U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-25-2013, 10:58 AM
 
1,851 posts, read 2,982,121 times
Reputation: 2365

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nj185 View Post
Only 1 study has been published on adoptive breastfeeding which involved 240 mothers [Auerbach KG, Avery JL. Induced lactation, a study of adoptive nursing by 240 women. Am J Dis Child 1981]. It showed that few produced sufficient milk, but that most of the mothers felt that 'bonding' was the most important element. If I remember correctly producing enough milk was number 5 or 6 on the list of reasons they felt important.
More studies, some with the use of medicine, some without:

Induced Lactation in Adoption
Comparisons of Pregnancy vs Induced Lactation
Breast feeding the adopted baby
A Model for Caregiving of Adopted Children after Institutionalization (recommends breastfeeding)
Extraordinary Breastfeeding: Relactation/Induced Lactation

These are just a few...

Quote:
Originally Posted by nj185 View Post
This I find problematical in discussions of breastfeeding in general. Though biologically, lactating goes in tandem with birthing a child, it does not make anyone less or more of a 'mother' except in biologic terms. It is not essential to anyones 'role' as a mother. No one should feel less of a mother because they can't, or more of one because it is possible. This association with the emotional aspects of motherhood and the ability to breastfeed does more damage to all mothers than is necessary.

Studies remain unclear on some of these emotional aspects - they are unable to truly determine if all the emotional benefits of nursing are from the nursing itself or if the personality of people who chose to nurse are such that they would devote the same behaviors [physical closeness, close attention to needs, increased physical contact, time spent with the infant] even if they couldn't breastfeed.
I completely agree with your first paragraph. Which is why I find it problematic when discussing breastfeeding in general that it should only be done by the biological mother. I'm not saying you feel this way, this is just the way I feel.

Mothers can become close to their babies without breastfeeding. We all seem to agree on this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-25-2013, 11:19 AM
 
1,024 posts, read 984,965 times
Reputation: 834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
I respect your opinion and disagree. I will restate, I highly, and sincerely, doubt my adoptive baby will grow up and dislike me, not trust me, feel betrayed by me, and seek to find out if I "respected" the wishes of the birth parents due to the fact that I breastfed him/her or tried to (if not successful).
I never said your child will feel those things just because you breastfed him/her or tried to. I'm not sure where you are getting this from. But APs who don't respect the wishes of their child's biological parents should be prepared that their child could some day have a problem with that.

It really is not uncommon for adoptees to seek to find out or expect that their adoptive parents respected the wishes of their birth parents. PAPs really should consider this.

Quote:
I believe by the time he/she is an adult the evidence will be overwhelmingly clear that I would not have been "odd" for wanting to provide breast milk as a superior alternative to formula (mine or donor) and that it was in his/her best interest.
IMO it is best to not assume what our children will think in the future or feel as adults. It isn't abnormal for anyone to hold different or even opposite views from their parents. How someone can feel so certain how an adoptee will think or feel in the future before they have ever even met that child I am not sure.

Last edited by thethreefoldme; 03-25-2013 at 11:28 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2013, 12:07 PM
 
393 posts, read 503,863 times
Reputation: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by nj185
Why would that be? a smokescreen for what? It is a controversial subject in general, not just related to adoption. People feel strongly about drugs and lactation,and overuse of drugs in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
Only those using the smokescreen can answer this. Breastfeeding is controversial but really only when people are discussing the length of time a woman breastfeeds and cross-breastfeeding, wet nurses, breastfeeding in public. Not sure how that matters here.
Since I am one of those I believe you are referring too...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Artful Dodger  
Tiff - my concerns apply to anyone that would do this just to breastfeed. "Side effects" have such a benign sound to them and are in my opinion far different than "death" or permanent "tardive dyskinesia" - side effects to me are are rash, fatigue, headache, GI intolerance, dry mouth, etc.. I get that the general public hears the side effects listed for a drug and go "it won't happen to me" and do it anyway. I just cannot wrap my head around anyone willing to take that risk when they are becoming a mother.
I think it is irresponsible for ANY mother to take a drug that has been banned by the FDA since 2004 that can, and has caused deaths, just to be able to breastfeed, or to take another drug that can cause permanent tardis dyskenesia.

Using drugs that can have fatal or permanent side effects like tardis dyskenesia should be reserved solely for use when you are really sick and there aren't any better options.

I formed this opinion from many discussions with my dad based on his knowledge and years of practice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2013, 12:09 PM
 
1,851 posts, read 2,982,121 times
Reputation: 2365
Quote:
Originally Posted by thethreefoldme View Post
Can you provide research that backs up your claims that newborns/infants who are permanently separated from their biological mothers are not impacted by the separation?

I never made such blanket statements. Again, it appears you are misreading posts. If an infant is impacted by being placed in a cot beside their biological mother, not permanently separated from them, how can you possibly infer that long-term or permanent separation will not impact them?

Yes, babies are separated from their mothers all the time. That does not mean there is no long-term impact.

& where is the research to back up your claims here? The current studies have shown there is a major impact when newborns/infants are separated from their biological mothers -- to my knowledge there have been NO comprehensive studies to show the long-term impact of separation on adoptees as you claim.

Question for you -- How many studies have you reviewed that included adult adoptees as opposed to comparing something like school grades or reports from adoptive parents?
Research. It seems that the birthparents are the most affected:

Impact of Adoption on Birth Parents
Long-term Issues for Birthmothers after Adoption

Here's a paper on newborn adoption (needs to be downloaded)

Here's one on Early Separation Anxiety

I'll have to find others. But to answer your question, I've read plenty of studies that included adult adoptees. That's actually where I started when I first started considering adoption (since 2006/7). Also, I've known and still know many adult adoptees.

