This is another brilliant article about skin to skin kangaroo care.  Sometimes we need to questions advanced technology and step back in time to simpler methods- basic methods that answer both the baby's needs and the needs of his mother.

The Human Incubator

By TINA ROSENBERG

Bullit Marquez/Associated PressA mother in the Philippines used the warmth of her body to nurture her prematurely born daughter.

Sometimes, the best way to progress isn’t to advance — to step up with more money, more technology, more modernity. It’s to retreat.
Towards the end of the 1970s, the Mother and Child Institute in Bogota, Colombia, was in deep trouble. The institute was the city’s obstetrical reference hospital, where most of the city’s poor women went to give birth. Nurses and doctors were in short supply. In the newly created neonatal intensive care unit, there were so few incubators that premature babies had to share them — sometimes three to an incubator. The crowded conditions spread infections, which are particularly dangerous for preemies. The death rate was high.
Dr. Edgar Rey, the chief of the pediatrics department, could have attempted to do what many other hospital officials would have done: wage a political fight for more money, more incubators and more staff.

He would likely have lost. What was happening at the Mother and Child Institute was not unusual. Conditions were much better, in fact, than at most public hospitals in the third world. Hospitals that mainly serve the poor have very little political clout, which means that conditions in their wards sometimes seem to have been staged by Hieronymous Bosch. They have too much disease, too few nurses and sometimes no doctors at all. They can be so crowded that patients sleep on the floor and so broke that people must bring their own surgical gloves and thread. I recently visited a hospital in Ethiopia that didn’t even have water — the nurses washed their hands after they got home at night.

Proof that more money and more technology isn’t always the answer.

Rey thought about the basics. What is the purpose of an incubator? It is to keep a baby warm, oxygenated and nourished — to simulate as closely as possible the conditions of the womb. There is another mechanism for accomplishing these goals, Rey reasoned, the same one that cared for the baby during its months of gestation. Rey also felt, something that probably all mothers feel intuitively: that one reason babies in incubators did so poorly was that they were separated from their mothers. Was there a way to avoid the incubator by employing the baby’s mother instead?
What he came up with is an idea now known as kangaroo care. Aspects of kangaroo care are now in use even in wealthy countries — most hospitals in the United States, for example, have adopted some kangaroo care practices. But its real impact has been felt in poor countries, where it has saved countless preemies’ lives and helped others to survive with fewer problems.

Agence France-Presse A mother and child in Colombia, where the “kangaroo care” method was first used in the late 1970s.

In Rey’s system, a mother of a preemie puts the baby on her exposed chest, dressed only in a diaper and sometimes a cap, in an upright or semi-upright position. The baby is strapped in by a scarf or other cloth sling supporting its bottom, and all but its head is covered by mom’s shirt. The mother keeps the baby like that, skin-to-skin, as much as possible, even sleeping in a reclining chair. Fathers and other relatives or friends can wear the baby as well to give the mother a break. Even very premature infants can go home with their families (with regular follow-up visits) once they are stable and their mothers are given training.
The babies stay warm, their own temperature regulated by the sympathetic biological responses that occur when mother and infant are in close physical contact. The mother’s breasts, in fact, heat up or cool down depending on what the baby needs. The upright position helps prevent reflux and apnea. Feeling the mother’s breathing and heartbeat helps the babies to stabilize their own heart and respiratory rates. They sleep more. They can breastfeed at will, and the constant contact encourages the mother to produce more milk. Babies breastfeed earlier and gain more weight.
The physical closeness encourages emotional closeness, which leads to lower rates of abandonment of premature infants. This was a serious problem among the patients of Rey’s hospital; without being able to hold and bond with their babies, some mothers had little attachment to counter their feelings of being overwhelmed with the burdens of having a preemie. But kangaroo care also had enormous benefits for parents. Every parent, I think, can understand the importance of holding a baby instead of gazing at him in an incubator. With kangaroo care, parents and baby go through less stress. Nurses who practice kangaroo care also report that mothers also feel more confident and effective because they are the heroes in their babies’ care, instead of passive bystanders watching a mysterious process from a distance.
The hospitals were the third beneficiaries. Kangaroo care freed up incubators. Getting preemies home as soon as they were stable also lessened overcrowding and allowed nurses and doctors to concentrate on the patients who needed them most.
Kangaroo care has been widely studied. A trial in a Bogota hospital of 746 low birth weight babies randomly assigned to either kangaroo or conventional incubator care found that the kangaroo babies had shorter hospital stays, better growth of head circumference and fewer severe infections. They had slightly better rates of survival, but the difference was not statistically significant. Other studies have found fewer differences between kangaroo and conventional methods. A conservative summary of the evidence to date is that kangaroo care is at least as good as conventional treatment — and perhaps better.

