Let's get things going here, ladies! (m)

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Let's get things going here, ladies! (m)
131
Wed, 03-26-2003 - 5:01pm
How about a simple discussion to get things moving? (Is there such a thing?)

Smokers - should moms who smoke breastfeed their babies? I'm only referring to cigarettes here, not marijuana or other drugs. Is a bf'er who smokes doing more harm to her baby than good?

Michelle

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 03-27-2003 - 10:46am
Do you realize that women have been smoking almost as long as they have been breastfeeding? Nicotine is one of the oldest drugs known to man. All of the ill effects documented in the past have to do with second-hand smoke, not with nicotine ingestion. If there was a strong correlation between nicotine exposure in BM and future illness it would have been documented by now.

Brook

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Thu, 03-27-2003 - 11:45am
<> <>

Well now, that makes it right doesn't it?? Very poor arguement, IMO.


<>

You're validating my point with that statement, although I don't need a study to back up what my common sense tells me & to knowingly introduce harmful chemicals to an unwitting party is wrong.

<<>>

I disagree. Use HRT as an example. At first HRT was touted to be THE ANSWER for women who suffered severe menopause symptoms. Now, it turns out it could be the absolute worst thing for women.

We can both throw studies at each other that justify our positions. But when it comes down to it, study or no study, I don;t believe a smoking mom should BF.

Janet & nursling Sierra

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 03-27-2003 - 12:14pm
Did you see where I emphasized that if a mom must smoke it should be outdoors? I am in no way advocating a mom should smoke indoors.

I only pointed out that nicotine is a very old drug to point out that it is not new. It has been studied far longer than any other drug, so to say "Studies later may show different" is illogical because the "studying" has all ready *happened*. Comparing nicotine to HRT: HRT is very new. It was discovered that estrogen helped ease and prevent some effects of menopause, so the powers that be rushed it out to the public and made it "the" thing to do. With the benefit of retrospect regarding nicotine there has been no reason to think that low nicotine ingestion without secondhand smoke has any ill effect on a baby. Period.

If you want to drag out the chemical issue, let's talk about the "lipids" that are put into formula, derived with strong acids from algae and fungus. How many chemicals are in *that* supposedly healthy thing, and why are so many mothers jumping at the chance to put that into their babies' bodies? There's no proof that it does what its counterpart in BM does and it has not been studied extensively because it has come about in the last five years. Not to mention all of the chemicals and additives in formula to make it shelf-stable and "more like breast milk". I'm sorry, but if nicotine is the only "chemical" or "additive" in the food that I feed my baby, I will take that over chemical-laden formula any day.

Brook

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 03-27-2003 - 12:54pm
Brook you have a good point about the chemicals in formula- a very good point!

And I still think the benefits of bm outweigh the risks of the nicotine exposure in the bm. I think formula feeding introduces more risk.

Of course, quitting smoking would be the ideal for that Mom...but that wasn't the question that was posed!

By the way, I am EXTREMELY anti-smoking...I'm just looking at things from a totally objective viewpoint....BM with some exposure to nicotine or FF? I still think the FF baby would be missing out.

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 03-27-2003 - 1:06pm
First, I don't care if the mother does go outside, another room, across the street to smoke. I don't feel a woman who smokes, no matter of the quantity, should BF her baby. That is how I feel on the subject.

And while it may not be causing anything *known* today can you guarantee that mother that the child will not have effects in 10, 20, 30, 40 years????

Sure, we eat things that in these time spands down the road we will be finding out "new studies". But when it is something that is ALREADY TODAY known to be dangerous like smoking WHY even give it 1/2% chance?

Not *MY* children *if* I were a smoker (which I'd NEVER be....WAY too against it!!!)

Avatar for cl_sunny_side_up
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Thu, 03-27-2003 - 1:09pm
Huh?? Wasn't there just a HUGE(actually multiple) lawsuits against the tabacco companies because they mislead the public?? What of all that mumbo-jumbo?? And I do find it VERY VERY hypocritical that you turn your nose up to formula, but have no problem giving your child your nicotine-laden(among other terrible chemicals in cigarettes)breastmilk. Ugh.... You have NO idea what your child is getting out of your bm, why chance it??

How about this argument?? Nicotine has been KNOWN to cause many types of cancers. It IS a cancer-causing chemical. Yet, you willingly give it to your child??

Formula doesn't cause cancer...and nothing IN formula causes cancer. I'd take the complete nutritional alternative over nicotine-ladened bm anyday. I wonder what mothers' babies would pick??


christine






~christine~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 03-27-2003 - 1:10pm
Not necessarily documented by now. Studies continue. There may be 25 more years before something is found out. Then the children who are then 25 will be facing what the studies say then that perhaps, could be that there was exposure in bm from the mom smoking, although all the studies at the time she was bfing assured it was ok.
Avatar for cl_sunny_side_up
iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2003
Thu, 03-27-2003 - 1:10pm
Are you a new cl on this board?? LOL.... or are you having problems logging in under your non-cl name?? Like me....

christine


~christine~

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 03-27-2003 - 1:14pm
First of all, there is nothing selfish or wrong with choosing to formula feed. While breastmilk IS best, formula is a fine alternative. I've read, read, and read up on this for years now (my first child is 7yo).

I relate it to the fact that sure....while eating brocolli, carrots, corn, and a small portion of grilled or broiled meat for dinner would be the best choice for dinner....going out for a steak, baked potato w/whipped butter, and 3 or 4 yummy yeast rolls is a fine alternative! I'm sure you disagree.

And please remember us women who have no choice but to FORMULA feed our children due to our medications (mine being blood pressure medications...and before you ask...I've been on meds "safe" for bm for over 5yrs now and they have proven NOT to take care of my b/p like other meds that are not on the "safe" list).

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-26-2003
Thu, 03-27-2003 - 1:29pm
"I relate it to the fact that sure....while eating brocolli, carrots, corn, and a small portion of grilled or broiled meat for dinner would be the best choice for dinner....going out for a steak, baked potato w/whipped butter, and 3 or 4 yummy yeast rolls is a fine alternative! I'm sure you disagree." No, I don't disagree, and I resent the fact that you think I would. Formula/BM is not the same as home/away. BM is human, formula is made from altered cow's milk.

And I never said anything about FFers who *can't* BF being a problem. I believe in one of my posts I said "People who *CHOOSE* to FF when there is no reason they can't are selfish."

Brook

Pages