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.
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.
Ok. So you don't have a problem with APs breastfeeding if they can achieve it without the aid of medication? And you think biological parents who take medication to increase supply are doing something wrong?
I'm just trying to understand your point as it applies to adoption, not breastfeeding in general.
Ok. So you don't have a problem with APs breastfeeding if they can achieve it without the aid of medication? And you think biological parents who take medication to increase supply are doing something wrong?
I'm just trying to understand your point as it applies to adoption, not breastfeeding in general.
Yes, AP's breastfeeding crosses the line for me generally in most situations (your situation no because it was discussed beforehand and that matters to me).
Biological parents who take medication with some pretty nasty "side effects" shouldn't. Not when there are risks involved that are worst case deadly (and it takes many cases to ban a drug).
We have become a society if something is fixable with a pill, and if we want it, we should get it - if we go to a doctor and don't get a script then the doctor was wrong and not listening to us.
I am not against meds - I do take meds and am now down to 4 different meds per day - the difference - I take them so I stay alive.
There is nothing heartbreaking about my mom having my best interests in mind (which did not include adoptive breast feeding). If you have seen research that shows adoptive breast feeding is more beneficial for adoptees than bottle feeding I would be interested to see it. I've looked & not found any.
From what I know about child development & bonding -- bonding to a new parent takes time even for newborns & infants. Some believe breast-feeding will help an adopted baby bond quicker than bottle feeding, but again, this has been completely unsubstantiated as far as I know.
IMO it is not a good idea for PAP/APs to believe they can force/expedite bonding (not saying that is what you believe, but some do). This can set some parents up for expectations & disappointment as others pointed out. Plenty of babies breast-fed by their adoptive mothers still struggled with bonding -- plenty of bottle fed infants bonded to their adoptive mothers just fine.
I also agree with those who pointed out that taking medications or ton supplements is not natural & it should be considered how that could impact the baby (again to my knowledge there isn't good research on this & the FDA should not be trusted on anything that has not been thoroughly tested).
For those who breast feed because they want to fulfill an experience of pregnancy they believed adoption would deprive them of -- that is not breast-feeding for their child, but for themselves. One might consider how that motivation would make their child feel later in life, one might not. Personally I'm glad my mom did not feel the need to use me for this purpose.
& just to clarify again I'm not saying anyone has to ask permission to breast-feed or that adoptive breast feeding is perverted.
Nor are any panties in a twist.
IMO, when an adoptee makes strong statements such as what his/her mother's interests were on their behalf and those statements indicate that if their parents did something they now disagree with (because that individual would have NO IDEA what his/her parent did while s/he was an infant) then I believe it is heartbreaking. This is just my opinion. But, I don't make a distinction between birth mothers and adoptive mothers the same way others do.
Speaking directly to your comment about attachment and bonding, in most research, they are synonymous, that is, you cannot have one without the other. I'm not sure why you are troubled by any type of mother wanting to bond with her baby and therefore doing things that encourage it. Most often it is the primary caregiver of the baby whom the baby bonds with. This is likely the birthmother if she chooses to parent. But it can also be the father, grandmother, nanny, or either adoptive mother or father. Attachment and bonding with infants does not take a long time as you've purported. Babies attach fairly easily in response to touch, smell, love, response to their needs, affection, and understanding. This has never required and never will require a biological connection. I'm not sure where you are getting your research, but here is mine:
Affectionate responsiveness, attentive protection, sensitive support, and challenges during joint play seem to suffice for attachment formation which become highly influential across the life span (Grossmann, K.E. et al. 2002; Thompson 2000). A person has become an attachment figure to a child if she meets three universal criteria for an attachment bond: (a) the young child seeks closeness to and protection from that person when it perceives danger or experiences distressed (the “haven of safety†function); (b) the young child uses that person as a “secure base†from which it explores the environment, and (c) the young child will experience emotional as well as physiological distress when separated from that figure (separation distress). By the end of the second year, the toddlers of our Bielefeld Longitudinal study had up to three attachment figures, comparable to the toddlers in the Glasgow study (Schaffer and Emerson 1964).
Note, the researchers use "a person" and not "birth mother" in the above quote. Throughout the report, they use "caregiver."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artful Dodger
TiffJoy,
I think people get ahead of good science - how I was raised - remember dad being upset about how many doctors were abusing prescribing penicillin (sp?) - even double courses for things that weren't helped by it anyway, and would go away on it's own once it ran it's course - and then the newer antibiotics as well - same thing...Good science takes time, and unless it is life threatening people don't need to jump on any bandwagon that comes along.
