Re: breastfeeding and special populations

July 28, 2007

Singer's book HONORING OUR CYCLES emerged out of her work with

an Amish community in Pennsyslvania.

http://gardenoffertility.com/honoringourcycles.shtml

All of the personal narratives (except for two) are from the Amish. It

is written in simple language. Aside from the basic cycle charting

info, it contains a chapter on spacing children through breastfeeding.

It also contains information on nutrition & healthy cycles. This may

be a useful text for your community. A case of 24 books can be ordered

for a 50% discount by calling the publisher at and of

course single copies are available via Amazon etc (see link on page,

above).

Good luck with your work.

-Ilene

>

> I left a comment on Sheila Kippley's blog and it occurred to me that

this

> might be a good topic for this list. I am an apprentice midwife, and we

> work with a newish community of plain Mennonites. We have gathered that

> some of the families might be interested in spacing their children

farther

> apart than one year between births, and in the year my senior

midwife has

> been working with these families, she has observed that babies tend

to be

> weaned on the early side (before a year, sometimes well before).

I've given

> my senior midwife a copy of the Kippley's pdf chapter on breastfeeding.

> We're thinking that in some way we might be able to provide some

education

> to those who would like to space births a little bit longer. I

don't think

> this population is open to a full-fledged charting form of NFP, but LAM

> might be acceptable.

> So I'm wondering if any on this list have experience working with plain

> populations, what they have been open to, and how have you promoted

NFP to

> be sensitive to their cultural values? I know different communities

have

> different standards in accordance with their particular elders, but

since we

> are quite new in working with this community, I'd like to avoid pitfalls

> that may strain the relationship. This community tends to be on the

more

> liberal end of plain.

>

> --

> Bekah <><

> Doula, Midwifery student in WI

> AAMI #1885

> http://www.newbirthcs.com/

> http://roadwelltraveled.wordpress.com/

> http://valleybirthnetwork.wordpress.com/

> http://valleybirthnetwork.tripod.com/

>

July 30, 2007

ï»¿

Dear NFP Group,

We have stayed overnight with two communities. One was the Bruderhof in PA where and I both gave an NFP talk in the evening; the other was a Protestant community turned Catholic.

I don't know what kind of contact the Bruderhof mothers had with their babies during the night (whether the baby slept with the mother or separate from the mother) but I do know that during the day all the babies were in "day care" with older teen girls. In community, almost all adults have jobs, their way of helping the community. Thus nursing mothers in this Bruderhof community had to go back to the room with cribs (I was very sad to see this situation) so they could nurse their baby.

One community person (a Catholic from a Protestant background) stayed with us overnight. She had her baby with her and we noticed immediately that she was on a strict schedule. The baby was fussy and she walked, jiggled him, etc. to avoid nursing him. It would have been much faster just to sit down with us and nurse him. That night we taught an NFP class. The mother did not take the baby to bed with her, and the baby cried and cried; the crying was driving our daughter crazy because she had to get to work early in the morning. When we came home, I knocked and entered the mother's room. I encouraged her to take the baby to bed with her and peace came to our house. We have had many parents with nursing babies spend a night or two with us and I raised five children, and this was the first time we had a crying baby in our home.

The next morning the "community" mother read parts of my book on natural child spacing. Her one comment was: "Now I know why I have my periods around 3-4 months after childbirth even though I exclusively breastfeed."

Many communities can have a philosophy of baby care that is not conducive to bf infertility.

For teachers really interested in why nursing mothers have an early return, they can ask questions around the Seven Standards. This is also covered in my 6th blog for NFP week (July 27). I also list in that blog the common practices that interfere with the natural child spacing mechanism. All of this is likewise in Part 3 of our online manual which anyone can download for free. An interested teacher who asks questions will usually find an answer. Of course, there is a range. There are always the few who have an early return (before six months) even when they are following the eco-BF program.

Everyone, thanks for your interest.

