Hacker News Reader

Comment by ted12345 | Hacker News Reader

She wasn't "treated like a criminal" because she tested positive to a preliminary test. She was treated like a criminal because she insisted on breastfeeding her baby despite several positive test results.

I think the mature thing to do would be to wait for the 2 week test to come back and not breastfeed your child in the meantime. Even if you know you haven't done meth, I would think the risk that you somehow have been exposed to meth should outweigh the desire to breastfeed.

The hospital is more concerned about the health of the baby than the desire of a new mother to validate their motherhood by breastfeeding. Seems okay to me.

View on HN

If she did not breastfeed for the first 2 weeks it's unlikely she'd be able to start suddenly, her milk might simply have dried up. My wife wasn't able to breastfeed 1 of our 5 children and this alone caused her a degree of post-natal depression through feeling guility (no depression with the other 4).

I suspect you're male and don't have children, talk to mothers about the importance of breast feeding to them, you'll find this isn't a subject to be logical over.

Pump and dump is an option, so that mom keeps lactating, but not foolproof. The baby needs to learn how to latch on and if they are given a bottle for 2 weeks will likely refuse to breastfeed (e.g. baby turns into a frustrated screaming terror while mom sobs). But the more important point is the emotional and hormonal impact of breastfeeding on the mom, and health benefits of breastfeeding for the baby.

Breastfeeding is monumentally important for some mothers. Mom has every right to insist on breastfeeding even in the face of a test she knows to be a false positive.

WebMD talks about breastfeeding vs formula.

Their listed benefits of breastfeeding include resisting illness, lower % of SIDS, a correlation to higher cognitive function, and lower occurrence of other diseases. They then list benefits of formula, which all amount to convenience for the parents. Then they say don't feel guilty either way.

The higher correlations to health benefits are the closest to birth, with nearly all sources recommending breastfeeding for at least the 1st six months, if possible.

I don't know. If I was confident I wasn't exposed (the article said they were very careful, and were certain it was a false positive), I might go with breastfeeding in that case as well.

http://www.webmd.com/baby/breastfeeding-vs-formula-feeding

>She wasn't "treated like a criminal" because she tested positive to a preliminary test. She was treated like a criminal because she insisted on breastfeeding her baby despite several positive test results.

She was treated like a criminal before giving birth, though.

>you somehow have been exposed to meth

How exactly do you get exposed to meth?

>than the desire of a new mother to validate their motherhood by breastfeeding

You're reading an awful lot into her desire to breastfeed her child.

That is an absolutely horrible idea.

> The hospital is more concerned about the health of the baby than the desire of a new mother to validate their motherhood by breastfeeding. Seems okay to me.

That has to be one of the most idiotic things I have ever seen written on this site.

If she didn't do meth then she should nurse. What possible reason is there not to? Some mythical exposure to meth? What in the world are you talking about?

Have you ever even seen a baby? Have you seen one nurse? I suspect you have not, or you would not write such incredibly stupid things.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com