Strollerderby : bottle feeding

5 Things That Make You a Breastfeeding Nazi . . . And 5 Things That Don’t

Miriam Axel-Lute — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 17:01:00 GMT

Ah, breastfeeding and formula. It seems like forever since we’ve been able to talk about infant feeding without immediately getting sidetracked into the explosive meta discussion about how we should talk about it, or, more often, how we shouldn’t.

The ability to discern between truth-telling and guilt-tripping seems to get a little hazy to all involved sometimes. In the interest of lancing the boil I present the following cheatsheet on how not to become a breastfeeding Nazi—and how not to see them where they are not.

Part 1: 5 Things That Make You a Breastfeeding Nazi

1.   Making disparaging comments to parents giving bottles to their kids.
I shouldn’t even have to say that this is Not OK, and I think it is rarer than some on the defensive would like to make out, but apparently strangers hissing “Shame on you, you should be breastfeeding” does happen. So let’s just get this straight: You don’t know what the story of that parent/caregiver and baby are (or even what’s in that bottle), so shut the eff up. Besides, even if you somehow knew that someone really could be breastfeeding, do you really think that being mean is the way to change their mind?

2.   Refusing to acknowledge that sometimes breastfeeding is hard and sometimes it sucks.
I’m well convinced that with the right post-partum protocols (baby to breast within an hour of birth, for example), support, and information (and maternity leave) that breastfeeding could be a lot easier for a lot of people than it is. But the fact is that (a) most mothers aren’t in that ideal situation and (b) even in ideal cases sometimes milk comes in late, latches aren’t formed right, infections happen, medical conditions lower milk supply, etc. and those things can be miserable. Pretending this isn’t the case is rude to the women who’ve struggled really hard—both the ones who persevered through it and the ones who eventually prioritized other things.

3.   Quoting discredited studies.
Guess what? Breastfeeding doesn’t raise your baby’s IQ. That finding failed to control for parental IQ and when they did, the difference went away. I didn’t know that until recently either, but now that you know, have the integrity to drop it from the plenty-long list of advantages to breastfeeding.

4.   Confusing lactivism with promoting one-right-way-to-parent.
I will never forget reading an otherwise decent article critiquing all the subtle ways in which our culture promotes bottle feeding when suddenly the author was on a condescending tangent about the insufficiently committed mothers who had this selfish need to occasionally have a little time to themselves without their kids. I could just hear a thousand undecided pregnant women saying “Well, if that’s what breastfeeding is about, forget it.”

5.   Blaming individuals, not systems.
The major cause with low breastfeeding rates in the United States is not selfish parents. It’s a stew of bad hospital protocols, bad family leave policy, misleading formula marketing, badly crafted parental education, overworked and undertrained labor and delivery nurses, unsupportive workplaces, and on and on. If we all keep that in mind we might even be able to work together.

Part 2: … And 5 Things That Don’t

1.   Encouraging an uncertain or undecided mother to give it a try/keep trying.
This is different from berating someone who has already made a decision and it doesn’t count if it’s done in such a way as to fall under #2 or #4 above. But if someone truly isn’t sure, offering encouragement, suggestions, information, data, or contacts that might help them succeed in something this big is a service not a judgment. This extends to critiquing misinformation or “balanced” pro-con literature that parents have been given or offering to talk to an uncertain spouse.

2.   Trying to get the word out about how some common breastfeeding problems can be alleviated by different nursing patterns.
Talking about breastfeeding “management” tactics to address problems like lactose overload in no way blames mothers for the problems. It certainly sucks to learn afterward that there might have been something in your control that might have helped make breastfeeding work better, but we all know this isn’t inborn knowledge. You can’t withhold the information from those who want it so you don’t offend those who didn’t have it when they could have used it.

3.   Talking about the statistical risks of routine formula feeding.
This is the hot, wet heart of it all. Yes, there are plenty of perfectly healthy formula-fed kids. They are just statistically less common. Yes, fear of illness doesn’t have to trump every other consideration.

But neither of those things mean we should stop talking about the real and stark differences in health between the two options on a statistical level: Two to five times the rate of SIDS, twice the death rate from diarrhea, six to ten times the rate of necrotizing enterocolitis, higher rates of respiratory illness, leukemia, asthma . . . Post neonatal infant mortality rates in the United States 26.6 percent higher. We’re not actually just talking about fewer annoying ear infections here.