Sheila KippleyAuthor, "Breastfeeding and Catholic Motherhood"Co-author of free, short NFP ebook atwww.NFPandmore.org

breastfeeding and special populations

I left a comment on Sheila Kippley's blog and it occurred to me that this might be a good topic for this list. I am an apprentice midwife, and we work with a newish community of plain Mennonites. We have gathered that some of the families might be interested in spacing their children farther apart than one year between births, and in the year my senior midwife has been working with these families, she has observed that babies tend to be weaned on the early side (before a year, sometimes well before). I've given my senior midwife a copy of the Kippley's pdf chapter on breastfeeding. We're thinking that in some way we might be able to provide some education to those who would like to space births a little bit longer. I don't think this population is open to a full-fledged charting form of NFP, but LAM might be acceptable.

So I'm wondering if any on this list have experience working with plain populations, what they have been open to, and how have you promoted NFP to be sensitive to their cultural values? I know different communities have different standards in accordance with their particular elders, but since we are quite new in working with this community, I'd like to avoid pitfalls that may strain the relationship. This community tends to be on the more liberal end of plain.

-- Bekah <><Doula, Midwifery student in WIAAMI #1885http://www.newbirthcs.com/http://roadwelltraveled.wordpress.com/ http://valleybirthnetwork.wordpress.com/ http://valleybirthnetwork.tripod.com/

No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.476 / Virus Database: 269.10.22/923 - Release Date: 7/27/2007 6:01 PM

July 30, 2007

Thank you for contributing to this thread! I think using questions around the seven standards is a fantastic idea, and one which I will incorporate in my doula work and my future midwifery practice as well.

Many communities can have a philosophy of baby care that is not conducive to bf infertility.

For teachers really interested in why nursing mothers have an early return, they can ask questions around the Seven Standards. This is also covered in my 6th blog for NFP week (July 27). I also list in that blog the common practices that interfere with the natural child spacing mechanism. All of this is likewise in Part 3 of our online manual which anyone can download for free. An interested teacher who asks questions will usually find an answer. Of course, there is a range. There are always the few who have an early return (before six months) even when they are following the eco-BF program.

Everyone, thanks for your interest.

Sheila KippleyAuthor, " Breastfeeding and Catholic Motherhood " Co-author of free, short NFP ebook atwww.NFPandmore.org

-- Bekah <><Doula, Midwifery student in WIAAMI #1885

http://www.newbirthcs.com/http://roadwelltraveled.wordpress.com/http://valleybirthnetwork.wordpress.com/

http://valleybirthnetwork.tripod.com/

August 3, 2007

Dear Dr. Pedulla

I do not have the possibility to check the contents of the book right

now, but will respond to this based on some general considerations.

Catholic theology does not anymore - it probably did at some point -

claim expert knowledge of nutrition or early childhood psychology. There

is no way in which specific recommendations could be explicitly

supported or discouraged and no authority to do so. There are

considerations related to this issues which are subject to moral

teaching but they are not immediate.

I would rather like an expert theologian to explain it in a more formal

way - this is the other side of acknowledging the authonomy of different

disciplines.

Greetings

Mikolajczyk, MD

pedullad@... wrote:

>

> Dear ,

>

> What an excellent question! Of course just as there are general

> indications in Church teaching that the Church in general favors the

> idea of the large family (but doesn't mandate it in individual

> circumstances; see for example the well-known address of Pope Pius XII

> to large families), the same would be said for the teaching on

> breast-feeding, which has been touched on by popes in the last two

> centuries. For as close to what could be called a catalog of these

> teachings in the Scriptures and Church teaching, try to get Father

> Virtue's classic work entitled " /Mother and Child: the moral

> theology of embodied self-giving/ " a brilliant theological work on the

> moral superiority of ecological breast-feeding and natural mothering.

>

> But, as Dr. Herbert Ratner said many years ago, no one needs a Scripture

> verse to realize the elemental obligation implied in fully answering the

> needs of our infants! Neither could we find a Scripture verse that

> specifically obligates us to feed your children, but for that reason

> would we deny that we have such an obligation? No, it is rather implied

> in the fourth commandment. Many things in Scripture are implied, as for

> instance the passerby in Scripture who said to Jesus " Blessed are the

> breasts that gave suck to you! " , and again, as implied in Jesus's

> prophecy on the via de la , the perversity of future generations

> would among other things be a specially marked by considering it a

> blessing not to nurse ( " Blessed are the breasts that never gave

> suck......; Luke 23). But, again, I refer Father Virtue's work to you

> as fundamental in that regard, in answering the specific question you

> have about a Scripture or Church teaching.

