Nursing Your Kids

I read an interesting opinion piece at Concurring Opinions about Sophie Currier’s win. The author presented several facts that I didn’t see in any of the news articles I read when the case was at its peak, specifically the accommodations the National Board of Medical Examiners offered Currier after refusing her request for additional break time.

* permission to express milk in a private room at the testing center during the allotted break time;

* permission to bring food and drink into the testing room;

* permission to pump milk while in her separate testing room;

* the option to leave the test center to breastfeed during the allotted time.

The writer’s opinion is that the first two requests are worthwhile because they addressed Currier’s needs. Currier needed additional time because she would not be able to pump, eat and use the bathroom in the time allotted. By allowing her to eat and drink in the testing room, her nutritional needs would be taken care of. By giving Currier a private room to pump in, she’d be able to pump in the testing center without concern for her privacy. The writer also feels that the second two accommodations were worthless. Pumping in a testing room with three glass walls isn’t an option for obvious reasons. Leaving the testing center to breastfeed would further cut into her break time.

The article asks why the first two options weren’t enough. With food and drink available and 45 minutes of break time to use the rest room and pump, why did Currier need additional time. Currier’s opinion was that she’d need more time to set up the pump before use and break it down, clean it and store the milk after the pumping session. The writer wonders why she couldn’t have just brought the pump preassembled with additional preassembled parts if she needed to pump again. Storing milk just involves putting it in a cooler or in the ice pack next to the pump. How much additional time would she need?

I just read the article before beginning this post so I haven’t had much time to mull it over, but my first instincts are to agree with the writer. I’ve never had to pump on a work schedule, so I’m personally unfamiliar with the logistics of it. However, I taught with a first-time mother who had to pump twice a day when she returned from maternity leave. In order to pump she had to find another teacher to cover her class during prep time for 20 minutes a day. Her second pumping session took place during her own prep time. There wasn’t a private room available for her so she was forced to pump in the only staff bathroom. At the time I was irritated that she was hogging the bathroom, but now with close to two years of breastfeeding behind me I just feel sad that she had to express milk in a bathroom. Getting back to the point- she was able to pump for 20 minutes, twice a day. I wasn’t there to watch her assemble and disassemble her pump or see how she cleaned it, but she made it work. I imagine most working mothers without private offices are able to make it work for them as well. Why did Currier need additional time?

The writer ends the piece with this:

What concerns me is that this case sends the message that accommodating breastfeeding mothers is difficult. It’s not. All women need is privacy to pump and the break time that many employees are already afforded during the course of an average day. But employers will understandably protest policies requiring accommodation if they believe that breastfeeding employees require one additional hour on top of what they usually receive…

…As academics have painstakingly documented, there is much that policymakers could do to help women balance families and careers. My fear is that Currier will end up as a poster child for those who oppose these efforts.

I can see the logic in that argument. It makes a great deal of sense. But my instincts still tell me that employers should accommodate breastfeeding employees, and if it takes an additional hour out of their workday they should find a way to accommodate them so that it doesn’t. Plenty of women with private offices are able to work while they pump. If employees offer a separate, private lactation room women could more easily balance their families and their careers.

More in the news.

Here’s some bad news and a bad headline: Breastfeeding in Public: Nature or Nudity

Melanie Flores was told she couldn’t breastfeed her one year old son in a Pac Sun store at an Ohio mall. Ohio law says moms have the right to breastfeed. Flores is still waiting for an apology and is working on establishing a breastfeeding awareness foundation.

Two months after being kicked out of a Toledo mall store for breastfeeding, a Toledo mom still wants someone to say they’re sorry. The story we broke in September ignited debate and outrage and raises the question: nature or nudity?

You’d think the company would at least have the decency to apologize, especially since breastfeeding is legal in stores in Ohio.

And then there’s some good news.

When Manhattan City Councilwoman Jessica Lappin gave birth to her son Luke eight months ago, she found there was nowhere for her to pump breastmilk at work. She approached Council Speaker Christine Quinn about creating a lactation room. Quinn’s staff took it a step further and created a policy that ensured breast feeding employees can use break time to pump.

“All supervisors will get a briefing, if you will, from senior staff so they understand this isn’t just some extra privilege we’re giving these women,” said Quinn. “This is something we have to incorporate into the work day so these moms can be great moms and great public servants.”

