Who Profits?

Anyone can admit that we are easily influenced and swayed by what seems to be a popular opinion. Most people would agree that it is much easier to be a PART of the masses than to be APART from them.

"What is popular is not always right,
and what is right is not always popular."

When it comes to parenting (specifically birthing and infant care) we are led to believe that our instincts are no longer necessary and that technology knows better than nature. But who profits from this philosophy? Certainly not mother and baby. Instead, there is a very large LITERAL profit to be made off of influencing you in your choices.

There is money to be made off of where you birth, how you birth and also, how you feed and treat your infant. The hospital makes a very large portion of their profit from the labor and delivery ward and let's face it, hospitals are businesses. They do NOT want to lose that money, even if it might mean safer outcomes can occur at home for low risk women. Obstetricians make thousands of dollars off your birth (and prenatal care) whereas homebirth midwives make around $4000 (for both the birth and prenatal care total). A cesarean can cost you more than $20,000 and only costs your OB 30 minutes of work (and a nice early bed time if you aren't "progressing" fast enough). Vaccinations, routine exams and procedures (episiotomy, circumcision, forcep delivery) all take just a moment to do/perform and net a nice profit.

Now, before you stop reading and get angry and tell me I hate OBs and that I think hospitals are evil, let me say, no. OBs are SPECIALISTS. They are INCREDIBLY skilled in saving what needs to be saved BUT for that, I think *most* of them have a difficult time knowing and trusting that birth is normal. If your focus of study is all that can go wrong with something, it's hard NOT to want to act in a precautionary manner. For this, I believe that most OBs truly have women's best interest at heart with certain things. However, there are a few scenarios that are indisputably self centered and dangerous, serving the woman absolutely no benefit.

To continue, it is ignorant to think that every ad or persuasion doesn't have an underlying hidden meaning. Formula companies for example want to make money. They do not care about you and your baby, they care only for the profit. At the beginning, when infant formulas were first introduced, they provided a way for the women who could truly not breastfeed or have a wet nurse a way to provide for their infant children. Again, just like the hospitals, this can be and was life saving for those infants. However, there was profit to be made, a feminist movement of choice and a desire to no longer have to feel tied down to your children...and they marketed that. Today they advertise with such sayings as "Just as good as breastmilk" or "Has all your baby needs!" Stop. Think. Who profits from promoting breastfeeding? The mother and child who nurse. Who profits from promoting formula feeding? The industry.

Am I going to lose sleep over another parents' choices? Nope. But as a parent who did things this way and that way before stepping back and evaluating the choices, I wish only to share the other side of the glass with you. I would never tell a woman what choice she should make, I can only share what I know and what I continue to learn, because I care.

To say that homebirthers are selfish or that it's dangerous, because that is what those who profit from your hospital birth tell you, well...that makes you sound not only uneducated, but silly.

Remember who profits from routine interventions in normal birth: it's not you...and it's certainly not the baby.

What's in Breast Milk?

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) strongly recommends exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life. It is optimal for both babies and mothers. For babies it can protect against infections and reduce the rates of later health problems including diabetes, obesity, and asthma.

For mothers breastfeeding helps the uterus to contract and bleeding to cease more quickly after delivery. Breastfeeding can reduce the risk of breast and ovarian cancer and also provides a great way for mothers to bond with their babies.

Find a Lactation Conultant in Your Area

The advantages of breastfeeding are numerous. Breast milk is ultimately the best source of nutrition for a new baby. Many components in breast milk help protect your baby against infection and disease. The proteins in breast milk are more easily digested than in formula or cow’s milk. The calcium and iron in breast milk are also more easily absorbed.

The following is a brief overview of the components of breast milk and the nutrients they provide for your baby.

Proteins

Human milk contains two types of proteins: whey and casein. Approximately 60% is whey, while 40% is casein. This balance of the proteins allows for quick and easy digestion. If artificial milk, also called formula, has a greater percentage of casein, it will be more difficult for the baby to digest. Approximately 60-80% of all protein in human milk is whey protein. These proteins have great infection-protection properties.