HERE to read the entire article in the NYTimes

Donor human milk: a human rights issue

This article is quite long but well worth the read as it brings together a lot of excellent information and points about the importance of Human milk for Human babies, and the responsibilities our governments should be taking to make sure that all babies receive breast milk.  But one of the absolute BEST parts of this article is the fact that it gives a WHO (world health organization) Hierarchy of Feeding Choices- that lists regular infant formula as FIFTH and LAST choice for infant feeding. 

Global health policies that support the use of banked donor human milk: a human rights issue

Lois DW Arnold¹

¹National Commission on Donor Milk Banking, American Breastfeeding Institute, 327 Quaker Meeting House Road, East Sandwich, MA 02537, USA

Corresponding author.

Lois DW Arnold

Review

Donor milk banking thrives in countries such as Brazil, where there has been a concerted effort at the Health Ministry level to incorporate milk banks into health policy [1]. Its prime mover, Dr. Joao Aprigio Guerra de Almeida, has been honored with the prestigious WHO Sasekawa prize for making an important contribution to his country's overall health by establishing a network of donor human milk banks [2,3]. In countries where donor milk banking is protected, promoted, and supported as an extension of national breastfeeding policies, milk banking is considered a reasonable and effective part of health care delivery for infants and children.

Premature infants who are fed infant formula have a higher risk of developing necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) than when they are fed human milk, either mother's own milk or banked donor milk [4-6]. In this regard, donor milk banking could be considered preventive "medicine" in the premature population; by reducing the incidence of NEC and optimizing central nervous system development, the premature infant has a better start in life than he would have if fed premature infant formula. The argument has been made [7] that these infants become more productive members of society as adults if their health and neurological potential are maximized through optimal nutrition and appropriate health care from the start. This argument is made despite a general lack of published research on the efficacy of banked human milk because in many parts of the world there is a general belief that human milk in any form is superior to manufactured infant formulas. This is contrary to the pervading philosophy among many health care providers, especially in the US, that infant formula and human milk are equivalent.

If donor milk banking has been incorporated into national public health policy and regulation, (such as France [8,9], Germany [10,11], and the Scandinavian countries [12]) and/or in other countries with socialized medicine, such as Canada and Great Britain, parents do not have to pay out of pocket to receive this service for their infants; it is provided as part of a national health insurance plan to any infant with a medical need. In countries such as the United States, where there is no federal public health policy supporting donor milk banking or regulation of its operations, growth of donor milk banking services has been severely hampered and the recipient population remains underserved.

This review examines the existing international policies from the United Nations, the World Health Organization and UNICEF into which donor milk banking may be specifically integrated. While these policies often do not refer directly to either donor milk banking or breastfeeding, many of them protect, promote and support optimal health. Where the support is indirect, through breastfeeding protection, promotion and support, it can be inferred that donor milk banking "fits" in these policy statements because the support is for a form of human milk delivery. These policies can therefore be interpreted as being supportive of the earliest measures to achieve optimal health, breastfeeding and its adjunct, donor milk banking. Any nation, whether signatory to these agreements or not, thus has a basis for arguing that policies already exist that protect and support donor milk banking and that these policies establish a standard for action. Even if a human rights convention is not ratified or enforced, a precedent has been set and the right remains for that country's citizens.

• Human rights conventions from the United Nations

On December 10, 1948 the United Nations adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights [13]. Article 25 states that "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care ...". Mothers and children are identified as being entitled to special care and assistance. All children should be provided with the same protection, meaning that sick or premature infants and children must be afforded the same opportunities for achieving good health as a healthy infant or child. While not specified, breastfeeding or the provision of human milk to an infant/child who is unable to nurse is of paramount importance. In the absence of their own mothers' milk, banked donor milk has a role to play in providing for health and well being of this special category of infants and children.

Human rights involve the relationship between a government and its individual citizens. While individuals clearly have some responsibility in terms of their behavior, governments must also take an active role to ensure that the weakest individuals are protected equally as much as the strongest. In developing its human rights conventions, the United Nations places responsibility on governments to protect the rights of its citizens. However, UN conventions do not have the force of law in any country. It is expected that the signatory nations will develop their own legislation to implement the conventions and provide protection of basic human rights in this way [14,15].