The lactation room opened last Friday, not long after a bill passed in Albany that requires employers to allow women to pump milk. The room created in the council’s office building

“… has a hygienic refrigerator, a refrigerator that locks, a sink with running water, electricity, a door that locks and a curtain here for added privacy…”

Every workplace should have a room like this. Women who have to (or want to) return to work after the birth of their child would have a much easier time breastfeeding exclusively for the recommended six months if they had access to a comfortable, private place to express and store milk.

A new study shows that while extended breastfeeding favorably affects lung growth in children, breastfeeding by asthmatic mothers may actually hinder lung function later in life. I find this study particularly alarming since I was diagnosed with asthma earlier this year and only developed symptoms after Sam’s birth. Since we’re still nursing I certainly hope I’m not setting him up for a life of inhaler use.

“For children of nonasthmatic mothers, this analysis demonstrates a further benefit of breastfeeding — that is, that longer breastfeeding is associated with enhanced lung growth,” the study authors conclude. “For children of mothers with asthma, it is premature to suggest any change in recommendations to breastfeed their infants given the previously mentioned benefits. Further study is needed to confirm our findings and to determine a biological basis for the relationships observed.”

Cheryl Cruz, a Canadian woman on vacation at Universal Studios in Orlando was threatened and humiliated by security guards who surrounded her and threatened to escort her from the park while she nursed her 10-month-old baby. A spokesman for the theme park says breastfeeding is allowed in the park and that the individuals involved in the incident will apologize to Cruz. The company has already apologized. There is no law against public breastfeeding in Florida.

Also in Florida, Houston’s restaurant has settled a case with Simone Bertucci who was asked to leave the restaurant while breastfeeding her son. Bertucci left the restaurant and nursed her child in the car while the rest of her family remained in the restaurant. She was later compensated for the meal along with a public apology, but Bertucci filed suit to raise public awareness. The restaurant’s parent company settled the night before the hearing was to begin.

Great news, mamas! Breastfeeding does not, in fact, create sagging boobs so tell everyone who tells you otherwise they’re wrong and you’ve got plastic surgeons, the group that most stands to benefit from the myth, to back you up.

A study presented at the American Society of Plastic Surgeons 2007 conference shows that breastfeeding has no effect on the shape of a woman’s breast.

“Many women who come in for breast surgery tell us their breasts are sagging, drooping or are less full because they breastfed,” said Brian Rinker, MD, ASPS Member Surgeon and study author. “Although the amount of sagging in the breasts appears to increase with each pregnancy, we’ve found that breastfeeding does not worsen the effect.”

As the first study to examine what impacts breast shape in connection to pregnancy, plastic surgeons found that a history of breastfeeding, the number of children breastfed, the duration of each child’s breastfeeding, or the amount of weight gained during pregnancy were not significant predictors for losing breast shape. However, body mass index (BMI), the number of pregnancies, a larger pre-pregnancy bra size, smoking history, and age were significant risk factors for an increased degree of breast sagging.

Interesting that smoking has an effect on the buoyancy of breasts. I can think of no better way to scare vain teenage girls into not smoking than by telling them it will make their boobs saggy. Kids don’t seem to be scared of cancer these days, but sagging is terrifying.

USDA ANNOUNCES NEW MYPYRAMID FOR PREGNANT AND NURSING MOMS

WASHINGTON, Oct. 25, 2007 — Acting Secretary of Agriculture Chuck Conner today announced the launch of a new MyPyramid web site designed specifically for pregnant and breastfeeding mothers. The new interactive guidance, found at MyPyramid.gov, provides unique, individualized nutrition guidance to meet the needs of expectant and new moms.

The website looks pretty straightforward. You plug in your age, whether you’re breastfeeding or pregnant (there doesn’t seem to be an option for both), height, weight, and activity level and the site tells you how many servings of grains, vegetables, fruits, milk and meat and beans you should be eating each day. While this tool isn’t necessary for everyone, many women are unsure of what and how much they should be eating. Generic calorie requirements don’t apply to everyone, so it’s nice to see the USDA is taking a mother’s nutritional needs into consideration.

Also, if you’re breastfeeding and eligible for WIC you may want to look into the WIC farmer’s market programs for access to locally grown (usually with organic methods) produce.

I’m sorry for the lack of updates but things have been rough here over the past week. Sleep regressions are rearing their ugly heads leaving me exhausted and depressed. I haven’t been this depressed since the last nasty sleep regression in July. Four molars breaking through at once caused that particular regression. I don’t what’s causing this one. I just know that it shouldn’t take three hours to get a baby to sleep.

