I wouldn’t have believed it if I hadn’t read it with my own eyes.
Past and recent abuse is associated with early cessation of breast feeding: results from a large prospective cohort in Norway was recently published in BMJ Open. The authors made an important observation:
Nearly all women initiated breast feeding, but 12.1% ceased any breast feeding before 4 months and 38.9% ceased full breast feeding before 4 months, but continued partial breast feeding. Overall, 19% of the women reported any adult abuse and 18% reported any child abuse. The highest risk of any breast feeding cessation before 4 months was seen in women exposed to three types of adult abuse (emotional, sexual or physical), with adjusted OR being 1.47 (95% CI 1.23 to 1.76) compared with no abuse. Recent abuse and exposure from known perpetrator resulted in nearly 40% and 30% increased risk, respectively. The OR of any breast feeding cessation for women exposed to any child abuse was 1.41 (95% CI 1.32 to 1.50) compared with no abuse in childhood.
Cessation of breastfeeding appears to be associated with emotional, sexual or physical abuse of the mother.
[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Women should NOT be treated as merely breastmilk dispensers.[/pullquote]
I don’t know how domestic abuse is handled in Norway, but here in the US, I was trained to looked for and ask about domestic abuse and if I suspected it, to offer comprehensive services to aid women in stopping, leaving and prosecuting the abuse. That approach reflects the belief that every woman deserves to live free of violence and abuse.
Astoundingly, that’s NOT what the authors recommend.
They understand what they observed:
The main finding in our study was that exposure to past and recent abuse was strongly associated with early cessation of any breast feeding. The strongest effect was seen for women exposed to three types of abuse (sexual, physical and emotional), with nearly 50% increased adjusted ORs of any breastfeeding cessation before 4 months compared to the non-exposed women. Recent abuse and exposure from known perpetrator resulted in nearly 40% and 30% increased risk of any breastfeeding cessation before 4 months, respectively. Women who reported a history of child abuse were more likely to stop breast feeding before 4 months than women who had not experienced child abuse…
But their utterly inappropriate conclusion is chilling in its disregard for women’s well being. The authors appear to view women like dairy cows, as sources of milk, but not as individuals worthy of physical and psychological support:
… Given the convincing evidence of the beneficial effects of breast feeding both for the mother and the infant, it is crucial to promote high breastfeeding rates. Mothers with a history of past or recent abuse comprise a key group to target for extra support and breastfeeding assistance.
Actually, the authors treat women worse than cows. If farmers found that their animals produced less milk when abused, they would move with alacrity to stop the abuse.
The idea that women who stop breastfeeding because of emotional, sexual or physical abuse should be treated with breastfeeding support is unspeakably ugly. The benefits of breastfeeding for term infants in Norway is trivial, perhaps a few less infants colds and episodes of diarrhea. The harms to women from emotional, sexual or physical abuse are monstrous. The authors’ conclusion that it is more important to support abused women to breastfeed longer rather than to support them in ending the abuse is both profoundly misogynistic and utterly grotesque.
It is an indication of just how far lactivists have strayed from human decency in promoting breastfeeding. Women are not cows. Their primary value to their children is NOT as milk dispensers. Their primary value to society is NOT as milk dispensers. They should not be treated worse than cows.
When women stop breastfeeding because of emotional, sexual or physical abuse, it is the ABUSE that should be targeted, NOT the breastfeeding!
I’m very cynical when it comes to the lactivism industry, but even I would have thought that lactivists would not need to be told that a woman’s right to live unabused is more important than a baby’s need for breastmilk. I was wrong. If anything, lactivism is even uglier than I had thought.
