Archive for August, 2007

« Older Entries

A Breastfeeding and DDP “First”

Sunday, August 26th, 2007

August was a good month for breastfeeding and natural family planning. During NFP Awareness Week (July 22-28), my wife, Sheila, blogged each day on ecological breastfeeding, the only form of breastfeeding associated with extended natural infertility. During World Breastfeeding Week (August 1-7), Sheila blogged daily on the many health benefits of breastfeeding. Then on August 10, Theresa Notare of the USCCB office for Natural Family Planning issued a press release on breastfeeding titled “Mother Nature’s Power Drink.” This release has the potential to do more for increasing the overall rate of breastfeeding in the United States than anything that Sheila and I can ever hope to accomplish.

The release, which is printed in full below, does not represent a policy statement on the part of the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops. Not yet. Its significance is that it is the first such publicity and advocacy given to breastfeeding by any office of the U.S. bishops. The late Bishop James T. McHugh, former head of the bishops’ Diocesan Develop Plan for Natural Family Planning, was definitely in favor of breastfeeding, and he made the introduction to the address of Pope John Paul II to the papal breastfeeding conference in May 1995. However, we are not aware that he ever made a public statement such as this. If serious breastfeeding advocacy would become an official USCCB policy, it could have widespread beneficial effects for the Church and for all those affected by its health-related activities. Sheila and I are grateful for this initiative by Theresa Notare, and we offer her our public thanks.

Next week I will comment more on this potential and what might have been if the Church at its everyday level had retained during the 1950s its former advocacy of breastfeeding. For the present, enjoy Theresa Notare’s press release below
_______
Life Issues Forum
Mother Nature’s Power Drink
By Theresa Notare
For Immediate Release – August 10, 2007
      Recently a report on a tragedy in Botswana puzzled its medical community. Record numbers of babies died of common diarrhea, in a country where that had rarely happened. The cause? Over a decade of an aggressive anti-AIDS policy that discouraged breastfeeding among HIV infected mothers. Remarkably, in a follow-up study of the tragedy, researchers from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control found that breastfed babies did not die from the diarrhea outbreak.
      Botswana had been a country where the majority of mothers commonly practiced breastfeeding. Once HIV/AIDS surfaced as a public health problem, however, government officials implemented a policy of discouraging breastfeeding and encouraging formula feeding of infants whose mothers were HIV infected. They thought they were protecting babies, but they put their children at greater risk of suffering other devastating illnesses. Why? As the Washington Post pointed out on July 23, 2007, the chances of an HIV infected mother passing the disease through breast milk is “about 1 percent per month of breastfeeding.” Breastfeeding research shows that the “nutrition and antibodies that breast milk provide are so crucial to young children” that their benefits should be carefully weighed against the risk of HIV transmission.
      Breast milk is Mother Nature’s “power drink.” Research confirms its nutritional and immunological benefits. Breast milk reduces a baby’s risk of contracting over twenty illnesses, including allergies, asthma, bacterial meningitis, diarrhea, ear infections, inflammatory bowel disease, leukemia, multiple sclerosis, type 1 and type 2 diabetes. And a woman who breastfeeds reaps benefits for her body too. As breastfeeding advocate Sheila Kippley reports, “one study found that a mother reduced her own risk of getting type-2 diabetes by 15% for each year of nursing. If she nursed two babies, each for a year, she had a 30% risk reduction for this disease, and whatever reduction she received remained in effect for 15 years after the birth of her last baby!”
      Breastfeeding also builds up the mother-child bond on an emotional and spiritual level. As Pope John Paul II said in a talk to members of the Pontifical Academy of Science in 1995, “this natural way of feeding can create a bond of love and security between mother and child, and enable the child to assert its presence as a person through the interaction with the mother.” So meaningful is the breastfeeding relationship, he added, that “the Psalms use the image of the infant at its mother’s breast as a picture of God’s care for man (cf. Ps 22:9).”
      Despite its overwhelming benefits, breastfeeding continues to be little attempted by new mothers in the United States. This is a problem. With our concern for the welfare of the family, the Church can help. Catholic hospitals are in a particularly good position to advise and educate the new mother before and after she gives birth. Diocesan Natural Family Planning classes can take the time to cover basic breastfeeding information. Finally, friends and family also play a role in the new mother’s decision to breastfeed. Children should be given a solid start in life – a plentiful serving of nature’s power drink is a great beginning!
_______
Theresa Notare, MA is the Assistant Director of the Diocesan Development Program for Natural Family Planning, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
_______

Next week: “What if” in the 1950s.