Bar-Yam [16,17] has reviewed the United Nations (UN) human rights conventions and placed breastfeeding and human milk in the conventions addressing children's rights, women's rights, and the right to health and health care. The UN conventions on children's rights clearly refer to all children and do not distinguish whether children are sick or well. What is inferred is that if a child is sick then the family and government have clear moral obligations to remedy the situation where possible to "provide the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health." [[18], Article 12]. Breastfeeding and human milk, including banked donor milk, take on even greater significance for premature and sick infants and children.

Does "breastfeeding" mean merely consuming human milk or really being fed at the breast? If the baby/mother has the right to feed at the breast, then it is the mother's moral obligation to do so. She needs to take advantage of her right and utilize it. This requires government protection at the national level (e.g., legislation to protect families from formula company marketing tactics or legislation that protects the breastfeeding relationship for working mothers), promotion (e.g., national campaigns to inform the public of the benefits of breastfeeding/hazards of infant formula), and support (e.g., funding of mother-to-mother and peer counselor programs, doulas, and voluntary or professional breastfeeding counselors/consultants that instill self confidence in breastfeeding mothers and provide information, recommendations, and assistance when problems arise). If the mother is unable to feed at the breast, then it is the government that is morally obligated to provide another source of breastfeeding or human milk (e.g., a wet nurse or cooperating mother, where culturally acceptable, or milk from a donor milk bank). If the right is interpreted as the baby's right to be fed human milk, then the moral obligation falls on the mother to provide it. In the absence of the mother's breastfeeding or providing her own expressed milk, it falls to the government to provide human milk in some other way, such as through a milk bank [16].

In 1967, the UN adopted the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights [18]. Article 12 states that all individuals have the right to the "highest attainable standard of physical and mental health." Countries need to take steps to lower infant mortality and ensure the healthy development of the child [[17], p. 32]. Breastfeeding and human milk fit into this convention well. There is a definitive relationship of infant formula feeding with an increase in infant mortality rates and poorer infant and child health outcomes [19,20]. Banked donor milk has been used to reduce morbidity and infant mortality. Donor milk feedings reduce the number of days of hospitalization required by the presence of NEC. (According to Bisquera et al, [21] a resolved case of NEC extends the hospital stay by approximately two weeks.) Additionally, if fewer cases of NEC result, then fewer surgeries are required to remove necrotic portions of the gut and fewer individuals therefore have surgically-induced short bowel syndrome and life-long malabsorption problems [22].

The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women was adopted in 1981. This convention recognizes that certain groups require special protection. According to Article 5b, "...the interest of the children is the primordial consideration in all cases." [23]. Family education becomes an important factor so that adult family members understand the importance of motherhood and that mothers raise future members of the society and culture. Pregnant women and mothers should, therefore, be afforded special protection so that they might care for their children in an optimal way. If the interests of the child have top priority, providing them optimal nutrition when they most need it should also be a priority. Breastfeeding and banked donor milk fit here as needing special protection.

Several articles in the Declaration and Convention on the Rights of the Child [24] also apply to donor milk banking. Article 3 reiterates that the best interests of the child are primary. This belief has previously been expressed in the earlier declarations relating to children's rights as well as other UN conventions [12,18,25]. Article 18 specifies that governments should provide assistance to families through institutional and legislative support. [[17], pp. 37–38]. In relation to breastfeeding and the use of human milk this means that a country has a responsibility for protecting breastfeeding through legislation, including legislation to restrict marketing practices of infant formula companies. If other forms of infant nutrition are needed, the manufacture of these foods should be regulated for safety and adequacy. In terms of donor milk banking, this means that governments need to ensure that human milk alternatives to infant formula are provided and that there exists quality control and governmental or other legislative oversight to ensure that human milk obtained from other mothers can be fed safely to an unrelated infant/child.

Breastfeeding is addressed directly in the Convention on the Rights of the Child in Article 24. The article begins by saying that "States Parties recognize the right of the child to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health and to the facilities for the treatment of illness and rehabilitation of health." [24]. Because donor milk is primarily used as therapeutic nutrition for infants whose health requires improvement, donor milk banks become facilities that are an integral part of the process of treatment and rehabilitation. Governments therefore need to actively become involved in the creation of these facilities and/or their operation. Various ways that governments can do this are to: make national policy statements about the importance of donor milk banking; provide seed money or continuous funding for the establishment and operation of donor milk banks; provide regulatory and research support as well as expert consultation on standards of operation; and implement the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes [26] so that donor milk can compete fairly with commercially available manufactured breast milk substitutes.