There is news outside of me though. In yet another breastfeeding case, Nebraska parents declined genetic testing for their newborn because of their religious beliefs. This is their tenth child, and they’ve managed to avoid the standard heel prick test for most of their previous children. This time the judge isn’t being so lenient. The judge ordered that the six-week old be administered the test and put into foster care until the test results are received. The Omaha World- Herald reports that:

Earlier in the hearing, Mary Anaya, who has been visiting her son several times a day in foster care to breastfeed, cringed when she heard him crying from outside the courtroom.

She later added, “I don’t approve of Mom popping in (to the foster home) nine times a day to nurse.”

The mother, of course, is distraught.

“This is inhumane — to deny my right to feed my baby.”

I’m not a religious person so I don’t understand why the Anayas would fight so adamantly against the genetic screening. Personally I’d want to know if my child had diseases that could lead to mental retardation or death, especially if the diseases could be treated. However, I can’t understand why a judge would remove the infant from his parents’ care and refuse to allow his mother to continue feeding him. If it’s the child’s best interests we’re looking at, isn’t it in the child’s best interests to allow his mother to breastfeed him?

Here’s some great news via The Lactivist. Evenflo is buying Ameda, a well respected brand that primarily make hospital grade pumps, and becoming WHO code compliant.

Marketing of Breast Milk Substitutes. The WHO Code was created in 1981 as a guide for marketing practices of infant formula, bottle and nipple manufacturers to ensure that breast milk substitutes, feeding bottles and nipples are not marketed inappropriately.

“The WHO code is designed to promote and protect breastfeeding around the world, and Evenflo’s decision to help support this important objective by becoming Code compliant is to be congratulated,” said Marsha Walker, Executive Director of the National Alliance for Breastfeeding Advocacy. “I believe Evenflo’s actions will help encourage moms and remove barriers to breastfeeding in the U.S. I’m gratified to see Evenflo and Ameda delivering on their promise to develop and market products in a manner that will not interfere with or impede breastfeeding,” she said.

This is fantastic news. I’m pleased to see that such a well-known company is willing to take a risk and stop marketing bottles and nipples to new moms.

While sniffing my own sweat doesn’t seem to have much effect on my libido, a new study conducted in my home town found that sniffing the sweat of breastfeeding mothers can boost sex drive. This puzzles me. I’d feel pretty strange taking sweat sniffing pills to get in the mood, but if any of my friends are feeling like they need some action, I suppose I could invite them to sniff my sports bra after a go on the stairmaster. Anyway, here’s the article in all of it’s weirdness.

Mothers put scientists on scent of an aphrodisiac

The sex drive of women could be boosted by drugs based on chemicals that are found in the sweat of breast-feeding mothers, a scientist predicted yesterday.

The findings of the research group have been published in the journal Hormones and Behaviour.

And in totally unrelated weird news, Britney’s visitation rights have been suspended.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and guess that she’s not big on breastfeeding.

Look, I’m generally all for breastfeeding no matter what the circumstances. While smoking is an unhealthy habit with ill effects for both mother and child, I’d still say a mother who smokes should breastfeed. The benefits of breastmilk will counteract at least some of the negative effects of nicotine and possible second-hand smoke exposure. As for alcohol, I don’t really see moderate alcohol use as a problem. An occasional drink while nursing, especially after the first three months of an infant’s life, won’t have major effects on a baby. Less than 2% of the alcohol absorbed into the bloodstream makes its way into breastmilk, so if you time your drinks correctly there’s no need to completely abstain.

But cocaine? I draw the line at cocaine. A New York prostitute and mother was arrested during an undercover sting operation. Not only did she perform oral sex on two men in a car with her awake five-year-old and eight-week-old in the backseat, she used her baby as a drug prop. A drug prop you ask? What do you mean by that? She snorted cocaine off her son’s stomach while nursing him between tricks.

In case you missed it the first time, she snorted cocaine off of her eight-week-old son while breastfeeding him in between tricks.

Breastfeeding is amazing. The health benefits are incomparable. The bonding experience between mother and child can be positively blissful. But snorting drugs off your baby? Doesn’t that negate everything? I’m disgusted.

In addition to the prostitution charges the woman was booked for five counts of endangering the welfare of a child and one count of first degree reckless endangerment, a felony.