Listed below are specific proteins that are found in breast milk and their benefits:

• Lactoferrin inhibits the growth of iron-dependent bacteria in the gastrointestinal tract. This inhibits certain organisms, such as coliforms and yeast, that require iron.
• Secretory IgA also works to protect the infant from viruses and bacteria, specifically those that the baby, mom, and family are exposed to. It also helps to protect against E. Coli and possibly allergies. Other immunoglobulins, including IgG and IgM, in breast milk also help protect against bacterial and viral infections. Eating fish can help increase the amount of these proteins in your breast milk.
• Lysozyme is an enzyme that protects the infant against E. Coli and Salmonella. It also promotes the growth of healthy intestinal flora and has anti-inflammatory functions.
• Bifidus factor supports the growth of lactobacillus. Lactobacillus is a beneficial bacteria that protects the baby against harmful bacteria by creating an acidic environment where it cannot survive

Fats

Human milk also contains fats that are essential for the health of your baby. It is necessary for brain development, absorption of fat-soluble vitamins, and is a primary calorie source. Long chain fatty acids are needed for brain, retina, and nervous system development. They are deposited in the brain during the last trimester of pregnancy and are also found in breast milk.

Vitamins

The amount and types of vitamins in breast milk is directly related to the mother’s vitamin intake. This is why it is essential that she gets adequate nutrition, including vitamins. Fat-soluble vitamins, including vitamins A, D, E, and K, are all vital to the infant’s health. Water-soluble vitamins such as vitamin C, riboflavin, niacin, and panthothenic acid are also essential. Because of the need for these vitamins, many healthcare providers and lactation consultants will have nursing mothers continue on prenatal vitamins.

Carbohydrates

Lactose is the primary carbohydrate found in human milk. It accounts for approximately 40% of the total calories provided by breast milk. Lactose helps to decrease the amount of unhealthy bacteria in the stomach, which improves the absorption of calcium, phosphorus, and magnesium. It helps to fight disease and promotes the growth of healthy bacteria in the stomach.

Breast Milk is Best

Breast milk has the perfect combination of proteins, fats, vitamins, and carbohydrates. There is nothing better for the health of your baby. Leukocytes are living cells that are only found in breast milk. They help fight infection. It is the antibodies, living cells, enzymes, and hormones that make breast milk ideal. These cannot be added to formula.

Though some women ultimately are not able to breastfeed, many who think they cannot actually are able to breastfeed. Lactation consultants are able to provide support to women learning to breastfeed. For those who are not able to breastfeed, milk banks can be an alternative.

Last Updated: 08/2006

---

Compiled using information from the following sources:

Breastfeeding the Newborn: Clinical Strategies for Nurses. Biancuzzo, Marie, 1999.

Bestfeeding: How to Breastfeed Your Baby. Renfrew, Mary et al, 2004.

Circumcision: The Uncut Version

X-posted from my NoNonsenseParenting Blog:

Sadly, many new parents do not even research circumcision. This is just as disappointing to me as when they choose to keep their sons intact, but do no research and therefore don't care properly for them. When we just blindly make decisions, especially those about our children's health (Vaccinations, elective surgeries, feeding, etc) we aren't just hurting ourselves, or our kids...but the population as a whole.

If you circumcise your son because it's "Just what everyone does" what other things are you going to alter in the name of popularity? Will you get your daughter a boob job in high school if "everyone else is doing it" according to rumor? Because that's all that myth is, a rumor. Roughly, only half of US boys are being circumcised today. In some areas, like the West Coast, that number is as low as 30%. But, I won't make an argument for something as important as circumcision based off of location. After all, perhaps you're on the East coast which boasts a disgustingly high circ rate of 90% in some areas. And after all, you may move someday.

I'd much rather convince you of the ill effects of infant circumcision with FACTS. To do so, I'm going to list common pros that are given in favor of circumcising young infant boys. Then, I'm going to explain why they're bull shit.

"My husband is circumcised, I don't want him to wonder why he doesn't look like daddy"
-This is a very common reason for wanting to circumcise an infant. But, let's just think about this for a second. What other body parts of your husband's need to match? If your son's ears are different, are you going to alter them? No. And hey, your son won't have the same genitalia as you, but you'll explain that to him, that boys and girls look different. So why not explain to him that his daddy had a surgery as a baby to remove his skin, but you didn't do that to him because *insert whatever reason here, like "You were born perfect".* I can tell you that your son, if he has any questions at all about dad's privates, will probably be more interested in why he has pubic hair and why daddy's penis is bigger than his. You don't go around performing elective surgeries on people so they match. We're all different and unique...this should involve a life lesson, not scalpels.