We need to talk about these numbers not in order to make anyone feel bad, but in order to organize for the systemic changes that would actually make breastfeeding a viable option for more people.

4. Opposing formula marketing in hospitals.
Formula is an important option to have on hand when breastfeeding doesn’t work for many reasons. In that way it’s a little like a drug, or at least a nutritional supplement. Hospitals don’t hand out anti-cholesterol meds to people with healthy hearts; they shouldn’t hand out formula as a matter of course either. It’s misleading and it implies that doctors think it is a medically equivalent option and it isn’t. (Same goes for opposing misleading formula ads.)

5. Disliking the term “breastfeeding Nazi.”
Aside from this being yet another case of the term Nazi being tossed around like the Nazis were merely cross-patches, not mass murderers, it implies that there is an organized movement to be horrible and judging to all parents who don’t toe the line, instead of a loosely-knit network of people and organizations trying to advocate for a public health measure, some small minority of which sometimes behave in mean or counterproductive ways. The same can be said of both sides of nearly any cause people get passionate about. It’s time we got back to having the real conversation.

Related Posts:

The great breastfeeding Strollerderby Smackdown: Boob Nazis vs Breastfeeding—Why Not? vs Damned If You Do, Doomed If You Don't
Breast is Best 2.0: Pumping in Public

More by this author:

They Say: More Abuse, Neglect Among Bottle-Feeding Mothers

Kate Tuttle — Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:01:00 GMT

The nutritional and health benefits of breastfeeding are, of course, well-known, as is the general medical recommendation that nursing is the overall best method of feeding one's baby. Most research on breast versus bottle focuses on physical health and wellbeing, from allergies to asthma to obesity -- but what if the choice has ramifications beyond the actual realm of feeding?

A new study out of Australia reports that failure to breastfeed one's baby is associated with higher levels of infant maltreatment, including neglect, emotional and physical abuse, and sexual molestation. Researchers looking at a longitudinal study of nealry 6,000 mothers and their children found that mothers who did not nurse were 3.8 times more likely to mistreat their children than those who did, and that the duration of breastfeeding had an effect on those numbers.

From the article:

They found that of the 1421 women who did not breastfeed their children in the group, 102 women - or 7.2 per cent - neglected or abused their child in some way. This compared with 4.8 per cent of the 2584 women who breastfed for less than four months and 1.6 per cent of the 2616 women who breastfed for more than four months.

What are we to make of this? Does the very act of nursing a baby elicit feelings that would tend to mitigate against any otherwise present urges to hurt or neglect her? Is the bonding that takes place over a Boppy really that powerful? Or is it a case of correlation, not caustion, with mothers in the groups least likely to breastfeed -- poor, young, less well-educated -- also at risk for abuse and neglect for environmental reasons?

I'm as big a proponent of nursing as anyone I know, but even I have a hard time believing that breastfeeding alone is the decisive factor in whether or not one mistreats a child. And while I'd like to see data from studies like this used to help promote breastfeeding among populations where strong advocacy is useful, I'm worried it will be used, instead, to further alienate or villify those mothers who are most in need of hearing positive reasons to breastfeed. What do you think? Is there a way to read this that doesn't feel judgmental and divisive?

More by this author:

Does Obama's Election Mean Black Kids Now Have "No Excuses"?

Would You Toilet-Train Your Child On National TV?

Biracial Twins -- Is One "Black" and One "White"?

Death by Peanut: Epidemic or Urban Myth?

Is This Baby Obese? Aussie Mom Says No

Smackdown: Breastfeeding -- Why Not?

Brett Singer — Tue, 27 Jan 2009 14:15:00 GMT

Cole challenged me to a Smackdown on breastfeeding, and of course I said yes. I never back down from a challenge, at least not one as harmless as a blog face off. (In other words, don't challenge me to get in the ring with Mike Tyson. That, I will decline.)

Breastfeeding is a controversial subject, but it wasn't always. Back in the day (as in, black and white televisions, Uncle Milty, etc.) many women took a pill to dry up their milk ducts. They didn't feel guilty about it, and those children grew up to live happy lives despite being denied breast milk.

There was also a point in our history when women didn't have the right to vote. In other words, times change. We've learned a lot about human health, and there is definitely evidence that breast milk CAN be good for your kids. Is it conclusive? No. So what? If you are able to breastfeed, isn't it worth the potential benefits?