>

> Again, it is not that I am judging anyone who decides for a variety of

> acceptable reasons not to fully comply with the seven standards. It is

> just that what is best /really is what is best/, and that should not be

> " taken away " .

>

> Sincerely,

>

> Dr. Pedulla

> PS: let me know if you have trouble getting Father Virtue's treatise,

> and I can see if I can get you a copy.

>

> Re: breastfeeding and special

> > populations

> > >

> > > I wholeheartedly agree with Sheila St. ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s response.

IÃƒÂ¢

> Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢m

> > sure many mothers find that they might already be naturally

> following

> > the seven standards, but for others, to try and force them might

> not

> > be what is best for mother or baby. I only have 2 children so far,

> so

> > I lack the amount of personal experience Sheila Kippley or others

> may

> > have, but for me, cosleeping makes my husband and I exhausted. I

> have

> > encountered many family situations where in the name of cosleeping,

> > the mother is sleeping with the baby in one room, and the father is

> > sleeping with an older child in another room, or worse, on the

> couch!

> > >

> > > Ãƒâ€šÃ‚

> > >

> > > I have tried to offer nursing to my baby as means of comfort, but

> > it only made him projectile vomit because I had filled up his tummy

> > too much! Thus, pacifiers do work for us. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ If my baby is fussy,

> you

> > may find me pacing theÃƒâ€šÃ‚ floor with him, or bouncing him or

> giving

> > him a toy, but I KNOW that he is not hungry, and thus there must be

> > some other reason for his fussiness. I think that to nurse a baby

> > every time he fusses because youÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢re trying to be the one

> that

> > satisfies his sucklings needs might lend itself to failing to read

> a

> > babyÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s cues. He may not be hungry and he may not want to

> suck.

> > >

> > > Ãƒâ€šÃ‚

> > >

> > > I donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t put my babies on schedules, and I

donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t let

> them CIO.

> > We find a middle ground in our family, and it has worked really

> well

> > for us.

> > >

> > > With my first daughter, she weaned at 14 months, and my cycles

> > returned at 6 months. With my current 5 month old, IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢m

> anticipating

> > a later return to cycles since it seems he does enjoy comfort

> nursing

> > a little more than my first daughter did. But IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢m fine

with

> > whatever time my cycles return, and it may actually be a sigh of

> > relief when it does happen, as Sheila St. mentioned. It will

> > feel like a return to normal.

> > >

> > > Ãƒâ€šÃ‚

> > >

> > > It seems the seven standards can be a great tool in certain

> > circumstances to encourage and education women about the link

> between

> > breastfeeding and the return to fertility, but I do think

itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢

> s

> > possible to breastfeed in a different way and have it work

> perfectly

> > fine.

> > >

> > > Ãƒâ€šÃ‚

> > >

> > > I also agree with , in that breastfeeding should always be

> > encouraged, because even though breastfeeding is becoming more

> > popular, too many women give up too easily due to lack of support.

> > >

> > > Ãƒâ€šÃ‚

> > >

> > > Fuller

> > >

> > > NFP Provider

> > >

> > > Northwest Family Services

> > >

> > > Fax

> > >

> > > www.nwfs.org <http://www.nwfs.org/>

> > >

> > > Ãƒâ€šÃ‚

> > >

> > __________________________________________________________

> > __

> > > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's

> > free from AOL at AOL.com.

> > >

> >

> > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's

> free from AOL at AOL.com.

> >

> __________________________________________________________

> __

> > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's

> free from AOL at AOL.com.

> >

>

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free

> from AOL at *AOL.com* <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000437>.

>

August 3, 2007

Dear ,

What an excellent question! Of course just as there are general indications in Church teaching that the Church in general favors the idea of the large family (but doesn't mandate it in individual circumstances; see for example the well-known address of Pope Pius XII to large families), the same would be said for the teaching on breast-feeding, which has been touched on by popes in the last two centuries. For as close to what could be called a catalog of these teachings in the Scriptures and Church teaching, try to get Father Virtue's classic work entitled "Mother and Child: the moral theology of embodied self-giving" a brilliant theological work on the moral superiority of ecological breast-feeding and natural mothering.