John F. Kippley
Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality (Ignatius)
Natural Family Planning: The Question-Answer Book, a short, easy-to-read, free, downloadable e-book available at
www.NFPandmore.org

Posted in Ecological Breastfeeding | Comments Off on A Breastfeeding and DDP “First”

Can a Breastfeeding Mother “Use” Her Baby?

Sunday, August 19th, 2007

Is it physically possible for a breastfeeding mother to “use” her baby? Yes. Is it morally right or wrong for a mother to “use” her baby? That depends upon what is meant by “using” another person. There is a good sense and a bad sense to that word. An employer uses other people to accomplish a task. If he pays them fairly, provides a safe working environment, and treats them with the dignity due them as human persons, we say he is using them as members of his extended family in the good sense of the term. On the other hand, if the employer pays the least possible amount, fails to provide a safe working environment and in general uses them not in accord with their dignity as human persons, we say that he is using them in the pejorative or bad sense of that term.
      If a breastfeeding mother is engorged and puts her baby to breast for relief, she is clearly using her baby, but is that wrong? My answer comes later. Again, what if she knows that ecological breastfeeding normally delays the return of fertility for over a year. What if she likes that idea and decides to do ecological breastfeeding for that reason? Is she doing something wrong? Is she “using” her baby in the pejorative sense?
      You may think these are silly or purely speculative questions or even cruel ones since they could lead to scrupulosity among sensitive mothers. But the question of “using” one’s breastfeeding baby has been raised in recent months so it calls for a response.

The Question
Would a mother who chose to breastfeed solely for its baby-spacing effects be “using” her baby in the pejorative sense? The short and simple answer is “Absolutely not,” but something more might be helpful.
      We need to start by recognizing that this is a purely hypothetical question. In real life, it would be impossible, practically speaking, for a woman to have or at least to retain such a narrow reason for breastfeeding. For one thing, breastfeeding has too many advantages or blessings to keep focused on one single benefit. Second, to obtain any significant spacing, the mother would have to do ecological breastfeeding, and it can be demanding.
      Still, one person with a theological background was given this question and replied that “If a woman were breastfeeding with the SOLE or even PRIMARY intent of preventing ovulation, then, yes, she could be using her baby as a means to an end.” That sounds like a pejorative sense of “using.”
      Further, a friend has informed us that in its new teacher training program, the Couple to Couple League has written as follows: “As a matter of fact, if the only goal of breastfeeding is the infertility at the expense of the mother, the baby and/or the family, that could be a ‘use’ of the mother, baby and/or family. And as pointed out in ‘The Human Body,’ we should love people, and use things… not the other way around.” (“The Human Body” is a CCL publication.) The inclusion of “at the expense of the mother, the baby and/or the family” is not helpful for our basic question, but the whole sentence gives the impression that our hypothetical single-focus mother would be “using” in the pejorative sense.
      Let’s look at this in terms of a standard analysis of a human act as we did last week.
There are three factors that constitute the morality of a human act.
1) the thing done,
2) the circumstances, and
3) the intention of the person who acts.

      1) Let us focus on ecological breastfeeding in particular because that’s the only kind that offers extended infertility. In this case, the thing done is a basic human good. It is the form of baby care that gives the baby the best nutrition and nurturing.
      2) The circumstances are such that they do not affect the morality of the action. The mother is able to nurse, and the baby is able to suckle.
      Here we need to address CCL’s inclusion of extraneous circumstances, “at the expense of the mother, the baby and/or the family.” Adding extraneous circumstances completely confuses the issue, whatever it might be. Is it good for a mother to worship at Mass on Sunday for the sole purpose of pleasing God? Of course it is, even if there are also other very good reasons that she might not have in mind on any given Sunday. But now add “if it is done at the expense of a child who is so sick that he needs the full-time presence of his mother.” Clearly, the mother has a primary obligation to care for a desperately sick child, and for her to leave her child under those circumstances would be child abandonment and the wrong thing to do. So when we address the morality of breastfeeding for a single intention, we have to eliminate extraneous circumstances.
      3) The intention is the key issue here. Let’s state the question again and then rephrase it.
      Would a mother who chose to breastfeed solely for its baby-spacing effects be “using” her baby in the pejorative sense?
      In other words, would a mother who chose to breastfeed for the sole purpose of seeking the natural effect that God himself built into the nursing mother-baby ecology be “using” her baby in the pejorative sense? Not at all. She desires a God-given good, and the only way to achieve that good is to let her baby nurse frequently. How can anyone say the she would be “using” her baby in a pejorative sense of the word?

