Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

Artificial Wombs


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#26 Ali

Ali
  • Wielder of the Spork

  • 3204 posts


Users Awards

Posted 06 August 2014 - 12:30 PM

I think it is an absolute must for 6 months, weaning off by 1 year. Babies don't make their own antibodies for 6 months and get the IgG through placenta which doesnt last long, so the IgA through milk is necessary until they can make their own. 

It's not a must, it's a should. All new mothers should have the benefits thoroughly explained to them, encouraged and supported in their attempts to breastfeed. But it is incredibly damaging to say it's a must, it leads to those who really struggle or can't being made to feel like they're failures or bad mothers and that has ramifications itself.

 

 

Anyhoo, I'd be on this like a shot if it were any time soon. Alas, not.



#27 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 06 August 2014 - 01:21 PM

You just know that initially when this is eventually fully developed (it's pretty much been inevitable ever since they developed in vitro fertilisation really, it's the natural conclusion to it) it's going to be the sole preserve of the rich and famous because it's going to be so expensive. So they'll be able to select their child's exact genetics, screen out any diseases, choose its sex etc and then pop it in an incubator at a lab somewhere for 9 months and then get it FedExed to their mansion when it's ready. :rolleyes: In an ideal world this development would only be used to help those unable to conceive and carry a child full term naturally (including very premature babies) but I fear it won't end up being the case, sadly. :/



#28 Kaddict

Kaddict
  • 1767 posts


Users Awards

Posted 07 August 2014 - 08:33 AM

It's not a must, it's a should. All new mothers should have the benefits thoroughly explained to them, encouraged and supported in their attempts to breastfeed. But it is incredibly damaging to say it's a must, it leads to those who really struggle or can't being made to feel like they're failures or bad mothers and that has ramifications itself.

 

 

Anyhoo, I'd be on this like a shot if it were any time soon. Alas, not.

I don't think it does lead people to believe they are poor mothers. My sister has trouble breastfeeding. We come from a family of physicians, and talk about how important it is to breastfeed. We don't look down on her when she isn't producing, but she realizes that when she is, it is extremely important. I know some women don't/can't produce at all, but if you can, it is one of the most important things for your newborn.



#29 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 07 August 2014 - 08:52 AM

I don't think it does lead people to believe they are poor mothers. My sister has trouble breastfeeding. We come from a family of physicians, and talk about how important it is to breastfeed. We don't look down on her when she isn't producing, but she realizes that when she is, it is extremely important. I know some women don't/can't produce at all, but if you can, it is one of the most important things for your newborn.

 

Your sister isn't necessarily representative of all mothers who struggle to breast feed though. Being told that breast feeding is a must, i.e. that it's essential for the health and welfare of their baby, is akin to saying that those who struggle to do it are being neglectful or failing to properly care for their child.



#30 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 07 August 2014 - 09:48 AM

I don't think it does lead people to believe they are poor mothers.


One example of a woman who feels their inability to breastfeed makes them a poor mother would disprove your "thinking". So, to google!

Here we go: http://www.city-data...k-old-baby.html
There's plenty more, of course.

#31 Ali

Ali
  • Wielder of the Spork

  • 3204 posts


Users Awards

Posted 07 August 2014 - 02:32 PM

I don't think it does lead people to believe they are poor mothers. My sister has trouble breastfeeding. We come from a family of physicians, and talk about how important it is to breastfeed. We don't look down on her when she isn't producing, but she realizes that when she is, it is extremely important. I know some women don't/can't produce at all, but if you can, it is one of the most important things for your newborn.

Cool, you have an anecdote about 1 woman to the contrary. We can both play that game if you like, my sister-in-law was actively bullied by her midwife when she had her twins and told that if she wanted to be a "good mother", she "needed" to breastfeed. She was producing hardly any milk and the attempts were leaving her in pain that regularly reduced her to tears. She spent a good 6 months worrying constantly that she'd failed the babies in some way because she physically could not do it and for the first few years of her lives every little development was analysed as to whether they would be progressing faster if only she'd been able to.