Article 24 continues by stating that breastfeeding is an activity for the whole society (Section 2e). Mothers are not mandated to breastfeed, but governments are mandated to educate all mothers and parents so that they can make informed choices. [[17], pp 39–40] By extension, this means that parents should also be educated about the uses of banked donor milk and its benefits, so that they know about this option and can request it if necessary.

HERE to read the entire article

THIS is why we boycott Nestle...

...among many other reasons. 

For me, it was the first time I saw this picture that I made the decision to never buy a Nestle product again.  When I saw this picture and read this woman's story, I cried for days. (yes, I was pregnant at the time, but hormones aside- can YOU look at this picture and not get teary?).
Infant formula KILLS babies in these third world countries. (Hell, Infant formula kills babies in North America too! And infant formula companies just keep mass marketing their product to these unsuspecting mothers regardless of the death toll. Sick.

One baby lived.

The other died.

(This is a TRUE photgraph and a true story.  In some countries, women are told not to fully nurish girls, because the governments do not want them to live.  Boys are a much more valuable asset, especially in countries where they control the population.  This photo shows the difference between a baby boy being breastfed and a baby girl being forumla fed.  Formula feeding babies in other countries without clean water sources, access to more forumla, or the proper serving sized proves, as in this photo, to be deadly. Boycott Nestlé!)

"Use my picture if it will help" said this mother.  The children are twins, the bottle-fed child is a girl who died the day after this photograph was taken by UNICEF in Islamabad, Pakistan.  Her brother was breastfed and thrived.   The mother was incorrectly told she could not breastfeed both children.  This horrific picture demonstrates the risk of artificial infant feeding, particularly where water supplies are unsafe.  The expense of formula can lead to parents over-diluting it to make it last longer or using unsuitable milk powders or animal milks.  In all countries breastfeeding provides immunity against infections.  Despite these risks the baby food industry aggressively markets breastmilk substitutes encouraging mothers and health workers to favour artifical infant feeding over breastfeeding.  Such tactics break marketing standards adopted by the World Health Assembly. Nestlé, the world's largest food company, is found to be responsible for more violations than any other company and is the target of an international boycott.

SCN News May 1991

This picture tells two stories: most obviously, about the often fatal consequences of bottle-feeding; more profoundly, about the age-old bias in favour of the male. The child with the bottle is a girl - she died the next day. Her twin brother was breasfed. This woman was told by her mother-in-law that she didn't have enough milk for both her children, and so she should breastfeed the boy. But almost certainly she could have fed both her children herself, because the process of suckling induces the production of milk. However, even if she found that she could not produce sufficient milk - unlikly as that would be - a much better alternative to bottle-feeding would have been to find a wet-nurse. Ironically, this role has sometimes been taken by the grandmother. In most cultures, before the advent of bottle-feeding, wet-nursing was common practice....

HERE to read the entire article

The High Cost of Caesarean Sections

Almost weekly now we are reading news stories in North American main stream media about our appalling maternal and infant mortality rates in Canada and the US, which I've written about many times:

*"Canada’s reputation for low infant mortality takes stunning decline"

*Canada gets a "C" for infant mortality

*Amnesty blows the whistle on Maternal Mortality rates in the US

*"Emotional Impact of Caesareans"

This week is continuing the tradition with yet another article on the High cost of Caesarean Sections- both in loss of life and financially.  You have to wonder if the Medical Machine is ever going to wake up and realize that THEY are the problem right now.  Study after Study has been done to show the increased risks that come with Caesarean Section births, especially elective C/Sections. More and more women and babies are suffering from needless trauma, and horrifyingly our maternal and infant mortality rates just keep climbing.  Various medical organizations have pointed fingers at North America's high preterm birth rates and an increase in multiple births due to fertility treatments as reasons for the decline, but they refuse to accept that the biggest reasons are the use of chemical inductions, epidurals and C/Section.

Do I sound like a broken record?   I really hate sounding like a one hit wonder.  But I'll keep roaring from my soap box and hopefully someone will listen. Even if it's just a pregnant first time mom who needs to hear the truth.

(as usual the highlighted areas are my own)

The high cost of caesareans

By Timothy R. B. Johnson and Judy Norsigian June 28, 2010

FOR A symbol of what ails the US health system, look no further than hospital delivery rooms, where costly caesareans, many for non-medical reasons, are inching closer to a majority of all births.

 

Even though caesareans are associated with higher rates of complications than vaginal births, they are becomingly increasingly common. Problems range from infections, including the more serious antibiotic-resistant ones, to blood clots, prematurity, respiratory problems for the baby, and more complications with subsequent pregnancies. There is even a small but measurably higher risk of death for the mother.