Now for some specifics:

1. The Guilt Factor: No disagreement here. It's wrong to bully a woman, especially a new mother. However, let us not ignore…

2. The Laziness Factor: There are a number of reasons why some women don't breastfeed their kids. I've heard at least one new mom who said that breastfeeding her child made her feel "gross"; she had no problems with her child latching on, she just didn't like having a baby suckling at her "teet." It made her, "feel like a mammal." When someone says that, I want to ask them a simple question: If you are able to do something that has potential health benefits for your child, why wouldn't you? If you can't breastfeed, you can't breastfeed. But if you tried once and just bailed, that seems like a cop-out. Some of the La Leche people may be a little nuts, but many lactation counselors are very good at what they do. If you have trouble with latching or other breastfeeding issues, it's worth trying a counselor just for the potential health benefits.

3. Expressed Milk in a Bottle: Cole, I love ya, but sometimes I wonder if you've been sipping from a different type of bottle. (A glass one. Filled with bourbon.) Who says that expressed breast milk is a bad thing? As I understand it, the debate is usually between breast milk and formula. And I have yet to see a study that says formula is undeniably better for the child. At best, some say that breast milk may not have the benefits that some claim. Which brings us to the next point:

4. "No Proof That Breast Feeding is Healthier": Is there proof that it's harmful? There is certainly evidence that breast milk is good for babies. Again, why not give it to your children if you can? There was a time when doctors said that smoking was healthy. Look at how that turned out.

5. Formulas Aren't Perfect Either: I haven’t done extensive research but I know that whenever there is a product that is mass-produced, there is the potential for problems. Remember the Chinese milk recall? Ever heard of a breast milk recall? I didn't think so.

There's a difference between "can't" and "won't." No one should be bullied into breastfeeding (sorry, La Leche). But if you won't even try because you just don't want to, or you feel like you want to "rebel" against the "breastfeeding nazis", maybe you should rethink your position. Cole is right -- you shouldn't do anything JUST because of peer pressure. But if everyone isn't jumping off the Brooklyn Bridge, that doesn't mean you should. (Think about it for a minute, I'm pretty sure it makes sense.)

Read Cole's take on the matter here.

Read Madeline's take on the matter here. (And I didn't say that ALL women who don't breastfeed are lazy. I mean, c'mon.)

What do you think? I'm right and he's wrong, yes? (Even if you think I'm wrong, let us know in the comments.)

Ann Coulter Says Single Moms Are Bad For Society

Smackdown: Damned if You Do, Doomed if You Don't (Breastfeed, That is)

They Say -- Kids Who Skip Breakfast and Hate Mom Have Sex Sooner

New Pro Vaccine Book Author Getting Death Threats

Kid Named Hitler Taken From His Parents By Family Services

Woman Arrested For Breast Feeding At A Bar

Baby Nearly Starves, Diluted Formula To Blame

Kate Tuttle — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:27:00 GMT

As if we needed any more proof that these are tough times: a Florida mother recently found out the hard way why you must never dilute baby formula to "stretch it." Jeri Moss, a 23-year-old mother of two, was trying to save money when she watered down her infant son's formul, adding far more liquid than the powdered carton's instructions called for. She says she did the same with her toddler daughter, with no ill effects. But five-month-old La'Damian, who weighs just eight pounds, was admitted to a local hospital suffering from malnutrition and water intoxication. He survived, but it could have gone either way. "Another hour, he would've been dead," according to the doctor at the Tampa hospital that treated the baby.

But according to the article:

Cindy Morris, environmental administrator for the Hillsborough County Health Department, said Moss has been receiving WIC benefits since June 23. Each time, she received the allotted amount of assistance: vouchers for nine cans of formula a month. The allotment includes both powder and premixed formula.

Morris said federal law prohibits WIC from giving more. "It's never meant to cover 100 percent of the nutrition," she said.

To which I have to respond, why not?