 

 

Google women who can't breastfeed and see how many results you come up with about women who didn't feel supported or weren't sure what they were doing or who worried and felt awful about it. Here's some highlights for you just from the first couple of pages of a very general search.

 

http://www.psycholog...t-breast-feed-1

 

 

The guilt trips and torment imposed by the La Leche League have seemingly no end. To make matters more emotionally difficult for women who can't or don't want to breast-feed, Badinter reports: The husband, a doctor, of one of the League's founders had this to say: "A woman who bottle-feeds is handicapped. She may turn out to be a pretty good mother, but she could have been a lot better mother if she had breastfed."

 

http://www.telegraph...eally-best.html

 

And now a small – but increasingly vocal – number of women are speaking up in defence of those who can’t or won’t breastfeed. The Fearless Formula Feeder – tagline: “Standing up for formula feeders… without being a boob about it” – is an online community set up by Suzanne Barston, the American author of Bottled Up, a book about breastfeeding politics. Her website receives 50,000 hits a month and on Facebook her group has more than 7,000 members, all of them sharing their tales of woe at the hands of the “Breastapo”.

 

 

 

http://www.bottlebab...t-breastfeed-2/

 

You won’t see my crying because I feel less of a human being due to wearing glasses, yet still, as my child was reaching his first birth day, the feelings of inadequacy, because my breasts did not function as I wanted them to, haunted me.  Why?  Did the way I fed my baby change the type of mother I was to my child? No.  I was a great mother because the love I had for him didn’t come from breasts or bottles, that came from my heart.  Was he showing any signs of being disadvantaged by my inability to feed him from my breasts?  Not that I could see.  He was happy, healthy, beautiful and too smart for his own good.  I couldn’t be more proud. So why was I feeling so alone, so…… insignificant?

 

For the mother who wants to breastfeed but can’t it is usually, at the time, the most significant hardship she feels she is facing. It may not be the most significant hardship faced in the world, but in her world it is.

So next time you want to throw around ‘insignificant’ numbers maybe think about how ‘insignificant’ you are making that mother feel.

 

 

http://edition.cnn.c...-breastfeeding/

 

Perhaps most importantly, we need to stop demonizing mothers who can't breastfeed, guilting them into starving their kids with insufficient milk supplies rather than supplementing with formula. Yes, breast-feeding can help prevent SIDS, obesity, childhood leukemia, asthma, and lowered IQ ... but none of those matter if your baby is failing to thrive because of malnutrition.

 

In Kelly's case, once the baby was admitted to the hospital, she began to use formula, fed through a syringe -- she was told to avoid bottles because the baby would reject the breast. She stuck with formula, her baby gained weight, and today, "she's happy, healthy and fine," Kelly says.

 

But her guilt and shame continued long after the baby recovered. It wasn't until weeks later, in another doctor's office, that she happened upon an article that calmed her: some women, it said, can't breastfeed, for physical reasons. If only her doctors had read that article, too.

 

 

So I'll repeat, all new mothers should be encouraged and supported in their efforts to breastfeed to the full extent that is possible. I fully believe that everyone should at least give it a go but for women who can't or after trying, still feel very uncomfortable about doing it, it is potentially damaging (and is for a lot of women) to say that they "need" to or that it's the "most important thing".



#32 Kaddict

Kaddict
  • 1767 posts


Users Awards

Posted 07 August 2014 - 08:42 PM

I think we agree that it is important. I in no way condone the behavior of the midwife in the situation of your sister. But it is really important. People should be understanding/sensitive of situations in which women can't breastfeed (not just because they don't produce), but that makes it no less important. Ask any neonatologist, and I would say it would be in the top 3 most important things to do for your child if you can.



#33 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 08 August 2014 - 07:34 AM

I think we agree that it is important. I in no way condone the behavior of the midwife in the situation of your sister. But it is really important. People should be understanding/sensitive of situations in which women can't breastfeed (not just because they don't produce), but that makes it no less important. Ask any neonatologist, and I would say it would be in the top 3 most important things to do for your child if you can.