Between 2000 and 2006, while the Massachusetts caesarean rate climbed from 16th to 10th highest among all states, the state’s ranking on neonatal mortality has slipped from 4th best to a tie for 9th. Six hospitals in the state have caesarean rates greater than 40 percent for first time mothers, yet none of these hospitals is designated as a high-risk center. So much for the argument that high-risk pregnancies are the reason for these rates.

There are also cost consequences for taxpayers — the caesarean rate for Massachusetts mothers on Medicaid is increasing at a faster pace than among privately insured mothers. Nationally, in 2008, average hospital charges for an uncomplicated caesarean section were $14,894, while such charges for an uncomplicated vaginal birth were $8,919.

What can we do to lower the caesarean rate? Considerable media attention has focused on how extreme obesity can raise the risk of having a caesarean, but more emphasis is needed on these system-based approaches:

■More hospitals need to institute policies that restrict the induction of labor, unless there is a good medical reason. Unfortunately, labor is now sometimes induced solely for the convenience of the physician or the mother, and labor induction increases the likelihood of a caesarean section in many women. Almost all the recent increase in late preterm (34 to 36 weeks) births was related to planned caesareans carried out too soon, and the rise in premature and low-birth-weight babies has required more expensive hospital-based care to address the medical problems of these infants.

■Obstetricians and hospitals should follow the new National Institute of Health recommendations to offer the option of vaginal birth after a caesarean for those women who want to avoid repeat surgery. As noted in a recent NIH press release, “Although as many as 60 percent of hospitals in some states routinely prohibit vaginal delivery by women who have had a caesarean section, that practice is out of step with current medical research.’’

Expanding this option would require that the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists amend a recommendation that hospitals have 24/7 presence of an anesthesiologist if they choose to offer vaginal births after a caesarean. Because of this recommendation, many hospitals concerned about liability refuse to allow them. Yet those same hospitals find it acceptable to call in an off-site anesthesiologist when mothers need an emergency caesarean for any other reason.

■Hospitals could expand access to nurse-midwifery care. In Boston, statistics for hospitals that care for women facing the same risk of complications show that hospitals with nurse-midwifery services tend to have lower caesarean rates than those without a significant midwifery presence.

 HERE to read the entire article

"Canada’s reputation for low infant mortality takes stunning decline"

WEll, now... can any of my wonderful readers point out some of the REAL reasons that our infant mortality rate has risen?  Shall we list them?

1- mass use of chemical induction methods to start child birth instead of waiting until baby is READY to be born
2- mass use of epidurals on labouring women which then leads to further medical interventions, which in turn leads to more medical interventions, and most often associated with "emergency" caesarean sections due to fetal distress.
3- constant electronic monitoring of the labouring mother and baby- interfering with the mothers ability to move around and follow her bodies instincts to bring baby to birth, and giving out false information on the condition of the baby, leading to diagnosis of "fetal distress" sending the mother directly to the OR for a Caesarean Section.
4- the inability of the medical machine to leave well enough alone and let mothers labour as they wish without being hammered on by medical staff "trying to help" by constantly meddling and coercing mothers to allow medical interventions that they do not want or need.
5- Hospitals  and doctors that have sky high 9-5 caesarean section rates- pushing the national average to almost 1 in 4 surgical births
6- hospital and doctors that  pretend to be VBAC friendly, yet create hurdles so high that it is virtually impossible for a labouring mother to have a Vaginal birth after previous Caesarean section.
7- hospitals, doctors and midwives that  out right REFUSE to care for a woman who wishes to have a VBAC birth after 2 or more previous C/S's- regardless of the fact that the studies show it is just as safe as a VBAC after only 1 previous C/S, and that the statistics for uterine rupture are less than .75%!!!!
8- mass scale use of Ultra Sound technologies, that give unpredictable results and have a very high margin for error, leading to premature inductions and surgical births.
9- even the most seemingly innocent interventions and policies- like limiting a labouring mothers food intake, or making her change into a hospital gown, or having student/residents/interns in the room during  discussions with medical personnel can disrupt the natural cycle of a birthing woman and lead to unnatural interventions.

Each and every one of the above listed problems with our current childbirth methods is KNOWN to increase the risk of  infant deaths. Multiple studies show that Caesarean Sections increase the incidents of infant respiratory distress and infant mortality exponentially as compared to natural vaginal birth.  And each of the medical interventions that are so carelessly used in L&D wards lead to a much high risk of having to have a C/S.

