There is a call today to stop calling breastfeeding “natural”.
A surprising call from respected members of the medical profession. Framed with good intent, but a call that might leave many women, like me, wondering whether they just think we are all stupid.
Its been prompted by an (unproven) link between the use of the phrase “natural” in respect to breastfeeding and the anti-vaccination movement, who claim that latching on to the notion that natural is better.
It came from an article in the journal Pediatrics. The authors ask health professionals to stop saying that breastfeeding is natural as doing so, they claim, gives the impression that natural parenting practices are healthier.
You follow?
If we hammer home that breastfeeding is the best because it is natural then we could be giving the impression it’s best to avoid drugs. Via IStock.
In the article, Unintended Consequences of Invoking the “Natural” in Breastfeeding Promotion, Jessica Martucci and Anne Barnhill, Medical Ethics and Health Policy researchers at Penn Medicine started a public campaign to end the positive use of the word natural, claiming that it is associated with such "problematic" practices as home birth, homeschooling and the rejection of GMO foods, and that natural parenting movements are interfering with vaccination efforts.
While it could be easy to dismiss it as politically correct nonsense from a couple of policy researchers far removed from the real world, it is troubling that their call has been today backed up by Brisbane obstetrician and former AMA Queensland president Gino Pecoraro.
He told The Courier Mail:
“If we hammer home that breastfeeding is the best because it is natural then we could be giving the impression it’s best to avoid drugs or medical advances that can save lives — like vaccinations.
Top Comments
The author writes the phrase "[Breastfeeding] It’s a preferable, natural option, but an option of two methods that are both okay." and doesn't realize she's counteracting her own argument! :-/
"...for the most part women are pretty cluey". I don't think the concern is for most women. It is for the rising demographic of anti-vaxxers and the whole part of society that do need help. I work in community services - there is a large group in Australia that does need help, advice and guidance to parent well. They are the ones who are being targeted and it's correct for our programs, funding and effort be invested to influence those who do not know better to combat other dangerous messaging.
"Dangerous messaging" - well, what exactly does that mean, and what do you mean by "help"?
Exactly! You can also argue we're not idiots, we know seat belts save lives - but there's a good reason not wearing one carries a penalty... not everyone gets the same education or messages. It's easy to argue from the standpoint of education and privilege that we all know this already, but just because you and your friends all do doesn't mean everyone does. You need to get out into society and mingle a bit, there's a lot of heterogeneity out there.
I mean dangerous messaging such as unbalanced anti-vax messaging (I'm talking about groups who won't/can't do their own research). I mean help through parenting courses, support groups, home visits by our community services workers to help them set up a routine and budget and buy necessary items for safe parenting. A lot of gov programs seem basic to those lucky to have a full education and raised in a functional family but they can make a tangible difference to the quality of life and future hopes of a generation of kids in struggling family units.
So you're assuming that if parents aren't vaccinating, they are either poor or stupid, or both?