 

Nobody has said it's not important, of course it should be the preferred choice if possible because there are a lot of benefits to it, but it's not "a must" as you were saying earlier. ;)



#34 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 08 August 2014 - 07:48 AM

I think we agree that it is important. I in no way condone the behavior of the midwife in the situation of your sister. But it is really important. People should be understanding/sensitive of situations in which women can't breastfeed (not just because they don't produce), but that makes it no less important. Ask any neonatologist, and I would say it would be in the top 3 most important things to do for your child if you can.


Not once have you actually responded to criticisms of your posts.

In the first instance, you stated that breatfeeding was "a must", which Ali contradicted.
You went on, instead of defending why it is "a must", to disagree that women who cannot breastfeed are made to feel guilty and inadequate. Several people refuted this with first-hand accounts of exactly the thing you didn't think existed.
Then, instead of defending your original position of breastfeeding being "a must" or your follow up position of non-breastfeeding mothers not being maligned, you made a hand-wavy post about breastfeeding being important.

If you have changed your opinion, you need to be explicit about it, rather than pretending that it's what you wrote in the first place. You're training to be a doctor - you'd best start learning to choose your words carefully now.

#35 Kaddict

Kaddict
  • 1767 posts


Users Awards

Posted 09 August 2014 - 06:19 AM

I do not change my stance or change my wording. I would say vaccinations are "a must" but there are some people who cannot get vaccinations. we shouldn't ostracize these people, that is one of the reasons we get immunizations, to protect those without functioning immune systems. Doesn't mean 100% of people can do it, but those who can, should. For those who can, it is one of the best things they can do. 



#36 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 09 August 2014 - 07:46 AM

I do not change my stance or change my wording. I would say vaccinations are "a must" but there are some people who cannot get vaccinations. we shouldn't ostracize these people, that is one of the reasons we get immunizations, to protect those without functioning immune systems. Doesn't mean 100% of people can do it, but those who can, should. For those who can, it is one of the best things they can do.


So, you would say it's "a must" when... it isn't?

#37 Kaddict

Kaddict
  • 1767 posts


Users Awards

Posted 09 August 2014 - 08:11 AM

Yes Sweeney, that is how the term is typically used. 



#38 NapisaurusRex

NapisaurusRex
  • 🍴Aioli-American🍴

  • 9425 posts


Users Awards

Posted 09 August 2014 - 12:03 PM

It's unfathomable to me that you think 2 years is too much, but you consider breastfeeding for 6 months a must.



#39 Kaddict

Kaddict
  • 1767 posts


Users Awards

Posted 09 August 2014 - 01:26 PM

My main concern (regarding this topic) is how a baby obtains antibodies. Fathom antibodies, fathom my viewpoint.



#40 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 09 August 2014 - 02:23 PM

Yes Sweeney, that is how the term is typically used.


I disagree.

Because you're wrong.

My main concern (regarding this topic) is how a baby obtains antibodies. Fathom antibodies, fathom my viewpoint.


The immunity from mothers' antibodies is temporary. I don't think that it's nearly big enough of a deal to justify making people feel shitty about it.

#41 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 09 August 2014 - 02:54 PM

Yes Sweeney, that is how the term is typically used. 

 

Just because that's how it's used colloquially doesn't mean that it's correct (it's not). Breastfeeding isn't a must, and vaccinations aren't a must, you even go on to say yourself that they're actually a should (i.e. that they're a propriety and not a necessity):

 

Doesn't mean 100% of people can do it, but those who can, should.

 

It's because of people and the media constantly saying things like how breastfeeding is essential and making out that it's some kind of panacea to obesity, cot death, intelligence etc that mothers who are either unable or choose not to do it are essentially becoming stigmatised despite the science behind it actually being quite mixed. :/ What should happen is that new mothers be given the up-to-date scientific information to inform her own decision and then she should be supported whatever that decision is.



#42 Kaddict

Kaddict
  • 1767 posts


Users Awards

Posted 09 August 2014 - 03:01 PM

The immunity from mothers' antibodies is temporary. I don't think that it's nearly big enough of a deal to justify making people feel shitty about it.

Yes, but while newborns can't produce their own antibodies, (and the antibodies received while in the womb are temporary as well) they are the ONLY antibodies a newborn has for a period of time. Read about it. I also hate how society take offense at everything as well. 