Related: FDA Sets Standard for Melamine in Formula

More from this author:

Grandmother’s Right? Or Totally Obnoxious?
Health Scam: Crisis Pregnancy Centers
Mama’s Got a Brand New Bag

They Say: "Microwave Safe" Ain't

Miriam Axel-Lute — Mon, 17 Nov 2008 17:00:00 GMT

If you're the type to be suspicious of chemicals and corporations, and especially their mixture, this will likely not surprise you:

A team of investigative journalists from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel did one of those surprisingly simple things that we love real, honest-to-god investigative journalists for: an experiment. Specifically, they took 10 items marked with the comforting phrase "microwave safe" that were likely to be ingested by children or used for children's food (several were actually baby food, one was formula), heated them (in both a microwave and an oven), and had the contents tested for bisphenol-A (BPA).

(If you've been under a rock, BPA is the hormone-like substance that everyone from the Canadian government to Wal-Mart have been all freaked out about getting out of baby bottles recently, on account of it's been shown to do nasty things to neurological development and also cause pre-cancerous changes to mammary glands and other fun stuff at super low levels.)

I think you can tell where this is headed: All of the food had levels of BPA that were shown in lab tests to be problematic. The food in the Rubbermaid all-purpose container and the infant formula had the highest levels. So much for worrying about the bottles themselves. The article estimates how much an average kid might be ingesting per day, and it ain't pretty.

The manufacturers' response, of course, is to say it's just a tiny amount and won't hurt you. The FDA says "What they said" and goes back to buffing up an 8-year-old resume. There are (prepare to be shocked now) apparently no standards whatsoever behind the designation "microwave safe." If the container doesn't blow up, which would presumably generate complaints if not any regulatory action, then it can be labeled zappable.

This was one of those stories I almost didn't read, because I am (1) predisposed by my environmental studies background to be veeeerrrry skeptical of claims that strange chemicals are harmless and (2) completely and utterly dependent on my microwave. I'm sure as hell not going to put a pan on the stove every time I need to heat up a quarter cup of frozen peas or leftover lentil soup for my daughter.

I had been comforting myself with the vapid mneumonic that Real Money readers came up with a while back about the better and worse plastics ("1, 2, 4, 5 will keep you alive; 3, 6, 7 will send you straight to heaven." Yes, I am embarrassed that I remember it), but the infuriatingly thorough MSJ notes that BSA was leaching from no.s 1, 2, and 5 as well. Great.

I guess this is where I consider dropping the plastic bowls when microwaving is needed and hoping my toddler doesn't shatter enough of our motley assortment of ceramic ones to constitute its own safety hazard. The plastic is still going in the dishwasher though. I know my limits.

More by this author:

Six Steps to a Parent-Friendly Wedding

How To Pick A Fight, in Five Easy Steps

Adrienne Martini — Tue, 20 May 2008 13:00:00 GMT

Step 1: Write a story about Similac Organic Formula and how it contains sucrose, which is, essentially, cane sugar. Mention, too, that most formulas use milk sugar, which is far less sweet than cane sugar.

Step 2: Quote pediatricians who are concern that sucrose early in life may be connected with obesity, cavities and countless other undesirable conditions.

Step 3: Fail to mention breastfeeding and how it is the best thing since sliced bread, electricity and orgasms combined.

Step 4: Open comments.

Step 5: Watch fur fly.

Photo credit: Peter DaSilva for The New York Times

Babble Talk: My Body, My Pump

editors — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 17:31:00 GMT

Kate Tuttle writes about her experience as an exclusive breast feeder, albeit with the bottle in Breast-Free Breastfeeding. Judging by the comments from all of you, this happy medium of pumping exclusively does seem to make a lot of you, well, happy. Whether you’re a breast or formula kind of gal the reigning sentiment seems to be, whatever works for you sister! However, Tuttle’s piece also struck a nerve on the topic of hyper-sexualizing breasts in our society. Inevitable? Or manageable? And a few commentators shared your ‘extreme pumping’ stories for our entertainment. Apparently some of you are not letting a little thing like pumping get in the way of road trips to Coachella. Impressive ladies. Very impressive. - April Peveteaux

Sancti-Nursers: We Must Concede

Madeline Holler — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:00:00 GMT

As Captain of Team Breastfeeding, I’m calling on our officers to revise the propaganda: breastfeeding does not protect against asthma or allergies!

A study to be published in the British Journal of Medicine followed 13,889 Belarussian children from birth until 6 ½ years old, with randomized samples and control groups and everything. Researchers found that the group of mothers who received extra education on extended and exclusive breastfeeding – and presumably followed through -- had babies who were no better protected against asthma, hayfever or eczema than the group that continued with “traditional practices.” The Science Daily article doesn’t explain “traditional practices,” but I assume it means feeding babies formula or breastfeeding for only a short time.

