Debate on Terms of Use (actually more of a question)
Wed, 2007-07-11 19:04
If this statement in the terms of use is true: "We welcome healthy and polite debate concerning the issues of breastfeeding, bottle-feeding or both," then why have many threads in this forum been deleted as well as every single comment from the blogs? Most of them were very well-formulated debates and *were* written with respect.
I just want an honest answer from a moderator here...
(edited for spelling - whoops!)
Tue, 2007-07-17 20:12
#2
Debate on Terms of Use (actually more of a question)
I do not understand - if you do not like the site, the women who run it or the rules of the site, why keep coming back.
Tue, 2007-07-17 20:51
#3
Debate on Terms of Use (actually more of a question)
ChrisT,
Thank you!!!
Lisa
Tue, 2007-07-17 20:58
#4
Debate on Terms of Use (actually more of a question)
ChrisT wrote:
I do not understand - if you do not like the site, the women who run it or the rules of the site, why keep coming back.
I read and post here, despite my distaste for the formula industry that runs this site, because I care about women's access to reliable information and effective support for breastfeeding.
This website is not neutral. It is not a friendly neighborhood resource for all mothers regardless of their infant feeding choices. It is political and corporate propaganda, designed to sell more artificial baby milk and win a political battle for access to new mothers and babies via the healthcare system.
My posts speak out against this site's manipulation of public discourse on breastfeeding. I am here to call out their lies and misinformation and to present a more truthful account of breastfeeding advocacy in general and of the "Ban the Bags" campaign in particular.
Do you understand this? If not, please ask more questions -- we'll be happy to answer them.
Fri, 2007-07-20 15:09
#5
Debate on Terms of Use (actually more of a question)
SongBH...
You're not exactly neutral either? Are all of the other websites that you go to neutral? All of the forums you participate in... them too?
If you would slow down just a minute, take a DEEP breath and realize that your calling the Kettle black in EVERY SINGLE POST that you make. You make blanket statements without realizing that your attempt to help mothers, may actually hurt them in the long run. How? By scaring mothers who NEED to bottle-feed from doing so. There are people like that you know...
I might even agree with you (might) but your just hurting your cause more by being a hypocrite.
Fri, 2007-07-20 17:48
#6
Debate on Terms of Use (actually more of a question)
No, most forums are not neutral. But then other websites are not wolves in sheeps clothing. Other websites are not PR masquerading as a grassroots campaign started by a plain old mom. Other websites don't employ nurses to spread misinformation.
This site is not about helping mothers. Not a stitch of it. Call a spade a spade.
Sun, 2007-07-22 01:36
#7
Debate on Terms of Use (actually more of a question)
token wrote:
SongBH...
You're not exactly neutral either? Are all of the other websites that you go to neutral? All of the forums you participate in... them too?
If you would slow down just a minute, take a DEEP breath and realize that your calling the Kettle black in EVERY SINGLE POST that you make. You make blanket statements without realizing that your attempt to help mothers, may actually hurt them in the long run. How? By scaring mothers who NEED to bottle-feed from doing so. There are people like that you know...
I might even agree with you (might) but your just hurting your cause more by being a hypocrite.
I don't understand why you call me a hypocrite. A hypocrite is someone who says one thing but does the opposite -- someone who, for example, criticizes others for a perceived fault while she herself has the same fault. What fault have I criticized here that I also share? Do I spread misinformation in order to sabotage women's infant feeding choices? No. Do I accept money unethically to write what I write? No. Where, then, is the hypocrisy?
I have not claimed to be neutral. I have claimed to offer factual information and to speak truthfully. The facts -- the truth -- are not neutral. Breastfeeding is normal and optimal. Not breastfeeding introduces avoidable risks. People who make money by undermining breastfeeding are acting unethically. These are true statements, and they are not neutral statements.