 

It's because of people and the media constantly saying things like how breastfeeding is essential and making out that it's some kind of panacea to obesity, cot death, intelligence etc that mothers who are either unable or choose not to do it are essentially becoming stigmatised despite the science behind it actually being quite mixed. :/ What should happen is that new mothers be given the up-to-date scientific information to inform her own decision and then she should be supported whatever that decision is.

 

The science is good. File drawer problems are the main reason it seems to be 'mixed.' Also, I am referring to the antibodies, on which science is absolutely not mixed. Yes, it is still the decision of the parent, but if they can, it is one of the most important things you can do for a baby. And I would say that pertussis outbreaks are worse than hurting feelings. Vaccinations and breastfeeding are important. Some people can't do it. Don't criticize them, but don't try to underplay its importance by using the "it hurts people's feelings" excuse
 

EDIT: Also, "its a must" is colloquially used in the sense I used it. And you do not know about what you speak when it comes to antibodies....


Edited by Kaddict, 09 August 2014 - 03:13 PM.


#43 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 09 August 2014 - 03:21 PM

The science is good. File drawer problems are the main reason it seems to be 'mixed.' Also, I am referring to the antibodies, on which science is absolutely not mixed. Yes, it is still the decision of the parent, but if they can, it is one of the most important things you can do for a baby. And I would say that pertussis outbreaks are worse than hurting feelings. Vaccinations and breastfeeding are important. Some people can't do it. Don't criticize them, but don't try to underplay its importance by using the "it hurts people's feelings" excuse

 

The science is mixed in that they all agree that breastfeeding is beneficial (I don't question that at all) but the extent to the benefits it provides is very difficult to accurately ascertain. I mean, you've got scientists out there declaring that breastfeeding helps prevent cancer etc, you have to appreciate how damaging that kind of thing can be to a new mother's mental health if they're unable to actually do it. It's not about it simply hurting people's feelings, it has the potential to cause serious and lasting damage emotionally and that's not good for either the mother or the baby.

 

On the subject of antibodies, from what I understand (and I'm no expert admittedly), but unlike most mammals for whom colostrum is a must (a lot of animals die soon after birth without it), humans get most of their antibodies before they're even born through placental transfer so they can survive perfectly fine without it. So they should do it if they can because it is beneficial but it's not really going to damage the child if they don't so there's no reason for them to be made to feel guilty about it.

 

It actually sounds like you're now of the opinion that it's actually a should rather than a must to me.

 

EDIT: Also, "its a must" is colloquially used in the sense I used it. And you do not know about what you speak when it comes to antibodies....

 

I know it is, I said it is. Feel free to educate me on my shortcomings in newborn antibody knowledge, I already acknowledged that I'm not expert.



#44 Kaddict

Kaddict
  • 1767 posts


Users Awards

Posted 09 August 2014 - 10:17 PM

Antibodies obtained through the placenta (maternal IgG) are pretty much gone after 3 months. At this time, babies have begun producing really low levels of IgM antibodies, which are somewhat helpful, but not enough to protect against infection. It isn't until they turn 1 yr old though that IgM is at a good level. IgA and IgG are even slower to increase. That is really too basic an explanation, but it is why breast feeding is so important, so mothers can still impart antibodies in a sorta similar, albeit different way. Immunology is actually a pretty neat topic.

 

Anyway, I think it is better people realize the benefits and some people being offended, than people being blind and not participating when they otherwise could be. As far as preventing cancer, I am not as learned on those topics, especially bc they are probably still doing research with varying degrees of findings.

 

And LW, I was referring to Sweeney's attack of how I used must.



#45 Waser Lave

Waser Lave

  • 25516 posts


Users Awards

Posted 10 August 2014 - 12:43 AM

Antibodies obtained through the placenta (maternal IgG) are pretty much gone after 3 months. At this time, babies have begun producing really low levels of IgM antibodies, which are somewhat helpful, but not enough to protect against infection. It isn't until they turn 1 yr old though that IgM is at a good level. IgA and IgG are even slower to increase. That is really too basic an explanation, but it is why breast feeding is so important, so mothers can still impart antibodies in a sorta similar, albeit different way. Immunology is actually a pretty neat topic.
 