Before you get all over Belarussia as the place for the study, apparently it has one of the lowest asthma and allergy rates in the world, which allowed scientists to rule out environmental factors that might have contributed to these annoying and/or life-threatening conditions. Nursing moms, I feel we have no choice but to concede this point in the Battle of Breast vs. Bottle.

But all is not lost, devoted lactaters. One researcher said that the breastfed babies in the study suffered fewer gastrointestinal infections and atopic eczema for the first year of life. Put that in your Comfort Proteins and drink it!

Britney Spears Makes Formula Feeders Look Good

Sarah, Goon Squad Sarah — Sun, 05 Aug 2007 20:06:00 GMT

I am stuck squarely in the middle on the breastfeeding vs. bottle feeding debate. I had two babies at the same time, so I did both. Both of my babies nursed and drank formula from a bottle. Rachael took a lot of flack for her post about formula feeding last week, but this ought to really piss of the La Leche League. Britney Spears gives her kids soda out of baby bottles.

Us Weekly (which you apparently have to subscribe to in order to actually read the article online) reported that Britney gave Sean Preston soda in a baby bottle. So now beyond violating safety, traffic, obscenity laws and good taste in general she is doing terrible things to her children's teeth.

Awesome.

On behalf of all moms feed their kids McDonald's and let them have pacifiers until they are three years old, I'd like to thank Britney for making us look like much better parents.

Breastfed Kids Have More Varied Palates

Melissa Summers — Sun, 03 Jun 2007 19:14:00 GMT

I'm not sure how much I believe this study, I'd want to see more numbers. However, anecdotally I've seen it go either way. In my husband's family there were breast fed babies and formula fed babies among his 6 siblings. There are picky adults and adventurous eaters in his family with no real basis on how they were fed as infants.

On the other hand I will never forget a dinner with my niece who is 12 weeks younger than my daughter. My then 3 year old (formula fed baby) was sobbing at the table because we had the nerve to put a piece of potato on her plate. My niece (a breastfed baby) sat across from us gladly eating her spicy sausage, potato and pasta meal. She didn't just eat it, she Relished that meal. As she chewed she hummed along "Mmmm. Mmmmm. Mmmmmm" This was a kid who loved eating. Or did she love eating because she loved breast milk.

Elephant Ears. Fabu Find Or Not So Much?

Jessica Ashley (Sassafrass) — Thu, 03 May 2007 19:03:00 GMT

I'm totally torn about how I feel about Elephant Ears. No, silly, not the fair food (that's the epitome of doughy deliciousness,) the baby bottle holder that's either incredibly convenient or just another piece of baby gear to stuff into a plastic tub in the basement.

Elephant Ears were created with the best of intentions by an occupational therapist who adapted feeding devices for spinal cord and stroke patients. She became a mom and—voila!—sewed her work strategies up into a baby bottle gizmo.

Elephant Ears might be a dream for moms who need at least one free hand to talk on the phone, drive, respond to spam in search of other married swingers in the area, making scalding hot tea or even work while feeding a newborn. It seems like it would be a dream for parents of multiples and it says it promotes self-feeding. On the other hand (you know, the one responsible for propping up the bottle), I thoroughly enjoyed using meal time as an excuse to not answer the phone, drive, respond to spam again, make myself scalding hot tea or work. But then, I did bust out with a highly-developed completely hands-free rockstar combination of Boppy and boob for my baby. But that's just me.

If you're one of the multi-tasking kind who don't mind getting more stuff made of teddy bear and balloon fabric (can we get a Disco Dot or nice toile or what?), then Elephant Ears might just be the ultimate (sorry) handy solution for you and your hungry kid.

Strollerderby Playdate: Sippy Cups Are from Hell Edition

Mike Adamick (Cry It Out!) — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 11:05:00 GMT

Emmeline will not use a sippy cup. She'll play around with it for a bit -- maybe, if I'm lucky, she'll pretend to put it to her lips and then in an instant fling it to the floor. In the very beginning of trying to get her off the bottle, I didn't worry too much about it. But now I'm harboring fears of packing her off to college with a box of books, a fresh pair of pants and a bottle warmer.

So I did what any other parent would do in these times of crisis: head to the blogosphere, hoping I'm not the only one going through this. I'm not. Sippy cups are a scourge on humanity -- whether they're simply ignored or hurled across the room.