Yes, the reasons given below in the article are valid reasons, but they are not the most important nor the most common. The cause of most preterm births is still a mystery to the medical community and further studies definitely should be done to determine the cause....But instead of putting all their focus on this one "unknown", they need to focus the majority of their attention on the problems that they DO understand, the reasons that already have been studied, that the Facts that are already known.  Hospitals and Doctors need to analyse the way they approach birth and start taking responsibility for THEIR actions and how they effect the Canadian Infant Mortality Rate. A "National Birthing Plan" is great- but it needs to address the REAL statistics and the REAL reason that the infant mortality rate is climbing.  Yes, focusing on preterm and low birth weight births is important and will save the lives of thousands of babies in our country each year, but without dealing with the most common birthing occurrences that relate to and cause infant deaths they will only be putting a small bandage on an arterial bleed.

As usual, WE the birthing parents need to bring these matters to the attention of the powers that be!!  Write letters, email MPPs and MPs, phone your local city councilperson...It all starts with ONE.

(as usual, the highlighted areas are my addition)

Canada’s reputation for low infant mortality takes stunning decline

Once at No. 6 in world ranking, ‘shockingly high’ death rate now puts Canada at No. 24, prompting urgent request to Health Minister

Lisa Priest-From Saturday's Globe and Mail Published on Saturday, May. 22, 2010 3:00AM EDT Last updated on Saturday, May. 22, 2010 9:58AM EDT.

 

Once able to boast about its high world ranking for low infant mortality, Canada has now dropped from sixth to 24th place – just above Hungary and Poland.
The death rate of infants less than one year of age – 5.1 per 1,000 live births – has been called “shockingly high” and translates into 1,881 mortalities in 2007, according to the most recent data collected by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
About three-quarters of those deaths occurred in the first 27 days of life.

“ It should always be a little bit embarrassing if you are not number one. ”— Douglas McMillan, a neonatologist at the IWK Health Centre in Halifax.

The drop in ranking below countries such as Sweden, Japan, Finland, France, Ireland and Greece has prompted a prominent doctors group to request an urgent meeting with the federal Health Minister to push for a national birthing strategy.
“We’re losing our reputation,” said André Lalonde, executive vice-president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists of Canada. “We have fallen way behind.”
The main causes cited by researchers are poverty, isolation, premature births and to some degree, the way the data are collected. For example, in Canada, infant mortality includes the death of any breathing infant, even very early births and terminations due to congenital abnormalities after 20 weeks gestation, but other countries have different measures.
Still, experts say Canada could learn from other countries – Japan and Sweden among them – that have low infant death rates. Japan is successful in resuscitating premature babies, while Sweden has regulations dictating that with IVF treatments, only one embryo can be transferred into the womb at a time. (Other countries implant multiple embryos, leading to more multiple births and higher risk.) Canada’s aboriginal community has traditionally seen high infant death rates due to poverty and remote locales, but those numbers alone do not explain the country’s low ranking, says Michael Kramer, scientific director of the Institute of Human Development, Child and Youth Health, Canadian Institutes of Health Research.
“The concern is that we’re not really making any impact on reducing the incidence of these spontaneously born very pre-term infants,” Mr. Kramer said. “We don’t really know enough about what causes them, that’s the challenge – that’s where we need to make improvements.”
Premature babies are at increased risk for infant mortality. About 54,000 out of 350,000 babies were born prematurely or small for their gestational age in 2006-07, according to the latest Canadian Institute for Health Information figures.
Part of a solution, according to Dr. Lalonde, is a national birthing plan, which he estimates would cost $43.5-million over five years. It recommends federal leadership in seven key areas, including a mechanism to accurately gather data, a focus on maternity patient safety, implementing national standardized practice guidelines, and a coalition that would create a model of sustainable maternity and newborn care.
Tim Vail, spokesman for Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq, said representatives from the minister’s office will meet with the doctors group, and are currently working on a date.
Prakesh Shah, a neonatologist at Mount Sinai Hospital, belongs to an advisory group for Ontario’s strategy on late pre-term births. Socioeconomic factors – such as impoverishment – are a big part of preterm births, he says, as are delaying pregnancy and the increasing number of in-vitro fertilization pregnancies.
Dr. Shah recently sent a team to Estonia – which was tied in 2005 with Canada for its infant mortality – and found that other countries treat premature babies and their mothers much differently than in Canada.
“In Estonia, mothers stay in hospital until baby is discharged home and provide most of the care for their babies. Nurses act as consultant to mothers,” said Dr. Shah. “Here, we have medicalized the care in such a way that parents are less involved during hospitalization and suddenly, one day when baby comes home, they are expected to provide complete care. It’s an entirely different concept.”
Even the Conference Board of Canada has described this country’s rate of infant mortality as “shockingly high,” causing many to wonder: How can such a rich country do so poorly with its most vulnerable citizens?
“It should always be a little bit embarrassing if you are not number one,” said Douglas McMillan, a neonatologist at the IWK Health Centre in Halifax. “You are dealing with the most precious thing the family will have in their whole life; we need to be cognizant of that.”