"All his peers will be circumcised and I don't want him teased in the locker room."
-If a child is going to be teased about something, there's little you can do to prevent it. He could be teased for having a small penis...you're not going to get it enlarged. Plus, this excuse works on the assumption that guys are going to be checking each other out in the locker room. In the rare event that someone were to poke fun at your kid for having a foreskin, there are many retorts your son could shoot back, like "Why are you checking out my junk, jealous?" or "At least I'm not lacking in that department and have my whole penis." There's no reason to alter your perfect infant because someday, someone in some random situation may tease him. Plus, I remind you that the circ rates are dropping, drastically. The boys of today are being left intact, much like the rest of the world (85% of the men in our world have their foreskins).

"Well, those two reasons aside, it's better for his health. It's cleaner, it's easier to clean and he won't spread STDs as easily."
-No, no, and, no. To understand this you have to first understand how the foreskin functions. In infant boys, the foreskin is fused to the glans (head of the penis) much like your finger nail is attached to your finger. When your baby pees, it flushes out the inner part of the foreskin (and remember that urine is sterile) so this works to keep your son clean. Also, by keeping his foreskin, you prevent feces from his diaper from touching his urethra or getting under his foreskin, and therefore, prevent the chance of him getting foreign bacteria in his urinary tract. Older studies suggested that circumcised boys were less likely to get UTIs. There are more studies that show no difference and others that show that intact boys get them less often. Regardless of what the truth is, girls are more prone to UTIs than either circumcised OR intact boys, and we treat them with proper hygiene and antibiotics, no surgery.

Now to clean, let's imagine this: An intact boy requires NO special care. Because the foreskin is fused to the glans, you do NOT retract it, ever. This could cause pain, tears, and adhesions. Instead, you wipe only what you see, like you wash your finger. If you circumcise your infant, you'll have much more to do. During the healing process, you'll be taking care of a wound, in a diaper. Afterward, you'll have to clean any skin that was still left very thoroughly so that he doesn't get an infection. You may also have to worry about the freshly cut skin trying to heal back to the glans, usually resulting in adhesions. Advice on this varies from "do not retract" (like in intact boys) to "you must retract to prevent the adhesions or break them" so there's really no TRUE information on what to do. When the intact boy retracts naturally (sometime between infancy and puberty, but most commonly toddlerhood) he can retract, rinse and replace at bathtime. No soaps, just water. No harder than if he lacked foreskin.

As far as STDs are concerned, no study really has the truth established. Those that say intact men are at greater risk, or rather carriers, of more infections (like HPV) are grossly incorrect and make little sense. The most commonly quoted study is about a group in Africa, where they taught the freshly circumcised men safe sex practices and provided them with condoms, but not the group they left intact. They also didn't factor that the freshly circumcised men weren't having sex while their penises healed. They found that the intact men contracted HIV more often than their cut counterparts, based on their poor approach of collecting this data. This study was, on top of it all, cut short (no pun intended). We can also look at the population of America and conclude this study makes no sense. Our own HIV/AIDS rate is quite high to that of other industrialized counter parts, yet, we have an astoundingly high circumcision rate (about 90% of grown men in the US are circumcised, as this was the rate about 20-some years ago). So, how is it that we have such a high rate of HIV/AIDS when we also have such a high rate of circumcision? That makes no sense...

On top of that, to argue in favor of surgery on infants, to possibly reduce the risk of STD transfer in adults is irresponsible. Instead, we need to teach our children how their bodies function, how STDs are transferred and contracted, and push safe sex. THIS is what will protect your son or daughter, not a false sense of protection because they were circumcised (or their partner is).