In my breastfeeding work, I have often encouraged mothers to supplement with formula, when the situation warrants it, while helping them to solve their breastfeeding problems. I always base that suggestion on recommended, evidence-based practices, with the baby's well-being as our shared (and obvious) top priority. Therefore, your suggestion that I scare mothers away from bottle-feeding is a baseless accusation. Please retract it.
Tue, 2007-07-24 18:44
#8
Debate on Terms of Use (actually more of a question)
songbh wrote:
This website is not neutral. It is not a friendly neighborhood resource for all mothers regardless of their infant feeding choices. It is political and corporate propaganda, designed to sell more artificial baby milk and win a political battle for access to new mothers and babies via the healthcare system.
You said that this website was not neutral. Then, in the same sentence, you accused the website of pandering to its own agenda.
Now you claim that you are not neutral. Clearly you also must have your own agenda. If you are freely admitting that the other forums and sites you visit are not neutral, then how can you blast this one for being the same way? THAT is the hypocrisy. Go on to the other websites and tell them to take off anything that promotes breastfeeding OR formula. Somehow I don't see that happening.
You can't ask this site to be "neutral" if your idea of neutral is the opposite of what this site is about (clearly, the freedom to use formula). Just because your idea of neutral is "I'm right, you are bad people" does not necessarily make it so.
You just want to be able to choose your own propaganda and force decisions on other people with your scare tactics. Debate is fine; what you do is laughable.
Tue, 2007-07-24 21:51
#9
Debate on Terms of Use (actually more of a question)
token wrote:
You just want to be able to choose your own propaganda and force decisions on other people with your scare tactics. Debate is fine; what you do is laughable.
Another one of these "force" comments. How can somebody that you don't even know *force* a decision on you through the Internet?
The problem with this website is that it uses all the words to get our defenses up: "choice," "freedom," etc. It is actually making you think that other mothers' opinions, advice, or knowledge of facts on breastfeeding will take away somebody's freedom and rights... which just doesn't even make sense. The big thing here is that this site claims to be set up to try to help women keep their "free choice" - like there is an actual threat to bottlefeeding mothers that somehow, they will all be forced to nurse their babies. The only "threat" is that the banthebags site wants formula samples (marketing) banned from places of health such as hospitals. But the authors of this site make it out to sound like bottlefeeding mothers' very rights may be stripped from them... they even go so far as to call the banthebags site "ban the bottle."
The site is just here to cause mothers to fight... and is that what we really want?
In reference to other sites not being neutral... most other sites don't take a public health issue and twist it to make it into a fight about people's "freedom of choice." I don't see any websites that talk about how car seat laws (requiring heavier and older children to be in car seats for longer times) are taking away our "freedom of transportation choices" and is just "making parents feel guilty." Obviously that issue is not as deep as this one... but the point is that while it is fine for a site to have an agenda, they should come out and state what that agenda is, or at least post info that goes with their agenda. I'm sure that most sites that songbh and others visit tend to stick to their agenda.
Tue, 2007-07-24 22:09
#10
Debate on Terms of Use (actually more of a question)
And just as an example, here's something from this site - the petition, which is *supposed* to be about keeping the formula marketing through samples in the hospitals:
"We know that making the best choice for feeding a new baby is one of the first and most important decisions a parent will ever make. Whether a mom chooses breastfeeding or bottle feeding, we strongly believe all moms deserve access to the best information on the safe, nutritious options available to them. We oppose any effort to restrict the distribution of educational information, including infant formula samples, to new moms in the hospital. And we support moms' ability to breastfeed their babies when and where they need to. Let moms make the choice that's best for them and their baby based on knowledge, and we're confident they'll choose well. Because one thing's for sure, moms know best!"
Note that they say "information, including samples." That is all they say about the real issue in the above five sentences. They use other words to make it emotional, saying "moms know best," and "let moms choose," as if not giving them samples of formula in the hospital is somehow denying their right to choose. It's just words to play on emotion, as proven by the many signatures on the petition which include comments such as, "Let moms choose!" whereas there are very few comments that address the real issue of "keep samples in the hospitals." They have made the bigger issue here be the "freedom of choice" rather than the samples in the hospitals.