But, as Dr. Herbert Ratner said many years ago, no one needs a Scripture verse to realize the elemental obligation implied in fully answering the needs of our infants! Neither could we find a Scripture verse that specifically obligates us to feed your children, but for that reason would we deny that we have such an obligation? No, it is rather implied in the fourth commandment. Many things in Scripture are implied, as for instance the passerby in Scripture who said to Jesus "Blessed are the breasts that gave suck to you!", and again, as implied in Jesus's prophecy on the via de la , the perversity of future generations would among other things be a specially marked by considering it a blessing not to nurse ("Blessed are the breasts that never gave suck......; Luke 23). But, again, I refer Father Virtue's work to you as fundamental in that regard, in answering the specific question you have about a Scripture or Church teaching.

Again, it is not that I am judging anyone who decides for a variety of acceptable reasons not to fully comply with the seven standards. It is just that what is best really is what is best, and that should not be "taken away".

Sincerely,

Dr. Pedulla

PS: let me know if you have trouble getting Father Virtue's treatise, and I can see if I can get you a copy.

Re: breastfeeding and special

> populations

> >

> > I wholeheartedly agree with Sheila St. ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s response. IÃƒÂ¢

Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢m

> sure many mothers find that they might already be naturally

following

> the seven standards, but for others, to try and force them might

not

> be what is best for mother or baby. I only have 2 children so far,

so

> I lack the amount of personal experience Sheila Kippley or others

may

> have, but for me, cosleeping makes my husband and I exhausted. I

have

> encountered many family situations where in the name of cosleeping,

> the mother is sleeping with the baby in one room, and the father is

> sleeping with an older child in another room, or worse, on the

couch!

> >

> > Ãƒâ€šÃ‚

> >

> > I have tried to offer nursing to my baby as means of comfort, but

> it only made him projectile vomit because I had filled up his tummy

> too much! Thus, pacifiers do work for us. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ If my baby is fussy,

you

> may find me pacing theÃƒâ€šÃ‚ floor with him, or bouncing him or

giving

> him a toy, but I KNOW that he is not hungry, and thus there must be

> some other reason for his fussiness. I think that to nurse a baby

> every time he fusses because youÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢re trying to be the one

that

> satisfies his sucklings needs might lend itself to failing to read

a

> babyÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s cues. He may not be hungry and he may not want to

suck.

> >

> > Ãƒâ€šÃ‚

> >

> > I donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t put my babies on schedules, and I donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t let

them CIO.

> We find a middle ground in our family, and it has worked really

well

> for us.

> >

> > With my first daughter, she weaned at 14 months, and my cycles

> returned at 6 months. With my current 5 month old, IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢m

anticipating

> a later return to cycles since it seems he does enjoy comfort

nursing

> a little more than my first daughter did. But IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢m fine with

> whatever time my cycles return, and it may actually be a sigh of

> relief when it does happen, as Sheila St. mentioned. It will

> feel like a return to normal.

> >

> > Ãƒâ€šÃ‚

> >

> > It seems the seven standards can be a great tool in certain

> circumstances to encourage and education women about the link

between

> breastfeeding and the return to fertility, but I do think itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢

s

> possible to breastfeed in a different way and have it work

perfectly

> fine.

> >

> > Ãƒâ€šÃ‚

> >

> > I also agree with , in that breastfeeding should always be

> encouraged, because even though breastfeeding is becoming more

> popular, too many women give up too easily due to lack of support.

> >

> > Ãƒâ€šÃ‚

> >

> > Fuller

> >

> > NFP Provider

> >

> > Northwest Family Services

> >

> > Fax

> >

> > www.nwfs.org

> >

> > Ãƒâ€šÃ‚

> >

> __________________________________________________________

> __

> > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's

> free from AOL at AOL.com.

> >

>

> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's

free from AOL at AOL.com.

>

__________________________________________________________

__

> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's

free from AOL at AOL.com.

>

AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.

August 3, 2007

Dr. Pedulla,

Thank you for the book recommendation! It sounds like it would be an

inspiring read, especially as a mother. I'll have to put it on my

list of " Books to Read When I Have the Time " .