"But uncircumcised penises are soooo gross!"
-Really? How attractive is YOUR genitalia? If a man you were really in to took you home, and you started to fool around, and he caught a glimpse of your goods and never called you again because it was "so gross" he'd be labeled an asshole. Most genitals are not very attractive, female or male; circumcised or not. We are all made differently and none of us "match". To discount a person because they have foreskin is incredibly shallow. Just like a man discounting a woman for having an extended clitoris, longer labia, or not having her clitoral hood removed is shallow.

There is nothing gross about the state of a man's (or infant's) natural penis. This is how they are SUPPOSE to look; without tight skin or dark circle scars. We tend to be afraid of what we don't know, but that doesn't make it's ok. It's just ignorance to how a penis is suppose to look. If your son's toes were oddly shaped and ugly, you wouldn't remove them. They are part of him, and you love every bit.

"Well, I've never actually seen one. I didn't mean it was gross looking because of the skin, I meant because of all that nasty stuff that builds up in there!"
-If you've never seen one, how do you know it's nasty? Oh, because of rumors and stigmas surrounding intact men in America. Well, we're talking about infants, for one. Remember how I said the glans and foreskin were fused? Yea, there's nothing "building up". And, the "stuff" is called smegma. This is a natural lubricant produced by the body, you have it too. It's your discharge. It keeps your pH balance normal, it keeps you lubricated for sex, it keeps your skin there soft. Everyone needs to practice proper hygiene, circumcised men included. In the end, a dirty penis is a dirty penis. Most intact men take extra care to keep themselves clean, partly because there is such a stigma about having a foreskin. In order for smegma to build up, the man needs to really lack in caring for his man bits, and this would probably be no different if her were circumcised, and I doubt you'd put EITHER penises in your mouth. But again, we're talking about infants, and whether you need to worry about his for YOUR son...so again, the answer is no. For the first portion of his life, his foreskin is self cleaning, after that, you teach him how. After that, it's up to him whether he'll be a slob or a Mr. Clean kinda guy. Regardless, it's nothing to remove body parts over.

"If it was unnecessary, they wouldn't do it."
-Many insurance companies, and state medicaid, are no longer covering circumcisions. Certain hospitals have banned the procedure as well. I've heard, first hand from friends/aquaintances, quotes in the range of $350-$1500 to have the surgery performed on their newborn. The reasons given "It is not medically necessary, it is a preference." My co-worker and I were discussing this issue one day. She was telling me that she had taken him (her son) to the pediatrician to get it done, because the hospital didn't perform the. The pediatrician told her the procedure was not covered by her insurance because it was considered a cosmetic surgery, and it would cost them $400. She debated it, but he told her that there was absolutely no reason to do it, that many boys today aren't getting circumcised, and told her proper care (not to retract). He's 5 and while her intentions walking in to the pediatricians office that day were to circumcise him without a thought or any research, she told me how happy she is that it wasn't covered and that he remained intact. I'm pretty sure he'll be happy about that, too!

If there are any other reasons you've heard for someone wanting to circumcise, I'd love to hear them. If you've been considering it and are still confused, have more questions, etc I would love to address that.

There are so many decisions for new parents to make, and it's important that you're informed. What I found when researching circumcision was that EVERY pro-circ benefit could be debunked with medical facts. That was enough for me. Why expose my perfect newborn boy to the risks of bleeding, pain, MRSA staph infection, decreased sensitivity and genital integrity if there were no benefits to it?

For a great first time parent article, check this out: http://www.circumstitions.com/Itsaboy.html
Here's a group of doctors opposing circumcision: http://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/
For a quick, easy fact-checking decision maker, look at this: http://circumcisiondecisionmaker.com/
To find out why this group is fighting for baby boy's rights, go here: http://www.intactamerica.org/
Already raising an intact son (or pregnant with one who'll stay that way) join us here:
*Raising Intact Boys* on cafemom.

Just Because It's Natural, Doesn't Mean it Comes Naturally!

There are many things that we do in our day to day life that have become like second nature, but aren't necessarily "the natural thing" to do. On the other hand, there are many things that should come naturally to us that we struggle with.

I find this a lot in terms of birthing and breast-feeding. To simply say "I'm going to have a natural birth" and do nothing to prepare for that is, in most cases, just not enough. I've seen it many times in friends/family and I've heard it many times from other women. "Yea, I wanted the natural birth but I just couldn't do it in the end."

