Congratulations to Wichita State University professor Janice Riordan, a pioneer in breast-feeding education for women, who was honored with an anonymous $1.6 million gift to the university that will fund a distinguished professorship in her name.
Riordan, 72, told The Eagle that when she had her first child, few American mothers were breast-feeding and nurses received no training in it.
Her lifetime work has been to raise awareness about the many nutritional benefits of breast-feeding and to help mothers overcome lactation problems.
The new professorship will ensure that her important work continues into the future and will have an international impact: One plan is to develop online lactation training for health care workers in developing nations, where breast-feeding advocacy is still in its infancy.
Posted by Randy Scholfield
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- okobserver on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- ANTI on Open thread 11/24
- okobserver on Open thread 11/24
- XXX on Open thread 11/24
- donndublin on Open thread 11/24
- writerdog on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- writerdog on It’s the stupidity about the economy
- writerdog on Let immigrants run
26 Comments
I do think education is always good however, haven’t mothers been doing this since the beginning of time? Are breasts a new thing? Why does it take 1.6 mil to teach this now?On the other hand.. should the teacher become overwhelmed with students I would volunteer some time to help out!
Evidently the anonymous person who donated the 1.6 million dollars thought there was a need for this education.
There is evidently not enough education in this area because many mothers still do not breast feed, in spite of the health benefits for mother and child, not to mention, it’s free! And like everything else, there is quite a bit of misinformation out there about it.
Breast feeding is obviously the best for both mother and child. Supplementation might be needed for some but it is still the best way to go.
We went through a period where somehow we decided that “modern methods are best” with scientific formulas and other BS. I’m glad a donor stepped forward and funded this.
Good points salle and delores.
Industrialization incurred substantial damage to ancient traditions of child-raising. Compulsory state education for example, forcibly separated children from their parents. This, combined with fathers first leaving the home to work in industrial economy jobs, followed by mothers in the 1960s-70s, resulted in a severe parental-child knowledge-transfer loss.
The switchover from extended families to nuclear families, incurred by young adults’ seeking jobs far from their hometowns, separated mothers and their children from aunts and grandmothers. Lessons that were traditionally handed down from one generation to the next were progressively lost.
In the late 19th and early 20th centuries childbirth was transformed from a natural event, with midwives performing deliveries, to a medical-license-requiring procedure. This was established by wealthy mothers initially employing physician obstetricians, setting a “best care” standard to be emulated by the masses. For example, Queen Victoria’s birthing of Prince Leopold , which was accomplished under chloroform anesthesia, something that only a doctor could perform, was a widely-publicized event, and inspired mothers of the landed gentry to seek the same service. This childbirth-as-a-medical-procedure then “trickled down” to the bourgoisie, and ultimately to all classes, in Western Europe and the United States.
The most affluent mothers did not breastfeed. They employed surrogate “wet nurses” to carry out this task. In the early 20th century, some enterprising businessmen came up with an idea of using bottle-dispensable formulas as a convenience to the affluent class, enabling mothers to hire nannies who were not lactating, and here too, adoption moved downward to all classes.
Dr. Grantly Dick-Read in England, and Dr. Fernand Lamaze in France were the first physicians to challenge these practices in the 1940s, particularly anesthetic-administered labor and delivery. Dr. Dick-Read paid a price for challenging the medical establishment, as he was for a time stripped of his obstetrical practice. However, his work was eventually highly influential in reestablishing childbirth as a natural process that in most cases required no medical intervention. He was an early proponent of breast-feeding as well.
My mother was something of a pioneer in America, having read Dr. Dick-Read’s “Childbirth Without Fear” in 1952. This book was read by educated women. (La Leche League was founded in 1956 after a group of seven well-educated mothers near Chicago heard Dr. Dick-Read give a talk on natural birth and feeding.)
Due to my mother’s free-thinking nature and courage, she birthed me in 1953, without labor anesthesia, and decided to breast feed, which she later repeated for my younger sister. This was remarkable for a member of the upper middle class who herself had been formula-fed, but my mother was confident enough to think for herself, and my father, a biologist, was entirely in agreement, as he well-knew that all species of mammalian mothers were designed to self-feed their young.
