big diaper bag with the EMFAMIL (sp?) plastered all over the side. This despite the fact that my wife decided to breastfeed long before we ever got to conception, much less birth.
They even try to sucker you in by telling you not to supplement your baby with a little water or sugar water for hiccups, something human babies have been getting since the beginning of the human race. Get this, if you feed the kid formula, its ok to give them a little water, but if you breastfeed, then no you can only supplement with formula.
These guys get kickbacks for pushing this stuff, and quite frankly it is disgusting.- tiff54, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I'm suprised that your hospital pushed formula. Ours had a lactation consultant visit each new mother and a breastfeeding clinic that was free for as long as the child breastfeeds.
- Bundledad, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Dr. Jack Newman is also renowned for the sharpness of his axe after all these years of grinding it.
- PieterOpie, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1So are they going to put some sort of electronic devices on her boobs that send out an alarm signal if baby has a feed?
- CrimsonBlur, on 10/10/2007, -1/+7Why is the judge relying on information from an investigator he specifically states is not a medical expert? Erring on the side of (what you believe to be) caution is not a very good excuse when you are talking about the well-being of a child. The investigator (and judge) is obviously in over his head on this one, because all of the actual experts in the field that have been contacted said the drugs would have no ill effects on the baby. In addition to that, the boy was born premature, so the "normal" time frame for breastfeeding and growth do not apply.
This is simply an example of the court trying to control how a mother raises her child without actually understanding the implications of what they are trying to enforce on any level. They are apparently assuming the mother is insisting on breast feeding for selfish reasons while ignoring the fact that she was specifically told to breastfeed, did her research, and found the drugs would not cause complications. Now personally I do not think she should be breastfeeding the child while taking the drugs, you just never know, but considering the medical experts are saying there is not problem with it, she should not be ordered by a court to stop.- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Get real. Get in touch. There's more to this than the article purports for sure. But just because you have a fear of the legal system, doesn't mean that the procedures they're following are wrong. And for that matter, the medical expert wasn't in there on the child's behalf, but on the mother's. Guardian Ad Litems are there for a NON-BIASED approach to a child's situation, and are specifically BOUND to NOT take sides. Other than the childs, and you know what ? Erring on the side of caution in respect to a child is not only the safest way, it's THE right way. Period. Adults can get their feelings all bent out of shape when their way isn't how things go. Well, guess what. Get over it, it's part of being adults. We have success, we make mistakes. If we can avoid a mistake, even if we're not sure it's a mistake. If the infant has that much more of a chance of not being affected by any medication. Guess what......logic, reasoning, ONLY dictates, avoid it. Raising a child isn't a game of craps. You don't get do overs. If you know something CAN be avoided by not doing something. Then don't do it.
- MelodySparks, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9"Every meal that he takes has been from me."
At 15 months?
Even as a woman, I'd have to say YIKES on that one.- george@CASE, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1that's because you're not a mother.
- McHoffa, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1it's just creepy to see a kid that can walk and talk breastfeeding... I know that's my own opinion, but still... "Boobies, momma... I Hungwy!"
- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1And neither are you....GEORGE. If the woman says it makes her take pause, guess what. She's in a bit better position to know. Unless you've suddenly become able to supply breastmilk yourself. And since you probably havent.....well...you know how valuable your comment truly is.
- george@CASE, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1that's because you're not a mother.
- Boxe, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0she should in all cases stop all the drugs if she has to feed the child. She will have to suffer without these drugs but this is very much required for newly born kid...
- malman4, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3a fifteen-month old is not newly born...........
- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0More to the point on why it's not an impulse borne of "nutrition" to the child. It's one of psychology. If at that age that child hasn't eaten any solid food. Do you REALLY think the digestive tract has properly begun to develop ? The quick answer is....>NO
- malman4, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3a fifteen-month old is not newly born...........
- rschroeder, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Time to ween. I dont think the court should be able to intervene but, cmon get off the boob and get a job! As for the mother, she needs help!
- ultraJesus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I read it as "15 year". I leave disappointed.
- blix01, on 10/10/2007, -3/+1The woman sounds like a freak.
- TypeEE, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Sometimes you got to evaluate trade offs. Breast feeding can't be better off than formula when other drugs are involved.
- Xtopherous, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think the trade-offs were evaluated by both the doctors and the mother. What they have seemed to conclude is that the drugs would not harm the child; meanwhile, I don't think there is a doctor out there who will say that formula is better than breast feeding.
"Dr. Tom Hale, the author of 'Medications and Mothers' Milk' e-mailed Burton, writing about the medications saying, 'They are basically all fine, particularly in a 14-month-old infant who can metabolize drugs as good if not better than an adult.'"
