Where natural conception, pregnancy, birth, and all other processes in the human body, breastfeeding is the default setting when it comes to feeding babies all mammals, including humans.
But none of these natural processes guaranteed foolproof and the company brought the alternatives when something goes wrong with the plan of nature.
IVF and other fertility problems programs, surrogate pregnancy and intensive care for premature babies, caesarean birth and artificial feeding .
each designed to intervene when he stumbles nature.
Why is there such a gap between women who are breast-feeding, and those who resort to infant formula? Why can the apparent decision be taken as a criticism of those who are the others? It may also occur that the conflict between natural childbirth advocates against doctors, but imagine a debate between those who see staff so easily, and those dependent on IVF? Imagine mothers completed maternity time question the actions of those with preemies in intensive care! Imagine infertile women complain to promote contraception and family planning!
So what led to this Great Divide?
The answer can be found, if we go back a few pages of our history books. Artificial feeding was only originally intended as a last resort for children are unable to get access to breast milk. The, abandoned by his mother at birth, foundlings with no access to nurses, nursing orphans without respect for them. It was insidious marketing of those who have a commercial interest, which saw artificial feeding leap from the last resort for the first option and took the better part of the last century to undo the damage caused by their actions. And the service is far from complete.
It would be bad enough if the formula were marketed as a simple alternative to breast milk, but the damage had been done a lot worse. Powerful advertising aimed at families and the medical community has led many to believe that feeding infants were higher than their mother’s milk. Generation after generation of new mothers had any choice taken from them as consultants for health brainwashed passed misleading information supplied to them by those whose interest has been the case for the creation of money. A lot of money.
The most heartbreaking is not a loss of confidence in the chest the whole society, rather the failure of the company to understand the risk of not feeding the baby, as nature intended. There are very real negative effects on health and the immediate future when we remove breast milk from human diet and replace it with substitutes artificially contrived. Just as there are risks associated with fertility treatment, premature birth or surgery, so there are risks when infant formula replaces breast milk-either at birth or at any time in the course of nature for people to be completely or partially breastfed chest.
Any hint of such is silenced by many in our society as unfair to mothers who have used artificial feeding. For many years, these risks have been cloaked in language and presented as the softer advantages of breast milk. This technique is similar to suggest there are advantages to the air is not polluted with cigarette smoke breathe! Performance not to be exposed to toxic levels of radiation! Or perhaps reasons to consider not go in front of a moving car!!! There are advantages to breastfeeding-breast is not better, it’s normal!
The decision to introduce infant formula-partially or fully replace breast milk in the diet of a child-must always follow the full risk assessment. Artificial feeding is not about choosing to breastfeed or not to breastfeed. The decision has nothing to do with breastfeeding. When we add or replace a natural process with something, it should be done with full knowledge of the risks for the benefits. As a replacement body or kidney dialysis, artificial feeding should only be considered when all else fails.
Any program health consciousness is designed to change people’s behavior, change habits and encourage them to question their lifestyle. Stop smoking. Eat more vegetables, cultivating more exercise, drink less alcohol. Avoid exposure to the Sun. Reduce fat in the diet. To have a Pap smear. Eat more fiber. Nag, nag, nag! Pick up a magazine, watch tv, go to the doctor, or go to a billboard. The message is simple: there are ways to improve your health now and in the future. Ignoring it denies its power to act.
Set on a poster promoting breast feeding, however, and suddenly people complain that there has only been done to make those feeds artificially feel guilty! Why is it? How can a second message display customized health and threatening? The answer may surprise you-there are certain feelings involved, but it is nothing to do with guilt. Guilt is, how do you feel to have committed a crime; remorse caused by feeling responsibility for some crimes. It is a sensation created internally and can only be done if the offender admits that they did anything wrong.
Surely this description will only apply to the minimum number of mothers who have breastfed? The true emotions felt by most women who resort to early weaning is regret: feel sad for the loss or absence of something precious or valuable. In short, when these women see the promotion of breastfeeding, remember them for a moment, they experienced grief. This can lead to a feeling of anger, as unresolved emotions come to the surface.
What they need is support and understanding for their pain, recognition of their regret. Unfortunately, what we usually get instead is peace of mind about the decision to get used and the guarantee of their child’s health and well-being while being fed artificially. This inability to recognize their true feelings goes a long way to extending their emotional recovery. Raise the issue of breastfeeding in a group of women in all phases of life-these emotions will flood out just as fresh in retirement village as in the Group of the new mother.
While memories of the value of breast milk make you feel angry, so I direct that anger not those who seek to raise awareness of a whole people, rather
those who disappoint. Mothers cannot breastfeed: our society can’t help you do that
- the real blame lies:
• health systems that hypocrite benefits of breast milk, but show new mothers from the hospital before you understand the basics of this learned skill;
• communities that see breastfeeding as an act of intimate only run behind closed doors, only by promoting the role of sensuous breasts and deny their practical application;
• a society that expects women to return to paid work after a short, unpaid maternity leave by denying them access to childcare jobs and other support to balance work and breastfeeding;
• A medical system that has until this year has marked the growth of breastfed babies against unnatural growth patterns than those fed artificially
- in previous generations, and implied the absence of mothers whose children did not live;
- • Practice birth unnecessary disturb the natural evolution from the uterus and breast strict regimes child who denies children access to the chest
- often enough for adequate nutrition;
• a society that destroys the body image portraying the female form, as for a pubescent female celebrity fully mature and showing malnourished
as role models for young people and women of childbearing age.
It’s time to break down barriers between mothers and reconcile. There is no us and them, good and evil mother. Every woman has the right to sup
port and information, they need the birth and breastfeed her child, as nature had intended, without pressure from the techniques of marketing of infant formula and drugs multinational producers, affecting professionals guiding them along the way motherhood.