I feel like I'm beating a dead horse at this point, but I do want to

point out that I'm not looking for Church support on large families,

or even breastfeeding. It was specifically ecologicaly breastfeeding

being morally superior to other forms of breastfeeding or mothering.

Perhaps that is presented as a theory in the book you recommend, but

as Dr. Mikolajczyk pointed out, I believe it would be beyond the

realm of the Church's authority to make such a claim.

I think however that at this point I will agree to disagree with you.

Thank you for so respectfully engaging in discussion with me, it was

a pleasure.

> > >

> > > It must be remembered that the seven standards of Sheila

Kippley

> > are based on the traditional mothering practices in more normal

> > societies than our own.Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â The standards themselves assume

that

> one

> > recognizes that there will have to be sacrifices made, because of

> the

> > unique needs of very young children.Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â The good news is

that what

> > seems like unbearable sacrifice early on truly becomes easier as

> the

> > number of children grows -- not harder -- and things

> > like " exhaustion " from cosleeping comeÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â often to be

recognized as

> the

> > poor sleep pattern that results from constantly trying to fight

> > against -- for understandable reasons --Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â the baby's

cyclical

> needs,

> > and from trying to make those needs conform to our own " need " for

a

> > schedule.Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â As a father of 9, it is also nothing unusual

to have

> to

> > sleep in the bed of one's children from time to time,

> > > not for the purpose of getting more sleep but rather because

the

> > child in question may be having trouble getting to sleep without

a

> > dad's help.Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â By the way, what's wrong with sleeping on

the couch

> > when the needs of someone the family demand it!

> > >

> > > No one that I know of who practices ecological breast-feeding

> tries

> > to nurse a baby when the baby clearly demonstrates that nursing

is

> > not what he/she wants.Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â But it is very unusual for a very

young

> baby

> > having distress of any kind whatsoever to not respond positively

to

> > at least some initial sucking, and after that the child himself

> will

> > detach, showing that either he is relieved where there is a

> different

> > problem.Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â Either way, this supposed " dilemma " of over-

feeding in

> > response to various crises seems with experience to be a non-

issue.

> > >

> > > Being radically available to the needs of the baby -- a term

> coined

> > by my mother, a longtime La Leche league leader -- is really what

> in

> > the end counts. It cannot be denied that this should be the goal,

> > even if acknowledged that -- as experience shows --Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â many

couples

> in

> > our society will not achieve this for many different reasons,

many

> of

> > whichÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â while not necessarily blameworthy, are nonetheless

indeed

> > unfortunate.

> > >

> > > Sincerely yours,

> > >

> > > Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPh

> > > Varicoseveins1@

> > > Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, OU Health Sciences

> Center

> > > Medical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center

> > > President, The Edith Stein Foundation

> > >

> > > Re: breastfeeding and special

> > populations

> > >

> > > I wholeheartedly agree with Sheila St. ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s

response. IÃƒÂ¢

> Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢m

> > sure many mothers find that they might already be naturally

> following

> > the seven standards, but for others, to try and force them might

> not

> > be what is best for mother or baby. I only have 2 children so

far,

> so

> > I lack the amount of personal experience Sheila Kippley or others

> may

> > have, but for me, cosleeping makes my husband and I exhausted. I

> have

> > encountered many family situations where in the name of

cosleeping,

> > the mother is sleeping with the baby in one room, and the father

is

> > sleeping with an older child in another room, or worse, on the

> couch!

> > >

> > > Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â

> > >

> > > I have tried to offer nursing to my baby as means of comfort,

but

> > it only made him projectile vomit because I had filled up his

tummy

> > too much! Thus, pacifiers do work for us. Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â If my baby is

fussy,

> you

> > may find me pacing theÃƒâ€šÃ‚Â floor with him, or bouncing him

or

> giving

> > him a toy, but I KNOW that he is not hungry, and thus there must

be

> > some other reason for his fussiness. I think that to nurse a baby

> > every time he fusses because youÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢re trying to be

the one

> that

> > satisfies his sucklings needs might lend itself to failing to

read

> a

> > babyÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s cues. He may not be hungry and he may not

want to

> suck.

> > >

> > > Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â

> > >

> > > I donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t put my babies on schedules, and I

donÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t let

> them CIO.

> > We find a middle ground in our family, and it has worked really

> well

> > for us.