Daddy Diary knows a thing or two about sippy cup fastballs.

As My World Turns thankfully has someone to clean up after spilling a sippy cup.

Life's Crazy Sometimes reminds us that mastering the sippy cup is not permanent.

A Mother's Monologue says bottles and sippy cups are enough to create multi-generational feuds. Kind of.

Nap time is almost over now. Time to refill the sippy cup and prepare myself for battle.

Similac Releases Two New Formula Flavors: Mayan Chocolate and Vanilla Chai Spice

Stefania Pomponi Butler (CityMama) — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 15:14:00 GMT

Similac is tapping into the flavored beverage trend by introducing two new versions of its best-selling baby formulas, Mayan Chocolate (made with real dark chocolate and hints of mild chipotle chile and cinnamon) and a Vanilla Chai Spice with heady Indian spices like cardamon and cloves. These new flavored formulas have all the vitamins, minerals, and nutrients of regular formula, and are available in powder or ready-mixed bottles.

Similac spokesperson John Cocktoston points out:

Parents today are exposed to exotic, ethnic foods that weren't readily available to previous generations. Similac recognizes this and is updating our own formulations as a reflection of the times. Our job is to offer parents a variety of choices when it comes to feeding their babies.

Worldly parents are apparently demanding more variety in their formula choices, and Similac, one of America's most trusted brands, appears to be delighted to meet that need. Also in the works are limited-availability seasonal flavors like Pumpkin Pie Spice and Egg Nog which will be available in the Fall.

Would you buy these flavored formulas or will you stick to plain? Please let us know!

New Study: Breastfed Babies More Likely To Be Upwardly Mobile

Alisyn — Thu, 15 Feb 2007 02:14:00 GMT

According to a new British study, breastfed babies are more likely to become well educated, upwardly mobile adults than their bottle fed counterparts.

The study, which began in 1937 and tracked 1,414 children from age 7 to late adulthood, followed up with participants about educational and social achievements in 1997 and 1998, when the participants were in their 70s and 80s. The findings were thus: breastfed infants were more likely to complete secondary school (27% of breastfed versus 20% of bottle-fed graduated). Breastfed babies were also more likely to move up in social class, based on occupation (58% percent of breastfed infants moved up, compared with 50% of bottle-fed ones). Fifty percent of bottle-fed infants stayed in the same social class or went downward, while only 42% of the breast-fed infants stayed the same or moved down.

The findings support what we already know about breastfeeding: that it benefits brain development (possibly leading to better test performance and jobs), as well as health (breastfed infants have a lower risk of infection, as well as more protection against obesity, chronic diseases and psychiatric disorders).

However, the study was conducted in pre-war days, and non-breastmilk baby formula being homemade and "inconsistant," and scientists agree that this could've affected the results. Given the standardization of formulas today, it is unknown if a similar study would yield the same results.

Another Case For Breastfeeding, and So Much More

Karen Murphy — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 12:02:00 GMT

The ease of having someone else feed the baby besides the mom aside, physicians agree that breastmilk is best for babies as "long as mutually desired by mother and child." But I'm not here to debate that, nor am I here to pass judgment on parents who choose to feed their baby formula. I realize there is a whole host of reasons that make up a parent's choice in important aspects of parenting such as the decision to breastfeed or not to.

But this story brings up a number of issues. Three-week-old D'Angelo Johnson, son of 17-year-old LaToya Johnson, was airlifted to a St. Lous-area hospital due to head injuries sustained when the "children attempting to feed the baby a bottle grew frustrated when he refused to take it", and, children being children, naurally whacked him on the head with the bottle in their frustration.

Which leads to a lot of questions:

1. The mom is 17. Where is her support?

2. Children watching children? Three-week-old children? Again: no support.

3. And, if I didn't make this clear: where was the support here? Who informed LaToya about choices in feeding infants, about caring for her new baby? Did someone hand her a brochure which she likely didn't read and then call it a day?

How many heads of babies like D'Angelo will be crushed beyond recognition because no one bothered to give proper support to the family? How many other families are in similar situations, making poor choices because they've never heard of any alternatives and don't have any role models? I know money is being spent in what to me was useless hospital education, because I've been the recipient of it, but somehow, parents like LaToya and children like D/Angelo are still falling through the cracks.