Read the full story at ABC.com.

terrible mother, prostitute snorts cocaine off of her son, breastfeeding, don’t do drugs while breastfeeding

First the good news. When I first heard about dental caries and looked at the terrifying pictures (check out the pictures on this website to scare yourself silly) I made an immediate decision to cut out night nursing all together. Of course Sam was not fond of my decision and rebelled, dragging me down with him. We didn’t actually cut out night nursing until Sam started sleeping through the night, and even now on, the nights when he wakes up, I still nurse him back to sleep if he asks for it.

But now I can breathe easier, because a new study has found no link between nursing and tooth decay in young children. Researchers studied the infant feeding habits and other family characteristics of 1576 children between the ages of 2 and 5. Though they found no relation between nursing, no matter how long the duration and tooth decay, the study showed that poor children and Mexican-American children were at severe risk for tooth decay and children whose mothers smoked during pregnancy and after were at an increased risk.

To protect your child from tooth decay brush their teeth and schedule their first dental appointment six months after the first tooth emerges. Ask Moxie has a great post about dental hygiene with great product advice. Parenting Children also has a video post about baby bottle tooth decay.

And now for the bad news. A study conducted by researchers at the University of Melbourne in Australia found that exclusively nursing babies with a history of family allergies such as food allergies, asthma, and excema can increase the chances of the child developing allergies later in life. Though children were protected up to the age of seven, they have a greater chance of becoming allergic in adolescence or adulthood. The study also found that breastfeeding doesn’t protect children from non-allergic families from developing allergies.

Dr Matheson said further investigation was needed to determine why there was an increased risk of developing asthma after seven years of age.

“It could be that mothers are passing antibodies on to their babies or because of increased hygiene and reduced exposure to infections early in life,’’ she said.

“The breastfed children in our study had fewer bacterial and viral infections, were more likely to be first born and in a higher social class – these all factors related to increased hygiene.”

Dr Matheson said the study’s authors acknowledged there were many benefits of breastfeeding and were not suggesting that women with allergies should not breastfeed.

“However, if you are concerned about preventing allergy in your children, it may be more effective to implement other strategies such as not having carpet in your home,’’ she said.

image by all in green at flickr

The New York Times reports that the FDA plans to ban over the counter multi-symptom cough and cold medicines marketed to kids. The drug hasn’t been tested children under the age of six yet it’s marketed to kids as young as two. This ban could effect 800 different medications including Toddler’s Dimetapp, Triaminic Infant and Little Colds.

In their 356- page report reviewers wrote that there’s very little evidence that these medicines are effective in young children and they may even be dangerous. Adverse reactions to the drugs, including deaths from both antihistamines and decongestants are reported voluntarily, so numbers may even be underreported.

They also recommend standardizing the droppers, syringes and cups that come with infant and toddler medicines, which would be fantastic, since I was once guilty of overloading my poor son with motrin when I used the wrong dropper. Luckily I caught my mistake after the first (large) dose.

Aside from Motrin (used after my poor little guy broke his leg) and Tylenol (for teething) we’ve never used any over-the-counter medications. I know that this isn’t true for everyone and that not all children (and parents) are so lucky, but I truly believe that breastfeeding has kept Sam healthy. He’s had one bad cold, one stomach virus, and a few runny noses in his 18 months. The cold only lasted a few days, my stomach flu lasted twice as long as his, and I got another one that he somehow managed to avoid. I know that breastmilk can’t be totally responsible for his good health, but considering how much time we spent in germ-infested play areas used by thousands of Philadelphia residents we made out quite well.

I am almost positive that the reason his stomach virus at 11 months was so short-lived is because he was able to nurse throughout. In fact, he stopped eating solid foods entirely for almost a month after the virus, so it was both a blessing (for him) and a curse (for my poor, aching boobs) that he was still breastfeeding. The fact that I got several illnesses that he didn’t seemed like tangible proof that the antibodies were flowing freely along with the milk. I think I got sick so much because I was giving all of my immunities to him. To be honest, I’m pretty sure that he basically sucked my immune system out of me- I spent more time sick since his birth than I was in the five years before it.

My health aside, I feel like Sam is walking proof that breast is best. Kelli’s post about her son’s immunity in April shows her son had similar luck. Now we just have to see how this winter goes, since it seems that Sam’s slowly, slowly (maybe? hopefully?) weaning.