> > >

> > > With my first daughter, she weaned at 14 months, and my cycles

> > returned at 6 months. With my current 5 month old, IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢

â€žÂ¢m

> anticipating

> > a later return to cycles since it seems he does enjoy comfort

> nursing

> > a little more than my first daughter did. But IÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢

m fine with

> > whatever time my cycles return, and it may actually be a sigh of

> > relief when it does happen, as Sheila St. mentioned. It will

> > feel like a return to normal.

> > >

> > > Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â

> > >

> > > It seems the seven standards can be a great tool in certain

> > circumstances to encourage and education women about the link

> between

> > breastfeeding and the return to fertility, but I do think itÃƒÂ¢Ã¢

â€šÂ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢

> s

> > possible to breastfeed in a different way and have it work

> perfectly

> > fine.

> > >

> > > Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â

> > >

> > > I also agree with , in that breastfeeding should always be

> > encouraged, because even though breastfeeding is becoming more

> > popular, too many women give up too easily due to lack of

support.

> > >

> > > Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â

> > >

> > > Fuller

> > >

> > > NFP Provider

> > >

> > > Northwest Family Services

> > >

> > > Fax

> > >

> > > www.nwfs.org

> > >

> > > Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â

> > >

> > __________________________________________________________

> > __

> > > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about

what's

> > free from AOL at AOL.com.

> > >

> >

> > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's

> free from AOL at AOL.com.

> >

> __________________________________________________________

> __

> > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's

> free from AOL at AOL.com.

> >

>

______________________________________________________________________

__

> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's

free from AOL at AOL.com.

>

August 3, 2007

>--- pedullad@... wrote:

> It is just that what is best really is what is best,

and that should not be " taken away " .

>

On this note, I can unequivically say that in terms of

human nutrition, physical and mental health

development, human breast milk is far superior to any

man-made formula or animal milk. This is

scientifically proven fact on many levels. Even

formula companies are required by federal law to

disclose that " breast is beast " .

I would think that it follows that we are morally

obligated *to try* to give our children what we know

is best for them, especially when it costs us nothing

in terms of money. It certainly does " cost " some in

terms of self sacrifice and perhaps even family

sacrifice, but part of our role in the family is to

help our children and our spouse get to heaven.

Learning sacrifice for whatever the reason is part and

parcel of that journey. Breastfeeding, while providing

much in terms of bonding and pleasure and closeness,

also requires some sacrifice.

I think it has been said well enough that not all of

the seven standards are able to be practiced by all of

us, all of the time. Our personal and family

situations and personalities, as well as external

factors certainly influence us all.

If possible though, we should always strive for the

ideal in-as-much as we can. To present breast feeding

as a choice equal to or equivilent to bottle feeding

formula is not acceptable.

The " morality " of breastfeeding itself is different as

Sheila says- It CAN be acceptable for different

methods of feeding- an adoptive mom who can't lactate,

a person taking medications incompatible with

breast-feeding or undergoing procedures (ie chemo or

radiation), the death or severe illness or injury of

the natural mother. Of course then, formula feeding is

very likely needed or the baby could die.

The use of contraception for avoiding pregnancy is

morally wrong though, always. Abstinence is always an alternative.

Sandrock, RNC, CNM, MSN

Creighton Model Fertility Care System

Nurse-Midwife/Practitioner Intern

&

Arbonne Consultant

ID 15986543 www.arbonne.com

________________________________________________________________________________\

____

Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news,

photos & more.

http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC

August 4, 2007

I have a copy of Father Virtue's book, it is most excellent.

However, I was trying to reach Fr. Virtue recently and found that he was under

suspension or some such. Is there anyone who knows the truth on this? He was

in the Diocese of Peoria the last I heard.

alicia

Re: breastfeeding and special populations

>

>Dr. Pedulla,

>Thank you for the book recommendation! It sounds like it would be an

>inspiring read, especially as a mother. I'll have to put it on my

>list of " Books to Read When I Have the Time " .

>I feel like I'm beating a dead horse at this point, but I do want to

>point out that I'm not looking for Church support on large families,

>or even breastfeeding. It was specifically ecologicaly breastfeeding

>being morally superior to other forms of breastfeeding or mothering.