Formula samples are not "educational information." The ones I have gotten do not contain any information - just a can of formula and some random things like a "what to name your baby" pamphlet. But absolutely zero info on feeding an infant, beyond what is printed on the can of formula. In fact, there was also a sample of some DHA supplement "for nursing moms." Great - so now they also send the message that "your breastmilk won't be good enough, so you should buy *this* product from us." I went to a talk on this yesterday, actually, about how there are messages in marketing that our milk won't be good enough for whatever reason. We don't watch TV commercials as "educational information" when deciding on anything else - which schools to send our kids to, whether to eat organic or "regular" produce, which discipline methods to use on our kids... we look for *real information.* Formula samples are not information - they are *marketing,* and nothing more.
Wed, 2007-07-25 11:52
#11
Debate on Terms of Use (actually more of a question)
token wrote:
If you are freely admitting that the other forums and sites you visit are not neutral, then how can you blast this one for being the same way? THAT is the hypocrisy.
token, I do not ask this website to be neutral. The website ITSELF claims to be neutral. It claims to support all infant feeding choices.
This is a false claim. The website and its writers and funders do NOT support all infant feeding choices. They push formula and undermine breastfeeding in many ways and at every opportunity. This entire website is a MARKETING TOOL designed to sell more formula.
THAT is the hypocrisy.
Any questions?
I'm disturbed by the Orwellian General Discussion guideline:
"At no point should the dialogue here turn into a debate about what is best. If it does, that post will be deleted. "
There is _no debate_ in the medical community about what is best -- the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevent, the World Health Organization, the American Public Health Association, and myriad others clearly, unequivocally, state that breastfeeding is superior to bottle feeding. Even this web site's home page writes: "Breastfeeding is the preferred choice for newborns. Study after study has proved its benefits beyond doubt."
A recent federally-funded AHRQ report reviewed the data regarding the risks of formula feeding, and concluded that there is strong evidence that formula fed babies face higher risks of ear infections, diarrhea, pneumonia, eczema, asthma, obesity, type 1 and 2 diabetes, childhood leukemia, sudden infant death syndrome, and necrotizing enterocolitis. Mothers who do not breastfeed face higher risks of type 2 diabetes, breast and ovarian cancer.
This isn't about "guilt" or "scare tactics" or "lactivism" -- this is scientific data. So why are we forbidden from acknowledging these scientific facts?
The reason is simple: formula companies don't want women to have this information. They have built a web site about "access to information" and they have deleted posts that discuss the proven health risks of formula feeding. They have also deleted comments from mothers who were undermined by formula marketing tactics, and now, they are telling us we *are not allowed* to discuss data that is the consensus of the medical community.
Why? Because every time a mother successfully puts a baby to breast, the formula industry loses a sale.
I am an Ob/Gyn, and I spend a large part of my day discussing infant feeding decisions with my patients. I understand that each individual woman weighs the risks and benefits of breastfeeding vs. formula feeding for her baby and her family. For some women, the known risks of infant formula are outweighed by the risks, for her, of breastfeeding.
I have open discussions with my patients, and I consider it my responsibility to make sure that they make an informed choice about how to feed their infants. I also spend a great deal of time with the mother for whom breastfeeding does not go well. If it’s simply impossible for her, I make sure to honor all the efforts that she made to breastfeed. We mourn the loss of what she had wanted for herself and her baby – and we discuss that we are fortunate that we live in an era where formula exists for the rare cases when breastfeeding can’t succeed.
But I take umbrage at the suggestion that we should withhold the truth about the health risks of not breastfeeding because formula-feeding mothers might "feel guilty." That's not respecting "freedom." That, like everything on this formula industry propaganda website, is patronizing.