It was Dr. Dick-Read’s book, and the empirical experiments of “early acolytes” like my mother who told their friends, “This is great! You should try it,” which led to a snowballing of events that ultimately established new natural childbirth standard practices–not universally endorsed, but grudgingly approved by the obstetrical establishment– by the 1970’s, including Lamaze classes and breastfeeding being widely adopted by the educated middle class.
Scientific research also demonstrated that breast suckling shortly after birth caused women’s pituitary glands to secrete oxytocin, which caused uterine contraction, and rapid termination of postpartum bleeding. Hence it became unnecessary to administer synthetic OCT injections, a practice that arose as a “solution” to a problem that was artificially created by the medical establishment’s misguided promotion of industrial formula feeding.
The formula companies were not happy to see their main market dwindle, so they connived with WHO and UNESCO to peddle their products to mothers in the Third World, using subsidies provided by First World countries, whose own mothers were going back to breastfeeding.
I remember this well, because it was strongly criticized by First World pediatricians and the La Leche League as an injurious exploitation of the poor. The products were sold as powder, which was much cheaper to ship than cans of liquid; the powders had to be mixed locally with water, but Third World water supplies were frequently contaminated, giving rise to millions of cases of protozoal, bacterial and viral dysentary, often fatal. (Formulas also did not contain mother’s milk’s antibodies, essential proteins and medium-chain fatty acids, nor its natural hormones. They were nutritionally deficient.)
Today, breastfeeding is recommended by all health authorities, and formula-feeding is discouraged, except in restricted cases.
But even here, problems still exist. Should breastfeeding be allowed in public? It should, but 12 of our 50 states have not yet passed legislation clarifying public breastfeeding’s legality. (It is actually legal everywhere as a basic right, but state laws help police officers understand this.) Florida and North Carolina first authorized it in 1993, followed by Michigan, New York, Nevada Wisconsin and Texas in 1994-95.
Ironically, Illinois, despite being La Leche League’s home state, was a late statutory authorizer of public breastfeeding only in 2004. Kansas legislators did not follow Missouri’s 1999 enlightened example, but waited until Oklahoma, Colorado and Nebraska passed legislation in 2004 to enact a public-place breastfeeding statute in 2005. (Archetypal Kansas laggardly behavior: don’t lead anything, or even be a middle-of-the-curve adopter; wait until “everybody else is doing it” to rationalize change.)
How long should mothers breastfeed? The early return-to-breastfeeding pioneers like my mother had no guidance, so they just followed their own intuition. A general consensus of 6-10 months emerged in the 60s and 70s. Today, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends a 12 month minimum, with no maximum age specified for weaning. WHO recommends 24 months minimum, with no maximum.
If we think about it, why should we give children cow’s milk–a nutritionally poor substance marketed by our industrialized dairy system–when human milk is designed for human babies? Long-lived whales and elephants nurse for 2-4 years. Humans used to nurse for similar periods.
So even though breastfeeding per se has returned and is now recognized by the medical profession (pediatricians and family physicians) as the correct method for nourishing the vast majority of infants, we need educational promulgation of the appropriateness of mothers being able to nurse wherever they happen to be when their babies need to be nourished, and extended feeding, since the knowledge of these natural biological practices was lost in the industrial-ideology-driven “progress” era.
Tis a good thing for sure.
With breast pumps, it’s not as inconvenient as it used to be, as milk can be stored for later use.
Good point Republican. Also, that gives the father the opportunity to feed the child and bond to the child.
What has happened to freedom of choice? Not every new mother can breast feed and I have seen nurses berate these new mothers for not wanting to breast feed. That just causes more tension and frustration.
Really, get over yourselves that you think you are the authority for everyone else. To each their own – that’s my motto.
Sadly breastfeeding is not the cultural norm in the US. Breastfeeding is however, the biological norm, the baseline for infant health & well-being. Breastfed babies aren’t “healthier” non-breastfed babies are sicker. Formula companies have marketed their product to be “just like breastmilk” when it cannot come anywhere close to breastmilk. Formula companies are putting their profit before the health of babies and mothers. The marketing has worked-the CDC’s 2003 report on breastfeeding found that only 14.2% of babies were exclusively breastfed at 6 months.