>Perhaps that is presented as a theory in the book you recommend, but

>as Dr. Mikolajczyk pointed out, I believe it would be beyond the

>realm of the Church's authority to make such a claim.

>I think however that at this point I will agree to disagree with you.

>Thank you for so respectfully engaging in discussion with me, it was

>a pleasure.

>

Harry Truman once quipped, " I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and

they think its hell. "

ahuntley@...

August 5, 2007

Dear Dr. Pedula,I would love to get a copy of this book. I see that it is not listed on amazon.com. Can you help me find a copy?Thanks so much!Diane Royal1/2 of CCL TCDear ,What an excellent question! Of course just as there are general indications in Church teaching that the Church in general favors the idea of the large family (but doesn't mandate it in individual circumstances; see for example the well-known address of Pope Pius XII to large families), the same would be said for the teaching on breast-feeding, which has been touched on by popes in the last two centuries. For as close to what could be called a catalog of these teachings in the Scriptures and Church teaching, try to get Father Virtue's classic work entitled "Mother and Child: the moral theology of embodied self-giving" a brilliant theological work on the moral superiority of ecological breast-feeding and natural mothering.Sincerely,Dr. PedullaPS: let me know if you have trouble getting Father Virtue's treatise, and I can see if I can get you a copy.,_._,___

August 8, 2007

Probably not solely - and better stated: from the moral theology point

of view; but I mentioned my considerations from the standpoint of

wanting HV to be more convincing.

I am not sure what your question was intended for?

pedullad@... wrote:

>

> Dear ,

>

> Your comments about /Humanae Vitae/ are interesting to me. Are you

> coming at the document from the perspective of faith?

>

> Sincerely yours,

>

> Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPh

> Varicoseveins1@...

> Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, OU Health Sciences Center

> Medical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center

> President, The Edith Stein Foundation

>

> Re: Re: breastfeeding and special populations

>

> Thank you - but:

>

> imagine, once we got a healthy nutrient, which based on how human

> physiology works, is able to stop ovulation... In fact, I think that for

> some women some hormonal preparations can have positive effects.

>

> So, I do not know -

>

> I think Humanae vitae makes a better argument against barrier methods

> than against hormonal contraception. At least I found its arguments

> rather unsatisfactorily, reading some contesting moral theologians. For

> my own understanding I derived a better argument from a maybe not very

> obvious statement in Veritatis splendor, but this ended up in a moral

> distinction between observing and influencing the cycle as language of

> the female human body. This is why I am rather unwilling to see any

> action taken directly to introduce infertility as morally allowed.

>

> One problem is also that I do not see, how the subdivision into three

> factors constituting the morality of human act would address the use of

> hormonal contraception. Since the intention can be good and

> circumstances not involving any pressure (or how do you define

> circumstances?), leaving it only to the first aspect: and I do not think

> the action " swallowing of the pill " is itself evil. So where is the

> point to reject oral contraception?

>

> The issue is also that I do not think human acts are so totally

> separable from their purpose. You addressed the issue of purpose under

> the heading intention - but it creates another problem: because then

> intention has to accumulate both aspects:

> - the purpose / goal of the action

> - and the moral condition of the subject.

> In contrary, I would suggest to understand the goal of the action as its

> part, at least for more complicated act structures: taking hormones to

> use the back loop between estrogen and FSH to achieve infertility;

> breastfeed to use the back loop between prolactine and FSH to achieve

> infertility. And leaving intention to the more distant " why " and " how

> pure " issues.

>

> In this unlikely imagined situation we currently discuss, the purpose of

> the action would in my opinion define breastfeeding on the purpose of

> stopping ovulation as contraceptive behavior.

>

> F. Kippley wrote:

> >

> > ï»¿

> >

> > Dear ,

> >

> > There is much in your message of August 5 with which I heartily agree.

