PDA

View Full Version : Mothers stay trim with drug to stop breast milk



Dozytoes
26-04-09, 02:00 PM
This is worrying...:(

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article6169478.ece

From The Sunday Times

April 26, 2009


Mothers stay trim with drug to stop breast milk



Lois Rogers


div#related-article-links p a, div#related-article-links p a:visited {color:#06c;}NEW mothers are taking an antilactation drug usually prescribed to HIV-positive women to avoid the effects of breastfeeding on their bust.

The drug cabergoline is also being used for “social” reasons by women who find nursing painful or who want to avoid having to express milk from engorged breasts when they return to work.

Health workers say it is part of a backlash against the official advice to new mothers that “breast is best”.

Some doctors fear that in taking cabergoline the women are unnecessarily exposing themselves to potential side effects including heart and lung damage, severe sleepiness and incapacitating headaches.

Others are concerned that suppressing lactation will be detrimental to the health of babies, who are believed to receive protective antibodies and a range of other nutrients from their mother’s milk.

The Department of Health recommends that children are exclusively breastfed for their first six months.

Cabergoline, which is marketed as Dostinex, suppresses production of the hormone prolactin, which stimulates milk production in new mothers.

It is administered in two doses over the course of 12 hours and takes effect fairly quickly. HIV can be passed through breast milk, which is why affected mothers are advised to bottle feed their babies.

The drug’s increasing use is part of a backlash against the huge pressure to breastfeed placed on new mothers in Britain, although many find it excruciatingly painful or do not produce enough milk, according to some doctors.

Kevin Harrington, an obstetrician with a private practice at the Portland hospital in central London, said he offered cabergoline to women who cannot or do not want to breastfeed.

“The breastfeeding police frown on the use of cabergoline, but for some women their breasts are an important part of their sexuality and they don’t want them used to provide milk,” he said.

“There is not enough difference between breast milk and infant formula to make a fuss about it.”

Many doctors will admit to regularly prescribing the drug only on condition of anonymity. “I don’t want to take on the ‘breast is best’ lobby,” said one female doctor who is herself a mother.

“Women are hearing about this drug through word of mouth and asking for it. If someone had offered it to me I would have gladly taken it.”

Pfizer, the manufacturer of Dostinex, said the drug had been licensed since 2002 as a treatment for women who “elect not to breastfeed”, as well as for medical circumstances when breastfeeding was considered inadvisable.

The company said it could not comment on whether “elective” use had increased recently.

Ruth Levy, 28, a paediatric nurse from Elstree, Hertford-shire, who gave birth to Emmanuel, her third child, three weeks ago, had no qualms about using Dostinex.

“Although I am going back to work part-time, that was not the reason,” she said.

“Breastfeeding was agony – far more painful than the scar from my caesarean. Women should have the right to choose not to do it.”

Elsewhere postnatal specialists also report a rising use of cabergoline among highly educated and married women – the group who in the past would have been the most likely to breastfeed.

Geraldine Miskin, a breastfeeding counsellor who charges £150 for a 90-minute session, is seeing increasing numbers of new mothers who want to breastfeed for no more than a fortnight.

“A lot of people are rebelling against the pressure,” she said. “There is something militant about the breastfeeding movement, where women are harshly judged if they don’t do it. Many are simply opting out.”

Others believe women are being influenced by neigh-bours who have moved from France and other parts of continental Europe, where more emphasis is placed on the supposed negative effects of breastfeeding on the bust.

“My breasts are for my husband,” said one 35-year-old French mother of twins who lives in Britain. “He wouldn’t like me feeding the babies and I don’t want to end up with a chest like a cow.”

The question of whether breastfeeding ruins a woman’s figure remains open.

Barry Jones, a London cosmetic surgeon, said genetics had more impact than breastfeeding on the size of mothers’ breasts. “Whether the breasts sag afterwards is pretty much the luck of the draw,” he said.

Women are to be given a new right to breastfeed in public under legislation to be published tomorrow.

Mothers will be protected under law from being ejected from parks, shops and restaurants for nursing infants up to the age of six months.

Ministers say mothers who wish to nurse older babies will be covered by existing antisex discrimination legislation.

Harriet Harman, the women’s minister, said: “This is a public health issue. It is time the law swung behind women who want to breastfeed their children in public places. It is still the case that some are turfed out.”

deesalie
26-04-09, 02:11 PM
Wow, there's so much wrong with that I just don't know where to begin...