Hopefully this professorship will help turn the social norms of this country and mothers-to-be will get scientifically & medically accurate information to base their infant feeding choice on instead of the formula company propaganda that fills maternity wards, doctors’ offices, TV commercials & parenting magazines.
I know of alot breastfed babies that are ’sickly’. I raised two children and and I have one grandbaby. All were bottle fed babies and all have had no illnesses and rarely even a cold. Out of all three babies – never even one ear infection.
So don’t tell me, KS mommy of 4, that breast fed babies are better than bottle fed babies. My co-workers all breast fed their babies and their kids are now at the doctor’s office constantly for some antibiotic for some infection.
I agree with the poster that said freedom of choice should be the norm. So why don’t you breastfeeders back off and let others do what they feel is in the best interest of their children and their family situation.
I am surprised that the Riech wing Republicans are not having a fit. After all they consider a woman’s breast to be “dirty” and something to be hidden and ashamed of.
No Kev, the thought didn’t enter my mind. Some of us like to keep an adult topic adult.
But feel free to put your spin on it, it’s about babies and moms here in this topic.
So feel free to spin the topic Kev and make yourself less credible than you already are.
I breastfed my daughter and not my son- because I was too sick and in the hospital after giving birth (septic), my milk never came in.
My MIL admonished me for not breastfeeding even though I tried- which after we found out why I couldn’t ended up being a very good thing.
I don’t think it’s abusive not to breastfeed, and whoever says you MUST is being ridiculous. Yes, I do believe breastfeeding is best, but only under optimal circumstances of the mother. And if she takes meds, smokes, or just plain feels uncomfortable about it- it will transfer those things to the infant. So let them choose what is best, and stop beating up women who cannot or won’t breastfeed. Encourage it, educate it, then DROP IT.
FINALLY!!!
A topic I can really wrap my lips…err, arms around.
=)
Well said political mom. This is a personal matter that is best left up to the people involved.
I breast fed my son for 15 months at the recommendation of his pediatrican. I allowed my boy to deside when he was ready to stop. Despite today’s culture of bottle feeding I wanted to do what was best for my child, that is what I feel is best. Although I would never condemn another for not. I think teaching is great. Breastfeeding although natural is not always the easiest thing to do. Some mothers are to scared to do it in public. Well it is just the baby having the cheese burger for dinner that mommy ate for lunch. KUDOS
I’m all for women breastfeeding in public.
In fact, I suggest that all women of childbearing age maintain a topless orientation in public in an effort to become comfortable with the scenario.
It’s for the kids…ya know?
Char-I never said that breastfed babies are better that formula fed babies. I said that non-breastfed babies are less healthy. Again breastfeeding is the biological norm-therefore breastfeeding does not offer special benefits or protections to a baby/mother dyad.
Mothers are free to make whatever feeding choice they want. Nobody can force a mother to breastfed. Infants can develop & grow on formula- that is obvious since the vast majority of infants in the US are fed artificially. That does not mean making the choice not to breastfeed is risk free. Sometimes that risk in mild- a baby may experience more ear infections or diarrhea by being formula fed. Or the risk can potentially mean death. According to the US Department of Health & Human Services “infants who are not breastfed have a 21% higher postneonatal infant mortality rate in the U.S.”(http://www.4woman.gov) and for every 1000 babies born in the US, 4 will die from formula feeding (Study by U.S. National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences.)
While your family does not outwardly appear to have been effected by artificial feeding, your anecdotal group of 3 does not negate the massive amounts of scientifically peer reviewed studies that show without any doubt that infants that do not receive breastmilk are less healthy than their breastfed peers. Does that mean every formula fed infant will be sickly- no. Nor does it mean that every breastfed baby will be illness free.
Mothers-to-be need to be given truthful information. They need to know what the real risks of choosing not to breastfeed is on the health of their infant. For me, the risk of not breastfeeding my children was & still is not a risk I am willing to take.
There are conditions that make breastfeeding impossible. No one who can’t should feel guilty. But those who can need to be informed. I’ve known several female pediatricians. Sometimes they had to breast-pump due to their working lives. But every one fed her baby breast milk, if she was able to. (My spouse couldn’t do this for our first baby, who was born premature, but did so for our subsequent two.)