 HERE to read the original article

Botulism spores found in 7 of 9 samples of Infant Formula

Another scary study on the topic of tainted Infant Formula, "Presence of Soil-Dwelling Clostridia in Commercial Powdered Infant Formulas," will appear in the March 2010 Journal of Pediatrics.

Researchers studies samples from 30 infants in California that were infected with Botulism, and took samples from market purchased powdered infant formula.  7 of 9 of the samples of formula were shown to contain multiple strains of Botulism.

Because spores were linked to infant formula that caused botulism in an infant in the UK, researchers tested formula from sick US babies and store shelves and found disturbing results.
Researchers studied formula obtained from the families of nineteen babies in California who had been diagnosed with botulism.  They also purchased containers of powdered infant formulas from other sources.
Five of the 30 samples from the sick infants contained clostridial botulinium spores. Spores were also found in 7 of 9 market-purchased formula samples.  Multiple types of soil-dwelling strains of botulinum were identified.
Many types of botulinum spores are commonly found in dust and soil worldwide.  However, the strain Clostridium botulinum is particularly harmful to infants and can cause severe illness.  This strain can colonize in the intestine and produce neurotoxins leading to paralysis, a need for ventilation and even death.
Milder symptoms of botulism include constipation, a weak cry, lethargy and bulbar palsies.

 What is scarier is the fact that researchers are now looking at the link between Botulism poisoning and SIDs.

Botulism is also suspected to be linked to some infant deaths that are officially classified as SIDS.
The University of Minnesota Extension Service reports:
Because breathing is affected in the most severe stage of botulism-induced paralysis, researchers suspect a link between infant botulism and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), also known as crib death. One study done 15 years ago showed that about 5 percent of children in California whose deaths were attributed to SIDS actually had died from infant botulism. Because of the difficulty of conducting such studies, the link between SIDS and infant botulism remains poorly understood.

Other harmful pathogens have been found in US formula in the past, as well.  In 2001, a baby in Tennessee died and 10 other premature babies were sickened by formula contaminated by the bacteria Enterobacter sakazakii, which led to a recall.  Another recall was issued related to the bacteria in 2002, in which 1.5 million cans of formula were recalled.  This bacteria, which causes Cronobacter Infection, has sickened many US babies over the years.  The Enterobacter Sakazakii Watch writes "Powdered infant formula (PIF), which is not sterile, has been implicated repeatedly as a vehicle of Cronobacter infection."
The FDA stresses that at-risk infants such as premature babies should not be fed powdered infant formula because of the risks of these contaminants.  You can read more about the FDA's concerns with powdered formula here.

 So.... the FDA is recommending that "at risk" infants and premature babies should not be fed powdered infant formula.  Yet I have never once read a warning on a powdered formula label, nor seen any sort of warnings in their advertising campaigns.  Further, EVERY formula fed baby is "At Risk"!!  Multiple studies have shown that all babies that are not exclusively breastfed for the first 6 months are at a much higher risk of Gastrointestinal infections/problems, asthma, ear infections, cancer, and death, to name but a few!!!

See INFACT Canada's "Fourteen Risks of Formula Feeding" for further information.

 So we have to wonder why Doctors and hospitals and various major medical organizations are not taking a stronger stance to stop the wide spread use of infant formula.  We know the Dangers- the information is there for anyone to read- yet only a small percentage of babies born in Canada and the US are exclusively breastfed as per the recommendations of WHO and the Canadian and US paediatric societies.


Could this be because " Money Talks"?!

Infant Formula manufacturers are notorious in their flagrant disregard of the WHO International Code of Marketing Breastmilk Substitutes, and Governments are famous for ignoring these breaches of ethics, and accepting funding from these companies.

So where does this leave the innocent babies that are born in our society?  Unprotected and ignored.  Because the medical machine and the government would rather take the blood money from dirty corporations than put the health and safety of their smallest citizens first. 