Now, I had 2 natural births after a run of the mill epidural birth. The first was completely accidental; she came quickly and I birthed her at home with only my friend (who I originally called for a ride...that wasn't happening!). For my third baby I figured I had the last one without an epidural on accident, so surely, it won't be hard to do on purpose. I was pretty naive about it all at first, still learning many things as my pregnancy progressed. In my third trimester I hired a doula to help me through labor, but she proved to be unreliable. Though this seems to be a rare thing, it was the experience I ended up having. We didn't do *a lot* of preparation during pregnancy, and perhaps that was because the intent was that she'd be there for the birth to help at that time. It didn't end up that way for me.

By the time I was actually in full blown labor with Alex, my doula was unable to make it in time. So I was left to cope with it all myself. Is it impossible? Heavens no. After all, you will not DIE if you grin and bear it without an epidural...the pain WILL NOT kill you. So, worst case scenario for me was that I just dealt with it. Birth plan: Don't get epidural, it doesn't exist. End of story.

However, I know that it can be much more challenging for some women and I had the advantage of already having an unprepared natural birth. But what of the women who are pregnant with their first (or planning their first natural birth) and don't know what to expect? They may be surprised.

Yes, birth is natural. It is normal. Epidurals and other medications are new and our species THRIVED for centuries before their invention. Women were not dying of pain 100's of years ago.

However, even though giving birth is a natural occurrence (and for arguments sake, I'll state that I am talking about low-risk women and pregnancies) it is still something one needs to prepare for. It is called LABOR, after all. If you apply for a job and the description is "general labor", you don't assume it's going to be easy. In fact, you may avoid applying for this job if you aren't properly equipped or in the best shape to take it on. So WHY would you go in to LABOR (for birth) unequipped and unprepared...and basically, unqualified? Would you expect the same results as the woman who prepared for her natural birth and learned coping techniques? Would you expect as smooth a labor and delivery? No...just like your work would probably be sloppier had you applied for that job you hadn't prepared for.

Now, what works for one woman, may not work for another. You will have better luck if you learn to use a variance of coping tools for your labor. You may plan a water birth to find out the water makes you nauseous in labor. You may think a water birth sounds awful, only to find water is the only thing you want when in labor.

The key is to keep an open mind, and above all, listen to your body.

This becomes difficult in the hospital setting because there are many distractions interfering with your need to concentrate. You might not even notice that certain things are hindering the process. Not only are you in a foreign and somewhat "cold" environment, but there are numerous strangers, in and out, you're typically hooked up to various machines (though you have the option to have intermittent monitoring and refuse IVs) and you're often put under pressure to dilate on a schedule or continuously offered pain meds. Natural birth in a hospital is not impossible, as I can personally attest to. But it is certainly not easy. I do strongly urge women to thoroughly research their birthing choices, places, and care providers, regardless of the type of birth they choose in the end.

When a woman is in the comfort of her home, there are far fewer distractions. She is in her own peaceful place, she has chosen only those she wishes to be there to attend her in her birthing and she calls the shots. There aren't beeping machines, and clock to dilate by or a tee time that must be met by her surgeon. There is only her, and her baby (and the overseer, her midwife, if she's hired one.) This woman will have better luck, even if unprepared, because there is less interference.

But for the woman that is choosing the hospital, and wishing for a natural birth, she MUST look in to her options to help her through her journey. She must take the initiative to prepare for her laboring, unless she's not truly set on natural birth. If avoiding medications is the goal, she must believe that she can do it. And then, she must use the tools available to guarantee her success.

After all, just because it's natural, doesn't mean it comes naturally...but it's sure as hell not impossible.


For Information On Natural Birthing Techniques, Check These Out:
Birthing Naturally
Birth Ball
http://www.lamaze.org/
http://www.bradleybirth.com/
http://www.doula.com/
http://www.dona.org/
http://www.hypnobabies.com/
http://www.hypnobirthing.com/
http://www.waterbirth.org/
Find out fetal positioning and techniques: http://www.spinningbabies.com/
On Cafemom? Join some of these groups:
Birth is Normal
Birth Unhindered
Natural Pregnancy and Childbirth
The Homebirth Debate