Some people are against all medications or at the very least, suspicious of them. Just like some parents don't believe in vaccinations. But this has nothing to do with adoptive breastfeeding. Some mothers use medication for assistance, some don't. It is their choice and their right as a parent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thethreefoldme
The difference between bonding & attachment -- an infant will attach for survival purposes. Bonding is a mutual connection that develops over time. I can dig up my psychology books from Uni if you would prefer an actual definition, but that is how I would describe it.
The research on bonding has been on biological mother/child who already have 9 months & other psychological connections. Will adoptive breastfeeding help the baby bond more with their new parent more than bottle-feeding? I would like to see research on this specifically before I assume that it does.
Can feeding an adopted child help soothe them in general? Yes. Just like any other baby obviously. Does it relieve the trauma of being separated from their mother? IMO this is like saying food/wine relieves the trauma an adult has experienced.
With all due respect, this information is incorrect. As provided in the links above, attachment and bonding go hand in hand. And, both have been studied for decades. That a biological mother is the only figure an infant can attach to is a theory that was disproved a very long time ago.
Regarding the bolded part...if one believes that trauma has occured with infant adoptions, this is their right, but it isn't supported by any respected research on human development. Older children will of course know and experience more trauma when separated from any familial figure. But the "primal wound" theory is just that, a theory.
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.
And what was originally being discussed about adoptive breastfeeding has little to do with the side effects of certain medications. However, if you care to provide studies that show how these medications actually affected infants, please share them. As Tiff pointed out, some have been around for years and taken by mothers for years. Clearly children would have shown signs if it had affected them and those medications that are unsafe are not prescribed or have been banned.
I doubt if mothers are consciously and deliberately taking medicine that is unsafe for their babies just to breastfeed. This is a pretty far-fetched allegation.
Yes, AP's breastfeeding crosses the line for me generally in most situations (your situation no because it was discussed beforehand and that matters to me).
Why? And please, feel free to decline to answer. I'm just curious.
If you have seen research that shows adoptive breast feeding is more beneficial for adoptees than bottle feeding I would be interested to see it. I've looked & not found any.
The research is scattered throughout this thread. Breastfeeding is more beneficial to infants than bottle feeding. Bottle feeding is fine, it won't hurt the baby and doesn't necessarily mean infants won't bond or attach to their mothers, but the nutritional value of breast milk cannot be duplicated in a formula. Feeding an infant from the breast or with formula is a parental decision. Adoption should'nt hinder this. Adoptees are infants too.
Originally Posted by Artful Dodger Yes, AP's breastfeeding crosses the line for me generally in most situations (your situation no because it was discussed beforehand and that matters to me).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaded
Why? And please, feel free to decline to answer. I'm just curious.
Two reasons that it bothers me:
In domestic infant adoptions (voluntary) (DIA) the mother while technically/legally is choosing adoption for her child - in reality - she is choosing the guardians to raise her child. She, by the nature of DIA is usually choosing strangers. When you stop and think about all the requirements that you as a parent would have to choose guardians for your children in case the worst thing happened - you would choose individuals who would parent the child in the step with your views, you would know them to be honest, upfront, ethical, capable, financially, and morally good people. With the typical DIA the mother is choosing blind so to speak - she sees what is on their profile that they carefully crafted to generate the best view of them possible. Matching now is more common than not and the parties meet. What the mother wishes for her child and how the new parents will parent should be compatible - when the new mother isn't willing to discuss the fact she wants to/intends to breastfeed because she is afraid it will cause the match to fail (reason given for fearing to bring it up by multiple mothers) - then she fails the most basic concept of honesty with the surrendering mother right out the door.
The second reason is more to the fact that it seems to be trying to replace the surrendering mother rather that being comfortable in your own skin as the adopting mother (same reason I don't hold with being at the birth in the typical stranger DIA). Call it social bias if you will for the genetic underpinnings, but again, I was raised by parents who never tried to replace - they were just happy and proud to be our mom and dad (through adoption) - I think they did it right and the longevity of the parent / child relationships proves they did a pretty darn good job. I do hold them in the highest esteem to this day, because of who they are/were, and how they lived their lives based on what their moral code told them was right - not what was the norm in society.
In domestic infant adoptions (voluntary) (DIA) the mother while technically/legally is choosing adoption for her child - in reality - she is choosing the guardians to raise her child. She, by the nature of DIA is usually choosing strangers. When you stop and think about all the requirements that you as a parent would have to choose guardians for your children in case the worst thing happened - you would choose individuals who would parent the child in the step with your views, you would know them to be honest, upfront, ethical, capable, financially, and morally good people. With the typical DIA the mother is choosing blind so to speak - she sees what is on their profile that they carefully crafted to generate the best view of them possible. Matching now is more common than not and the parties meet. What the mother wishes for her child and how the new parents will parent should be compatible - when the new mother isn't willing to discuss the fact she wants to/intends to breastfeed because she is afraid it will cause the match to fail (reason given for fearing to bring it up by multiple mothers) - then she fails the most basic concept of honesty with the surrendering mother right out the door.