HERE to read the original article

Birth is a Human Right issue

Birth Is a Human Rights Issue

by Jan Tritten

© 2009 Midwifery Today, Inc. All rights reserved.

[Editor's Note: This editorial originally appeared in Midwifery Today, Issue 92, Autumn 2009/2010.]

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men [and women] are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”(US Declaration of Independence)

Every mother and baby has the right to be treated with reverence and respect during the birth process, including pregnancy and beyond.

When a woman becomes pregnant, she and her baby have unalienable rights. First, the right to life: In June of this year, the United Nations Human Rights Council adopted a landmark resolution acknowledging maternal mortality and morbidity as a human rights issue.(1) The adoption of this resolution prods governments to “change the way they view maternal death—that is, as a human rights issue no less serious than executions, arbitrary detentions, or torture.”(2)

Next, the right to liberty: The word “liberty” contains aspects of freedom, independence, autonomy, emancipation. These concepts are not usually considered in relation to the childbearing year. It is time to declare that mothers and babies have the right to liberty in pregnancy and birth.

Finally, the pursuit of happiness is of utmost importance to those of us who care for mothers and babies. Most births around the world lead to some varying degree of preventable trauma for the mother and baby. I say it is preventable because much of it is iatrogenic, caused by the doctor or midwife. In many cases, if the mother, baby and birthing process had been treated with respect, the trauma would possibly have never taken place. Instead, the mother likely would have had the most miraculous experience of her life. At the very least, she would have felt a part of the decision-making process if things still did not go as planned. Birth today is a doctor dictatorship in many practices and in many hospitals. Mothers and babies are missing the healthiest possible beginning, both physically and emotionally. Their human rights are being violated.

Pregnancy and birth are usually the most crucial and powerful passages in a woman’s life. This can be perceived by the mother as either a powerfully great experience or a traumatic ordeal. Mom will generally have one of these reactions and those feelings will last her entire life, even if they are buried in the busy job of mothering. She will either soar at the thought of her birth or be driven to the depths of sorrow, especially in this age of the cesarean cut. The same is true of the way the birth experience imprints on the baby. Though he or she may not consciously remember it, the experience will have many life-long effects on the child.

HERE to read the complete article

Canada gets a "C" for infant mortality

The statistics for infant mortality rates in our group of 17 peer countries is in and Canada Receives a "C".... ranking only above the UK and US for worst infant death rates in it's peer group.

While Canada's infant mortality rates have greatly improved since the 60's falling significantly between 1960 and 1980—from 27 deaths per 1,000 live births to 10 deaths- and continued to improve in the 1980s and 1990s, the lowering numbers have basically stalled since 1998, although it did drop from 5.4 in 2005 to 5.0 in 2006.

Even though Canada’s infant mortality rate has decreased since the 1960s, the rate of improvement has been lower than in most of Canada’s peer countries. Japan’s infant mortality rate, for example, was higher than Canada’s in 1960, at 31 infants per 1,000 live births. In 2006 it was 2.6, about half the rate in Canada.

In 1990, Canada ranked 5th among the 17 peer countries. It is now tied with the U.K. for the second-highest infant mortality rate—only the U.S. performs worse.

The study suggests that some of the statistical differences between countries may be due to different reporting measures and classifications. Other researchers suggest that Canada’s ability to reduce infant mortality is constrained by the successful delivery of more preterm babies and babies with very low birth weight. These babies face higher risk of death. Still more researchers point to vastly improved infertility treatments also bringing about far more multiple births as a factor in the infant mortality rates of Canada.

.... But no where do they talk about the fact that Canada and the US lead the pack with the highest numbers of Caesarean Sections and medical interventions in child births. I think that if we really truly want to analyse the abominable infant mortality rates that our country has right now, we need to point the finger in the direction that shows the greatest impact: The medicalization of Child Birth and the interference of the medical machine trying turn maternity care into a 9 to 5 business and to press birthing women through a cookie cutter than they are incapable of fitting.

Now THAT is a Study that I really want to read.

Health Infant Mortality

[ September 2009 ]

Description Grade Assessment: Definition Infant Mortality The number of infant deaths per 1,000 live births.

Key Messages

• Canada gets a “C” and now ties the U.K. for 15th place out of 17 peer countries. Its infant mortality rate is shockingly high for a country at Canada’s level of socio-economic development.
• Although Canada has dramatically reduced its infant mortality rate over the past few decades, other countries have done better.

• Infant mortality is a sentinel indicator of child health and the well-being of a society over time.

Has Canada improved its relative performance on infant mortality?

HERE to read the entire article