There are no long-term comprehensive studies because there are no long-term effects. There are studies on child development, older child adoptions, and adopting children who have been abused. But adopting an infant/baby and the separation from the birth mother is too similar to all babies who are temporarily separated from their birth mothers (some due to medical reasons) in terms of caring for the baby afterwards. It's just a child/human development fact that newborns don't need the primary caregiver to be the birthmother, it just usually is the birthmother.

Regarding the stress a newborn feels after birth and being separated from mom, this happens to all newborns. Babies are used to being inside a womb for 9 months, then they "enter" the world...that is stressful! They have no idea what's going on and it's frightening. Of course immediate cuddling and pacifiying is optimal for soothing the baby, and usually within a short timeframe the mother does this - but anyone can do it as well. It just needs to be done. Think of situations where the mother dies during childbirth...someone has to nurture the baby, right? In an adoption situation, breastfeeding is one of the most optimal ways to do this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2013, 12:12 PM
 
1,851 posts, read 2,982,121 times
Reputation: 2365
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artful Dodger View Post
I think it is irresponsible for ANY mother to take a drug that has been banned by the FDA since 2004 that can, and has caused deaths, just to be able to breastfeed, or to take another drug that can cause permanent tardis dyskenesia.

Using drugs that can have fatal or permanent side effects like tardis dyskenesia should be reserved solely for use when you are really sick and there aren't any better options.
I agree and I don't plan on using any drugs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2013, 01:13 PM
 
393 posts, read 503,863 times
Reputation: 440
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
I agree and I don't plan on using any drugs.
So how it is a smokescreen?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2013, 01:35 PM
 
1,024 posts, read 984,965 times
Reputation: 834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
I'll have to find others. But to answer your question, I've read plenty of studies that included adult adoptees. That's actually where I started when I first started considering adoption (since 2006/7). Also, I've known and still know many adult adoptees.
Only one link that you posted addressed separation for newborns/infants & from what I read provided zero research to back up the claims or points you have made here. Just fyi.

Quote:
There are no long-term comprehensive studies because there are no long-term effects.
There are no long-term comprehensive studies because they are still researching the long-term effects. That is not proof that there are no long-term effects.

Now if you believe adoptive breastfeeding will soothe them more than bottle-feeding with breast milk, then you are more than entitled to that opinion. But I also have not seen any studies substantiating that & I don't think it is fair for anyone to assume mothers who were unable or chose not to breast-feed were not as successful at soothing their babies.

I think NJ said it best here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by nj185 View Post
Studies remain unclear on some of these emotional aspects - they are unable to truly determine if all the emotional benefits of nursing are from the nursing itself or if the personality of people who chose to nurse are such that they would devote the same behaviors [physical closeness, close attention to needs, increased physical contact, time spent with the infant] even if they couldn't breastfeed.

Last edited by thethreefoldme; 03-25-2013 at 02:11 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2013, 02:42 PM
 
1,097 posts, read 1,728,963 times
Reputation: 1590
-1st one was on someone [1 mother] who had previously been pregnant 3 times
-2nd on [5]non-pregnant women and [19] women in the 3rd trimester of pregnancy
-3rd on 18 adoptive mothers who had never been pregnant as part of a study of 65 women
-4 - don't have access to the stats of this 1981 article, nor the 5th - I can't recall the breakdown of the lactating or adoptive/bio status of the mothers contacted .

But my point is that these studies are small samples, though I imagine adopting breastfeeders are also few in number. Not because of any bias on my part but purely because adoptions are a small % of families, and of those, those who attempt breastfeeding a small % of that.

The study I mentioned contained a large sample of adoptive mothers & was significant in that respect.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2013, 03:55 PM
 
1,851 posts, read 2,982,121 times
Reputation: 2365
Quote:
Originally Posted by nj185 View Post
-1st one was on someone [1 mother] who had previously been pregnant 3 times
-2nd on [5]non-pregnant women and [19] women in the 3rd trimester of pregnancy
-3rd on 18 adoptive mothers who had never been pregnant as part of a study of 65 women
-4 - don't have access to the stats of this 1981 article, nor the 5th - I can't recall the breakdown of the lactating or adoptive/bio status of the mothers contacted .

But my point is that these studies are small samples, though I imagine adopting breastfeeders are also few in number. Not because of any bias on my part but purely because adoptions are a small % of families, and of those, those who attempt breastfeeding a small % of that.

The study I mentioned contained a large sample of adoptive mothers & was significant in that respect.
You said there was only one study. There are clearly more than one. This was my point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thethreefoldme View Post
Only one link that you posted addressed separation for newborns/infants & from what I read provided zero research to back up the claims or points you have made here. Just fyi.

There are no long-term comprehensive studies because they are still researching the long-term effects. That is not proof that there are no long-term effects.

Now if you believe adoptive breastfeeding will soothe them more than bottle-feeding with breast milk, then you are more than entitled to that opinion. But I also have not seen any studies substantiating that & I don't think it is fair for anyone to assume mothers who were unable or chose not to breast-feed were not as successful at soothing their babies.
Re bolded parts; glad we agree! Regarding the rest of your post, I stand by what I've previously stated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Artful Dodger View Post
So how it is a smokescreen?
It's not. You made your points clear early on. I never gave specifics, just used the term in general as a response to the entire thread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2013, 05:11 PM
 
1,024 posts, read 984,965 times
Reputation: 834
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded View Post
Re bolded parts; glad we agree! Regarding the rest of your post, I stand by what I've previously stated.
Yes. I'm glad we can agree on that, too. & if you ever find a source that supports your beliefs about separation from the biological mother feel free to DM them to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Parenting > Adoption
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:35 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top