The main issue promoted by Dr. Riordan is breast feed when possible, and allow women to nurse wherever they are when their babies get hungry. There is nothing that makes a bottle “appropriate” for people to see but natural feeding of babies “offensive”, except for brainwashing. Connecting a baby to an industrial-designed machine and its contents for nutritionally-poor feeding may reasonably be considered much more offensive, if it is avoidable.
How condescending of you KS mommy of 4. You did state that non-breast fed babies are ’sicker’. thereby you inferred that breast fed babies are healthier.
What about the mothers that smoke and drink or do drugs? Would you want them breast feeding their baby? You seem so hellbent on breastfeeding is the ony healthy way to go and I pointed out that my co-workers’ breastfed babies are always in the doctor’s office for some antibiotic while my grandbaby who was bottle fed has never had one ear infection or cold. How do you explain that?
Your studies are well and good but don’t go around telling everyone else what to do with their own babies. that is not your place or your right to do. Breastfeeding is a personal choice and should be up to the mother, father and their doctor – certainly not some woman on a blog in wichita kansas.
You can go to jail in the south for doing that in public you know!
I do not see how facts are condesending. It is worldwide medical & scientific FACT that non-breastfed babies are sicker than their breastfed peers. It is an incorrect inference that breastfed babies are healthier- they are simply the biological norm. What all these studies show is that as a group artificially fed infants are sick more often & when they do get sick they are more sick. It does not mean breastfed babies will never get sick. As to your co-workers breastfed babies getting sick, if they are in a daycare setting they are at an increased risk of getting sick because of their exposure to more germs. If these same babies were being fed artificially they would be getting sicker because they would not be getting the immunities and antibodies from their mothers milk.
Smoking-it is not ideal to smoke & breastfeed a baby, but it is WORSE to smoke & NOT breastfeed (Minchin M.K. “Smoking and breastfeeding: an overview.” Journal of Human Lactation, 1991 Dec.;7(4):183-8.) The very fact of living in a home with a smoker increases an infants risk for all kinds of problems from upper respitory infection to SIDS. Breastmilk can help counteract some of thoes risks even if it is the mother who is the smoker in the house.
Drinking- The American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Drugs considers alcohol compatible with breastfeeding. One or two drinks at dinner is fine, an all night bender with the girls- a breastfeeding mom would be advised to “pump & dump”.
Drugs-most drugs are compatible with breastfeeding. Anything safe to give babies or is OK for a pregnant woman to take is suitable for a nursing mom to take. Radioactive drugs for diagnostic purposes would need to be gone from a mother’s body before she could breastfeed safely- again an instance where “pump & dump” would be advisable. A concerned breastfeeding mom has many places to find information on drug that are compatible with breastfeeding- Dr. Hale a pharmacist who looks specifically at medications and mother’s milk is the best authority (http://neonatal.ttuhsc.edu/lact/index.html) Illegal drugs like marijuana, cocaine etc. are most definitely contraindicated while breastfeeding. But if any mother-regardless of feeding method-is taking these drugs they should be separated from their baby for the safety and well being of the child.
I am not, as you state “going around telling everyone what to do with their babies”. They can do whatever they want. If they choose to feed their infant artificially-that is their God-given right. I am advocating that people learn the facts on the risk of artificially feeding their infants, so they can make an informed choice. Many mothers-to-be spend more time researching what stroller to buy than how to nourish their baby. This is a choice that affects your baby for a lifetime it should not be cavalierly made like the choice between Coke and Pepsi. .
To the anonymous donor- Thank you from the bottom of my heart for realizing the need to promote information and study on human lactation. Through your generosity the lives of mothers, babies and families will be saved, improved and changed.
Breastfeeding involves the display of the female protuberances to underage children! For the sake of our childrens’ moral development, this obscene practice must be stamped out immediately!
Jed, I can only hope you are being sarcastic. Do you have children of your own?
The fact that breast feeding is free is a fact that the Commie liberals do not want known!
This would ruin the need for goverment to foot the bill for formula for all the poor huddled woman who are giving birth to their little mixed race babies with unknown fathers!
Breastfeeding is ok for those that want to do it.I breastfed my kids for a few months then weaned them to formula.No big deal as that was my choice.As far as the healthier kids are breastfed theory I think the statistics are skewed.Breast or bottle my kids still got ear infections.Breastfeeding is not for everyone it takes alot of patience and time.