I was totally creeped out when I read Neil Steinberg’s piece about Currier’s win in the Chicago Sun-Times. While I assume his point is that bodily functions performed in public isn’t a victory, the line “…and the lady next to me wordlessly flops out a swollen breast and begins firing hot streams of foamy milk into the yearning, baby-sparrow mouth of her tot, or toddler, or 5-year-old child,” stopped me and I had trouble reading further. I managed, mouth wide open, to skim the rest of his column, but I was so disturbed by the image of something I’ve found to be so sweet and beautiful that I couldn’t figure out what King Lear had to do with it all. Then I realized it had nothing to do with it. I failed to notice the topic change.

Dahlia Lithwick at Slate seemed to be creeped out by Steinberg’s column as well, even quoting the same line that made me lose all ability to comprehend the written word. She wrote a lengthy piece wondering about the silence surrounding Currier’s victory, specifically wondering why more feminists aren’t excited.

The Mike and Juliet show also explored the case with tons of video of Currier setting up her pump. She wasn’t able to join them in the studio, but her lawyer, a lawyer from the National Medical Examiner’s Board and a OB/GYN all weigh in.

The Lactivist finally shares her opinion about the case. “The medical board…the people who are supposed to value and promote breastfeeding…were telling a mom she should just wean her daughter so she could pass the boards and become a doctor.”

Sonia, a commenter here, wrote, “To me, this isn’t about nursing, it’s about trying to game the system to get the best advantage to yourself. Seriously, why else would she schedule her final exam when she knows she’s going to be breastfeeding? She totally could’ve done her exams later, and considering she’s failed the exam once already, it might’ve been better for her to schedule the exam for later when she’s not sleep-deprived or engorged. She’s making the rest of us nursing moms look bad and I’m really pissed about it.”

And Katharine, another commenter wrote, “Hurray for Sophie! This sets a precedent for all nursing women, one that is long overdue.”

Sophie Currier, breastfeeding, expressing milk, extra time granted, victory

The Sydney Morning Herald reports that Australia’s state government is introducing legislation to make bans on public breastfeeding illegal. Afraid that many women were stopping breastfeeding because of fear of discrimination, the law will make bans on breastfeeding in public places like trains, busses and the workplace non-existent.

Sophie Currier won her appeal and will be given an extra 60 minutes to pump during her exam time. The Boston Herald’s headline is, appropriately, Mother pumps out a victory. Congratulations, Sophie and Lea!

When I initially wrote about Carolynn Prior’s experience with the YMCA and the Ontario Human Rights Commission I was unable to find any actual news articles about the incident where she was rudely told that nursing her baby while watching her two children take swimming lessons was obscene. The Toronto Star now reports that the YMCA staff members who asked her to stop erred in their judgment.

“We are a breastfeeding-friendly and a family-friendly organization. That is not our practice. We are taking this very seriously.”

Heipel [vice-president of communications of the YMCA of Greater Toronto] said an email was sent out to all staff on Monday reminding them that no one should interfere with any woman nursing her child on YMCA premises. He said employees were told that if a member complains about someone breastfeeding, the onus is on staff to address that person’s discomfort, and not the nursing mother’s actions.

Let’s hope Prior receives the written apology she deserves.

And for the record, about yesterday’s post, I think that yes, Sophie Currier losing her case is discrimination. There are ways to provide her time to pump without putting the rest of the exam takers at a disadvantage. She’s pumping breastmilk, not cheating.

Associated Press reports that Sophie Currier was denied the extra time requested for her medical exams by a Superior Court Judge.

A Superior Court judge today ruled Sophie Currier would have to take the exam during the time allotted.

A statement from her lawyers says they’re filing an appeal with a single justice to the Appeals Court.

Currier says that if she doesn’t nurse her daughter or pump breast milk every two to three hours, she risks medical complications.

Norfolk Superior Court Judge Patrick Brady says Currier has other options, including delaying when she takes the exam.

But Currier says the judge’s conclusion that there’s no harm in a woman putting her career off for a year is the basis of discrimination.

I’m imagining the important exams I’ve taken in my adult life. To become a teacher I took a series of expensive exams. I wonder if I would have been able to pass all of them if I was engorged and leaking over my desk. I wonder if I would have been able to pass if I was running a hands-free electric double pump while analyzing literature.

What do you think? Is this discrimination? Or should she have to follow the rules like everyone else, breastfeeding or not. She’s already been given other accommodations and flunked the test once. Is breastfeeding so important she should get extra time?