How sad for those women who place so little value on their femininity, forcing them to rely on the physical appearance of their breasts for bolstering their self esteem rather than the emphasis being the health and nourishment of their babies :(

Poor babies, where is their "choice" and "rights" in all of this??

Momtezuma Tuatara
26-04-09, 02:23 PM
You know what?

These women will get everything they deserve. And IF it backfires on them in some way, they will just need to look in the mirror...

Quickening
26-04-09, 02:31 PM
I wonder about the kind of information those women are given in regards to the drug and in regards to breastfeeding. Perphas their choices would be different. While I think everyone should have full responsibility and accountability for the decisions they make, on the other hand, so many people are conditioned to believe their sources are 'reputable' ie medical professionals and that their decisions are informed.

Momtezuma Tuatara
26-04-09, 03:59 PM
I wonder about the kind of information those women are given in regards to the drug and in regards to breastfeeding. Perphas their choices would be different. While I think everyone should have full responsibility and accountability for the decisions they make, on the other hand, so many people are conditioned to believe their sources are 'reputable' ie medical professionals and that their decisions are informed.

I was once this person. Even though I'd become allergic to antibiotics and discovered that quackery worked okay, it was a second option mentally, to me.

Even though I had a healthy sense of skepticism, I didn't have enough. Okay, we are talking about 1980, when if a doctor said to jump, you never thought to say "no", but to ask "how high?"

Our elder son's birth, woke me up as to what was really going on. There were some situations which, for defamation reasons, never made it into the book. When certain people, within the medical system itself, confirmed that I was being systemically lied to, I had to learn to discern the difference between medical caring, and medical coercion.

Around me, I see various types of mothers. There are those who really care, who educate themselves, and who want to be the best they can be, and "grow" the healthiest children they can possible grow, but they are the minority.

They will not believe this:


“The breastfeeding police frown on the use of cabergoline, but for some women their breasts are an important part of their sexuality and they don’t want them used to provide milk,” he said.

“There is not enough difference between breast milk and infant formula to make a fuss about it.”

That last statement is so far from the truth, that for a paediatrician to say that is mind boggling.

The function of breastmilk in priming the immune system, is powerful in so many processes, and they are only now talking about how little they know, and yet how mindblowing what they do know, is... . Yet breastmilk is not "powerful" enough to stop the gut flora of a 7 year old born by caesarian, from "looking" different to that of a seven year old, born vaginally.

That part of the birth process is crucial, where a baby spends time in the mother's birth canal being inocculated with the more than 170 commensal bacteria and yeasts in the mother, to which she also has antibodies to in her breastmilk, in order to provide a protective flora to form a barrier in the baby to keep out the far worse bacteria outside of the mothers body!

Caesarian rates are also sky-rocketting. Are parents told that information? I doubt it. Do doctors know it? You bet they do.

Is the fact that mothers chose caesarians to schedule, to escape pain, and have the right birthday, a reaction from the vaginal birth police who insist that vaginal is better?

There is so much in the medical literature about how "bad" elective caesarians are on so many levels. Not just the colonisation of a baby's intestine by bacteria on the hand of doctors, nurses and theatre staff, surroundings, and nursery, but also the short and longer term consequences of "wet lung". The fact that caesarian born children are 30% more likely to get asthma than vaginal born. The fact that caesarian born children are 20% more likely to be hospitalised in childhood with asthma, gastrointestinal problems EVEN... it seems... even if they have been breastfed...

Though one article I have just read said that VB siblings of CB children, are also more likely to be hospitalised than the children in a family where all children are VB.

One of the things they discussed was that the mothers who opted to have caesarians were far more likely to demand intervention for themselves and their children than mothers who elect and successfully VB.

But guess what? If doctors don't like the caesarian rate, why do they not educate parents? Why do they continue to do them? If doctors are going to turn around and blame caesarian parents for "demanding" what they are so willing to offer, why don't they do something about it? Kaching.

Why have there been screeds of studies in the last decade comparing the relative ill health of caesarian children, with the more robust health of vaginally born children?

Why aren't parents told about this? Because money isn't earned by doing nothing. Therefore, "intervention" keeps everyone happy. and obstetricians and paediatricians keep their mouths shut, because they know what side their bread is buttered on...

Why the masses don't see this, as a rule is hard to say. There are so many professions out there that they don't trust. Why is it that doctors are held to be more honest than God?

Rant off.