For the sake of argument, one might say that the hypothetical mother with her narrow focus has acted with less than the best intention. To that I would offer two responses. First, let’s assume that’s correct. We are required to act for a good intention, but there is no moral teaching of which I am aware that obliges us to act out of the best intention. That’s a concept that a person might discuss with his or her own spiritual advisor. I have heard of some saints who took a promise always to do the best thing, which I imagine would include or might include always acting for the highest intention, but I believe it would be rash for anyone to do so without good spiritual direction. It would be a recipe for scrupulosity and could tie a sensitive person into knots. Second, in the case at hand, the mother’s intention is to achieve a God-planned effect, not an unnatural effect. What can be wrong with that?

This issue should never be raised in the context of general instruction about breastfeeding because of 1) the risk of causing a scrupulous conscience and 2) the total unreality of the question in real life. In real life, the question would only apply to a mother who did ecological breastfeeding, for that’s the only kind that offers extended natural infertility. And in real life, a mother who started with only that limited intention would either soon stop ecological breastfeeding because of the demands of this form of baby care, or she would expand her horizons as she learned both from her own experience and from others the many other benefits of ecological breastfeeding.

To return to the question of intention, our hypothetical mother who chooses to do ecological breastfeeding only for its baby-spacing effects is not doing anything wrong or sinful. She has chosen to do what is best for her baby by all available measurements. She is simply focusing on one God-given effect instead of the big picture. Her limited intention is a good intention. She is not engaged in any form of contraceptive behavior. She allows her baby to nurse whenever he wants, but she cannot force her baby to nurse. Using a standard moral analysis, I cannot find anything wrong or sinful in the choice to do ecological breastfeeding solely for its baby-spacing effect, hypothetical as such a decision might be.

As far as I am concerned, the only thing wrong in this picture is the suggestion that such a mother may be acting wrongly, “using” her baby in a pejorative sense. That plants the seeds for a scrupulous conscience. In my opinion it is wrong to put into NFP instruction and teacher training such concepts that may lead sensitive moms to wonder, every time they pick up their babies, if they are “using” their babies in some sort of wrongful way.

To return to our opening question, what if a mom is feeling engorged, and she nurses solely, at that moment, for personal comfort? Is she using her baby? Of course she is. Is there anything the least bit wrong with that? Absolutely not. Does she love her baby any less because at that moment she is hoping that he will relieve her engorgement? Of course not. Let us be done with negative talk about “using” a breastfeeding baby.

John F. Kippley
Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality (Ignatius)
Natural Family Planning: The Question-Answer Book, a short, free, and readable e-book available at
www.NFPandmore.org.

Posted in CCL, Ecological Breastfeeding | Comments Off on Can a Breastfeeding Mother “Use” Her Baby?

Can Breastfeeding Be a Contraceptive Behavior?

Sunday, August 12th, 2007

Some readers may think this is a silly question; they may not realize that breastfeeding really can delay the return of fertility when it is done according to the norm of nature. Other readers may thing this is a purely speculative question or even a cruel one since it could lead to scrupulosity among sensitive mothers. But the question has been raised as a practical matter in past years and as a speculation in the past month, so it deserves a reasoned response, and that requires a consideration of the facts involved. The reason for the question is that one form of breastfeeding, ecological breastfeeding, is known to postpone the return of postpartum fertility for well over a year, on the average, so this is a real question.