Anyway, I think it is better people realize the benefits and some people being offended, than people being blind and not participating when they otherwise could be. As far as preventing cancer, I am not as learned on those topics, especially bc they are probably still doing research with varying degrees of findings.
 
And LW, I was referring to Sweeney's attack of how I used must.

 

I actually already knew all that about antibodies (surprisingly :p), my point was that we have a decent, basic level of immunity at birth (unlike a lot of other mammals) so while breastfeeding does give additional antibodies, and therefore protection from illness, they're not essential and the vast majority of formula-fed babies tend to develop perfectly well without them (albeit at slightly higher risk of catching something during those months and infections and such are likely to persist slightly longer but still not massively more likely to kill you). ;) Breastfeeding isn't the panacea it's often made out to be and the benefits are probably excessively proclaimed by people but it is obviously preferable. So again, we're talking of a should and not a must (speaking formally, not colloquially since we're in the debate section :p).
 



#46 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 10 August 2014 - 07:13 AM

Yes, but while newborns can't produce their own antibodies, (and the antibodies received while in the womb are temporary as well) they are the ONLY antibodies a newborn has for a period of time. Read about it. I also hate how society take offense at everything as well.


Did you know that I don't really need to read about immunology? I have a Zoology degree that included more than one module on immunology. Whee!

The point is that while breastfeeding is generally better than not, calling it "a must" is not accurate. I don't care if you were being colloquial. First of all, this is the debate section, so you should try to be more precise in your language. Secondly, you're training to be a doctor, and you should try to avoid colloquialisms and idioms when discussing medical issues - it will help avoid people getting the wrong idea.

So.
Many women do feel shamed, and guilty, because they cannot breastfeed.
Your attitude doesn't do anything to help that problem, and, as a budding doctor, may very well end up doing much to make it worse.

#47 Kaddict

Kaddict
  • 1767 posts


Users Awards

Posted 22 August 2014 - 09:25 PM

Did you know that I don't really need to read about immunology? I have a Zoology degree that included more than one module on immunology. Whee!

The point is that while breastfeeding is generally better than not, calling it "a must" is not accurate. I don't care if you were being colloquial. First of all, this is the debate section, so you should try to be more precise in your language. Secondly, you're training to be a doctor, and you should try to avoid colloquialisms and idioms when discussing medical issues - it will help avoid people getting the wrong idea.

So.
Many women do feel shamed, and guilty, because they cannot breastfeed.
Your attitude doesn't do anything to help that problem, and, as a budding doctor, may very well end up doing much to make it worse.

Sorry, I totally forgot to respond to this section. Anyway, as a doctor, you are taught to use colloquialisms, as you have to explain things so they make sense to people who haven't taken science classes their whole lives.
Also, as a doctor, you are trained to speak frankly, using evidence based medicine to validate your claims, but then allow people to make their own decisions, after informing them in every way you can. Letting patients remain ignorant is a great way to get sued. 



#48 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 August 2014 - 09:13 AM

Sorry, I totally forgot to respond to this section. Anyway, as a doctor, you are taught to use colloquialisms, as you have to explain things so they make sense to people who haven't taken science classes their whole lives.
Also, as a doctor, you are trained to speak frankly, using evidence based medicine to validate your claims, but then allow people to make their own decisions, after informing them in every way you can. Letting patients remain ignorant is a great way to get sued. 

 

Colloquialisms are not a part of medical training when the picture they portray is not accurate.



#49 Kaddict

Kaddict
  • 1767 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 August 2014 - 09:18 AM

Colloquialisms are not a part of medical training when the picture they portray is not accurate.

It is when that is how they are used in your section of society. 



#50 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 August 2014 - 09:37 AM



It is when that is how they are used in your section of society. 

 

I think that you're very confused about how a doctor is meant to convey information to the patient. Using terms that can introduce confusion or, as in this case, make a patient actively feel bad about their inability to breastfeed, is in no way an appropriate manner for a professional to talk to someone.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users