Not only did she consult that book, the writer of the book assured her that it was not a problem AND her practitioners flat out said "breast feed the kid". Sure, it's understandable to worry, which is why this doctor had the bright idea to write this book for mothers (and fathers apparently) who would worry about slipping drugs to their child through breast milk. Seems to me the positives far outweigh the negatives (if there are any).- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Uh no...her practitioner later said "no". Read the article again. This time, actually think about what was written. A new born is an infant. At 15 months, for proper digestive tract development, a child should have been introduced to solid food. Something, which she has clearly not done.
- Xtopherous, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think the trade-offs were evaluated by both the doctors and the mother. What they have seemed to conclude is that the drugs would not harm the child; meanwhile, I don't think there is a doctor out there who will say that formula is better than breast feeding.
- cmartine, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Thats what happens during custody battles, next thing youll hear is that the mother accuses dad
of abuse....
Sick moms out there only interested in getting a fat paycheck to feed their 'oreen ashes' - GGoldberry, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I breastfed both of my children. But during that time, I refused to take any drugs, even Advil or caffeine. I think you make those sacra fices for your children. Sometimes the danger in drugs in not seen until much later, and a child should never be a guinea pig to what is OK in breastfeeding.
Also I think that child should be eating whole foods and drinking pumped breast milk from a sippy cup.- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1To you, Ma'am, I tip my hat as a Father. Well put.
- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0To the person who dugg me down....digg down some more. To digg down this last comment of mine, only shows you're trying to bury the truth of what I've said in other comments. What're you afraid of ? Couldn't comment back ? Couldn't formulate an opinion that was well organized ? Your only response was to digg me down...On a comment congratulating a woman on how she raised her own kids ? Grow a pair.
- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1To you, Ma'am, I tip my hat as a Father. Well put.
- ronaldinho, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The nurse practitioner is screwing around with this case with her U-turn. I can't wait for the moment when she tells the court that breast-feeding is good again, not bad for the kid
- hockey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5My only comment on this subject.
Although everyone is entitled to an opinion (and they are valid) I do find it odd that the people who are suggesting she stop breastfeeding and start weening are made mainly by people who don't have breasts to begin with. . .- omglucifer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0I find it odd that your comment shows you didn't read all of the other comments.
From the comments I've read, there have been men and women on both sides of this argument. Don't just assume that the only people who support weaning are guys. There was even someone who said "At 15 months? Even as a woman, I'd have to say YIKES on that one" and I'm sure she's not the only one.
Plus, everyone has breasts! It's how humans are made. It's just that women have the useful ones.- hockey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Reading comprehension is a lost art on the internet. What part of "MAINLY" do you not understand?
The people MAINLY arguing for this woman to stop breastfeeding are dudes.- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Don't quibble over semantics. But if you want to throw gender into it. My response would be. So what ?
So what ? I've read DUDES, put down a WOMAN just a few posts up that say "I'd have to say Yikes to that" ( which you just must've absentmindedly overlooked when you were rebutting the previous poster's post. Right ? You just missed that part, huh ?).
So your problem is that even when a woman expresses her disagreement or disgust at it, she doesn't have the right to say so. But if she did agree with the women in the news story, oh well, then she HAS the right to comment. Get real. Get in touch. Formulate a real opinion, before pouncing on one from someone who disagrees with your point of view. - xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Wonderful.....keep digging down. Keep digging down. Wonderful how some people are SO afraid of hearing the truth or being told precisely how they're wrong, yet have absolutely ZERO intestinal fortitude to debate an issue openly, have no recourse but to digg down a comment.
Tell me how I'm wrong, and THEN digg me down. Digging down without supplying a rationale behind it is, only serves to reinforce my statements. - carpespasm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1xencoder, i agree with you, but dugg you down, they just made a comment that just describes how they see the situation, it's not like he called your grandmother a whore or something.
- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Don't quibble over semantics. But if you want to throw gender into it. My response would be. So what ?
- hockey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Reading comprehension is a lost art on the internet. What part of "MAINLY" do you not understand?
- carpespasm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1i've also never worn high heel shoes, but i could probably tell you that it's not a good idea to run a marathon in them...
- carpespasm, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1i've also never worn high heel shoes, but i could probably tell you that it's not a good idea to run a marathon in them...
- omglucifer, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0I find it odd that your comment shows you didn't read all of the other comments.
- ascotan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Enforceable? Doubt it.
Irregardless of the health risks of the baby, this is a violation of the mothers rights.
What about a woman with HIV that wants to have a baby with her husband? Can the court order her not to have sex?
It's typical nanny-state thinking that the state needs to step in and take over the rights of your family.
Hell my grandmother smoke and drank while she was pregnant. Should the court have ordered an abortion? Or that she be sent to rehab? How many mothers don't eat leafy greens, and therefore put their child at risk of spina bifida? Do we need a court order to force these women to each spinach? - Xemus83, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Unless I missed something from the article or she can never see her child alone again, how can anybody make her stop breastfeeding? Sure, they can demand it, and maybe the mother will start feeding her child more solid foods, but can this really be enforced?