Relevant facts
1. We need to define “ecological breastfeeding” because it is different from breastfeeding patterns that are common in Western culture and have little or no effect on the return of fertility. Ecology is concerned with the relationships between two organisms and how each affects the other. Ecological breastfeeding is the form of nursing in which the mother fulfills her baby’s needs for frequent suckling and her full-time presence and in which the child’s frequent suckling postpones the return of the mother’s fertility.
2. It is the baby’s suckling that provides the hormonal stimulation that postpones the return of fertility. Mothers cannot force babies to nurse. All they can do is to provide the opportunity.
3. Mothers who do ecological breastfeeding with the hope of extended breastfeeding infertility need to follow the Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding. These are simple behavioral standards that help to ensure mother-baby togetherness and frequent suckling. See the Seven Standards summary.
4. Research has shown that American mothers who follow the Seven Standards experience, on the average, their first period between 14 and 15 months postpartum. There’s a range around the average, and our research found that over 70 percent of first periods occurred between 9 and 20 months.
5. Breastfeeding infertility is part of God’s plan for mother and baby. It is an extension of the infertility a woman has during pregnancy.
6. Extended breastfeeding provides benefits to both baby and mother. National and international health organizations encourage mothers to breastfeed at least two years, and Pope John Paul II made these recommendations his own.
7. The road to extended breastfeeding is ecological breastfeeding. Few mothers who are not doing ecological breastfeeding or something very close to it will maintain a milk supply for a full year and more.
8. Ecological breastfeeding is both rewarding and demanding. Experience shows that mothers who do ecological breastfeeding continue to nurse after the return of fertility. They would not do so if their only reason for doing this form of child care was to postpone the return of fertility.

The Question
Let us assume that a mother chooses to do ecological breastfeeding for the sole purpose of postponing the return of fertility. I’m not sure if this case ever exists in real life, but we have to start with a hypothetical case.
      Would the mother who breastfeeds solely for the purpose of postponing fertility be engaging in a contraceptive behavior? “Absolutely not” is the short answer. Contraceptive behaviors violate God’s order of Creation. They seek to take apart by man’s actions what God has put together in the marriage act—“making love” and “making babies.” In both forms of natural family planning—ecological breastfeeding and systematic NFP—there is respect for the order of God’s creation. With regard to ecological breastfeeding, God made woman in such a way that the frequent suckling of her baby inhibits her fertility. The fact that we know this does not make it any less natural. Nor is it wrong to hope for the effect of breastfeeding infertility. After all, as Dr. Dominic Pedulla said about this issue in a recent e-list discussion, “If God Himself has built the good effect into the act, even as a secondary effect, it is never wrong directly to will it.”
      Would the mother who breastfeeds solely for the natural effect of baby-spacing be acting with a “contraceptive mentality?” No. We need to be careful how we use the terms “contraception” and “contraceptive mentality.” Action follows being. (In Latin, agere sequitur esse.) A person or couple with a contraceptive mentality will engage in contraceptive behaviors. Such behaviors need to be distinguished from behaviors that flow from a fearful mentality, a selfish mentality, and so on. Couples can use systematic NFP fearfully, selfishly, etc. That’s why sections 10 and 16 of Humanae Vitae teach that couples need sufficiently serious reasons to use [systematic] NFP to avoid pregnancy. (Couples don’t need any of the serious reasons mentioned in Humanae Vitae to do ecological breastfeeding. In fact the risks of not breastfeeding are sufficiently serious that spouses need sufficiently serious reasons not to breastfeed, but pursuing that is beyond our current question.)
      Let’s look at this in terms of a standard analysis of a human act.
There are three factors that constitute the morality of a human act.
      1) the thing done,
      2) the circumstances, and
      3) the intention of the person who acts.

1) In this case, the thing done is a basic human good. It is the form of baby care that gives the baby the best nutrition and nurturing.
2) The circumstances are such that they do not affect the morality of the action. The mother is able to nurse, and the baby is able to suckle.
3) The intention is the key issue here. What the hypothetical mother intends is the accomplishment of the natural effect built into the nursing mother-baby ecology. That is the normal effect that God himself has built into the nursing mother-baby ecology. Therefore, what she desires is a God-given good.
     Therefore I have to conclude that our hypothetical mother who chooses to breastfeed solely for its baby spacing effects would be doing a good thing, since the action is good and her intention is simply to pursue a God-created effect of breastfeeding. Her intention is narrow, and that is what makes the question so hypothetical.

Next week: Would a mother who chose to breastfeed solely for its baby-spacing effects be “using” her baby in a pejorative sense?

John F. Kippley
Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality (Ignatius)
Natural Family Planning: The Question-Answer Book, a short, easy-to-read, free, downloadable e-book available at
www.NFPandmore.org

Posted in Ecological Breastfeeding | Comments Off on Can Breastfeeding Be a Contraceptive Behavior?

« Older Entries