The second reason is more to the fact that it seems to be trying to replace the surrendering mother rather that being comfortable in your own skin as the adopting mother (same reason I don't hold with being at the birth in the typical stranger DIA). Call it social bias if you will for the genetic underpinnings, but again, I was raised by parents who never tried to replace - they were just happy and proud to be our mom and dad (through adoption) - I think they did it right and the longevity of the parent / child relationships proves they did a pretty darn good job. I do hold them in the highest esteem to this day, because of who they are/were, and how they lived their lives based on what their moral code told them was right - not what was the norm in society.
Okay, so it's basically personally discomforting for you. I get it.
In domestic infant adoptions (voluntary) (DIA) the mother while technically/legally is choosing adoption for her child - in reality - she is choosing the guardians to raise her child. She, by the nature of DIA is usually choosing strangers. When you stop and think about all the requirements that you as a parent would have to choose guardians for your children in case the worst thing happened - you would choose individuals who would parent the child in the step with your views, you would know them to be honest, upfront, ethical, capable, financially, and morally good people. With the typical DIA the mother is choosing blind so to speak - she sees what is on their profile that they carefully crafted to generate the best view of them possible. Matching now is more common than not and the parties meet. What the mother wishes for her child and how the new parents will parent should be compatible - when the new mother isn't willing to discuss the fact she wants to/intends to breastfeed because she is afraid it will cause the match to fail (reason given for fearing to bring it up by multiple mothers) - then she fails the most basic concept of honesty with the surrendering mother right out the door.
The second reason is more to the fact that it seems to be trying to replace the surrendering mother rather that being comfortable in your own skin as the adopting mother (same reason I don't hold with being at the birth in the typical stranger DIA). Call it social bias if you will for the genetic underpinnings, but again, I was raised by parents who never tried to replace - they were just happy and proud to be our mom and dad (through adoption) - I think they did it right and the longevity of the parent / child relationships proves they did a pretty darn good job. I do hold them in the highest esteem to this day, because of who they are/were, and how they lived their lives based on what their moral code told them was right - not what was the norm in society.
Ok. This makes more sense to me.
I think your first statement is spot on. When choosing, the potential birth parents have the right to know the facts as well as intents about how the potential adoptive parents will raise their child. In my case (which you acknowledged above already as a sort of exception) I asked beforehand. And I did ask, not tell. There's a distinct difference there. My daughter's other mom actually said she was relived and happy as she had wanted that (breastfeeding) for her daughter but assumed it would never happen. Honestly, and I know APs and PAPs would disagree, but had they expressed discomfort with the idea, I would not have done it (as much as I wanted to) out if respect for the big decision they were making by choosing us as parents.
AARP the second point, well, I suppose that's just your opinion really. Honestly, it's not really possible to ascribe motives to a stranger, so you don't really know if an AP is trying to replace a birth mother or not. I absolutely was not. But I believe a lot in the importance if breastfeeding and wanted that for my daughter. It had nothing at all to do with trying to replace something and everything to do with trying to bond and provide a healthy source of nourishment. Now, if people disagree with that, ok. People disagree with nursing in public and I did that too. I'm ok with my decision, Edie Islay when I had the support of several adoptees themselves. I know my motives and my heart, and I'm sure my daughter will too, as she grows. Because at no point in her life will I ever try to erase where she came from or attempt to rub out her first mom. I'm very confident as her mom, and there's zero competition between her other mom and me, and from my side, I see no reason why this would ever change.
But I do understand that for some people, nursing an adopted child is an uncomfortable idea.
The second reason is more to the fact that it seems to be trying to replace the surrendering mother rather that being comfortable in your own skin as the adopting mother (same reason I don't hold with being at the birth in the typical stranger DIA). Call it social bias if you will for the genetic underpinnings, but again, I was raised by parents who never tried to replace - they were just happy and proud to be our mom and dad (through adoption) - I think they did it right and the longevity of the parent / child relationships proves they did a pretty darn good job. I do hold them in the highest esteem to this day, because of who they are/were, and how they lived their lives based on what their moral code told them was right - not what was the norm in society.
I agree. I also wouldn't hire a wet nurse to feed my children.
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.
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.