- punx, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think we may be missing the bigger picture here. In a lot of states, the father cannot gain custody of a child that is exclusively breastfed, folks. That's how it is here in Nevada. I think what this boils down to is not about medications, or developmental delay, but rather this a a flat-out custody fight. Remember, a woman can't be forced to give her ex-husband her own breast milk, and if this is all the child consumes...guess what? That's right, the father can't have custody because the child can't eat in his care. This is the reason she is still brestfeeding, and this is the reason the courts are trying to force her to stop.
- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0You're kidding, right ? And here I thought a state with a progressive a town as Vegas, would've actually joined the 21st century. Just goes to show you......
- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0There goes that person just blanket digging my comments down. Keep up the good work, digging down. You'll be busy a while.....coward.
- xencoder, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0You're kidding, right ? And here I thought a state with a progressive a town as Vegas, would've actually joined the 21st century. Just goes to show you......
- flclfan22, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Wow, I think that a lot of diggers commenting were not loved enough as children.
- omglucifer, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I think it's not fair that we judge so much on what little information we actually get.
For one thing, it may very well be that the mother is trying to hold the baby from the father. But we know nothing of their actual relationship, so this may or may not be true. This article is clearly biased towards the woman, but we don't know if it's because she deserves that bias, or because it's something that can gain a lot of attention.
As for whether it's healthy or not, I don't know, I have no experience whatsoever with breast feeding. But from what I can tell, it's not entirely too healthy to "just" breastfeed, and it's good to have other foods in the baby's system, which it sounds like it doesn't. But we also don't know exactly what the condition of the baby is at 15 months, so we don't know if it's healthy or unhealthy.
What we do know, is that a judge/court investigator ordered this. Why do so many people think a judge can be wrong? It's possible, but I'm sure he knows what he's doing. You don't get to be a judge by being incompetent. Maybe we should listen to the guy who trained many years to make these kinds of decisions. - tarcy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1this woman must have obsession issues... my boyfriend's mom exclusively breast fed him until he was two and she has some serious issues with not letting him go and he is 24 years old. (my god i wish you knew how bad she is). I am currently breast feeding my three month old and i can't wait to wean him!
- Alathea, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The American Academy of Pediatrics currently (2005) recommends: "Pediatricians and parents should be aware that exclusive breastfeeding is sufficient to support optimal growth and development for approximately the first 6 months of life and provides continuing protection against diarrhea and respiratory tract infection. Breastfeeding should be continued for at least the first year of life and beyond for as long as mutually desired by mother and child." * As solids are introduced, usually around the middle of the first year, your baby will shift his primary source of nutrition from your milk to other foods.
All the benefits of human milk—including nutritional and health—continue for as long as your baby receives your milk. In fact, as your baby takes less human milk, these advantages are condensed into what milk is produced. Many of the health benefits of human milk are dose related, that is, the longer the baby receives human milk, the greater are the benefits.
So, middle of the first year, normally-sounds like 15 months to me....and this child is developmentally disabled so norm is not going to apply. So many people feel the need to get their nose up about things. Did you stop at 6 months? Good for you. Did you feed your baby one oz of cereal and no more? Poor kid-they are guidelines, not hard fast rules in the sand. If you can't adjust, or need a book to give you specifics you probably shouldn't be having kids. - PjsPjs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think women should breast feed for as long as they are comfortable to do so.
This decision by the court is typical of modern Liberalism.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B2RNFA_en___CA202&q=infants+%22injured+by+breastfeeding%22&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B2RNFA_en___CA202&q=infants+%22harmed+by+breastfeeding%22&btnG=Search
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1B2RNFA_en___CA202&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=infants+%22poisoned+by+breastfeeding%22&spell=1
Where are all the horror stories of children injured, harmed, or poisoned by breastfeeding. - Grumps, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Dont mislead the story poster!
"Medications During Breastfeeding" - tiff54, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0My child is 14 mo. and we are in the slow process of weaning. I guess that makes me crazy....or perhaps I'm filling a void...or maybe I should have stopped abruptly when he said "boob". I don't understand the hating on breastfeeding. It is not good for a child to be weened cold turkey.
However, the nutrients in milk supply are not as rich as when the child is an infant. To be breastfed exclusively is detrimental to the child. I think this woman is using breastfeeding as a weapon in her custody battle. Let the child have a bottle with dad and breast with mom....along with some solid food, of course. - comittech, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1When you consider how eco-unfriendly it is to drink bottles water you have to think how much CO2 baby formula produces. http://www.breastpumpsdirect.com has a good comparison chart on the amount of formula an average baby consumes in the first 6 months.
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by