> > You say it should be stressed that â€œthe main motivation for

> > breastfeeding should be breastfeeding itself, not the infertility caused

> > by it.â€ I would phrase the first part of that somewhat more

> > specifically such as, â€œThe main motivation for breastfeeding should

> > be that it is Godâ€™s own plan for baby care.â€

> >

> > On the other hand, you offered for the sake of argument that it â€œwould

> > be contraceptionâ€ for a woman to breastfeed â€œonly to keep herself from

> > menstruating and thus available for sex.â€ I must respectfully disagree

> > on that point. I agree with you that it is unlikely that a mother would

> > breastfeed only for such purposes, but let us, for the sake of argument,

> > imagine that there is a mother who does ecological breastfeeding

> > according to the Seven Standards only for such a purpose..

> >

> > 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, 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 and baby ecology. That is a normal effect that God

> > himself has built into the nursing-mother and baby ecology. Therefore,

> > what she desires is a God-given good.

> >

> > Such behavior is neither a contraceptive behavior nor the fruit of a

> > contraceptive intent nor the fruit of a contraceptive mentality.

> > Contraceptive behaviors are those that do something to prevent the sperm

> > from reaching the ovum or otherwise render procreation impossible. They

> > are always against the natural effects of the marriage act. We need to

> > be careful how we use the terms â€œcontraceptionâ€ and â€œcontraceptive

> > mentality.â€ 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 NFP, especially systematic NFP, fearfully,

> > selfishly, etc. Thatâ€™s why sections 10 and 16 of /Humanae Vitae /teach

> > that couples need sufficiently serious reasons to use [systematic] NFP

> > to avoid pregnancy.

> >

> > For the sake of argument, you might say that the mother has acted with

> > less than the best intentions. To that I would offer two responses.

> > First, letâ€™s assume you are correct. There is, however, no moral

> > teaching of which I am aware that obliges us always to act out of the

> > best intention. Thatâ€™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 make such a pledge without good spiritual

> > direction. It would be a recipe for scrupulosity and could tie a

> > sensitive person into knots. Second, her intention is to achieve a

> > God-planned effect, not an unnatural effect. What can be wrong with that?

> >

> > You are not the first person who has raised the issue. People who

> > should know better have raised the question whether a mother doing

> > ecological breastfeeding with the hope of the baby-spacing effect would

> > be â€œusingâ€ her baby. And they did not raise it â€œfor the sake of

> > argumentâ€ as you did. 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. For 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 sinful in this area is to

> > suggest seriously, and not just for the sake of discussion, that such a

> > mother may be acting sinfully, â€œusingâ€ her baby in a pejorative sense.

> > That plants the seeds for a scrupulous conscience. In my opinion it is

> > very 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 â€œusingâ€ their babies in some sort of wrongful

> > way. What if a mom is feeling engorged, and she nurses primarily, 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. Let us be done with negative talk about â€œusingâ€ a breastfeeding

> > baby.

> >

> > You raised other issues on which I intend to comment in the

> > NFPInternational blogsite. Some are such that I will seek informed

> > guidance before posting. I will inform the List when such items are

> > posted. Thanks for raising some good questions for discussion. I

> > welcome feedback from you and the List.

> >

> > F Kippley

> > " Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality " (Ignatius, 2005)

> > " Natural Family Planning: The Question-Answer Book " an ebook at

> > www.NFPandmore <http://www.nfpandmore/>.org

> <http://www.NFPandmore.org <http://www.nfpandmore.org/>>

> >

> > * Re: Re: breastfeeding and special

> > populations

> >

> > Dear list,

> >

> > I found Kipley's clarifications very helpful - but I still have

> > some doubts, which I would like to discuss and hear opinions about.

> >

> > First, I think it should be stressed that the main motivation for

> > breastfeeding should be breastfeeding itself, not the infertility

> > caused

> > by it. Otherwise breastfeeding would be instrumentalized. In the real

> > world it is unlikely that a woman would breastfeed only to keep herself

> > from menstruating and thus available for sex, but for the sake of

> > argument - I think this would be contraception.

> >

> > My other concern is the luteal insufficiency following first ovulation

> > before first bleeding. Roughly speaking this effect might reduce the

> > risk of unintended pregnancy by half, increasing the effectiveness of

> > lactational amenorrhea. I think this effect size is similar to the

> > perfect use of the oral contraception and in general I would accept

> > such

> > risk when OC is used as a medication. (I know that there are some

> > results suggesting that the use of OC is never justified, but it is not

> > general knowledge. So I stick with interpretation that in such cases

> > the

> > use of OC is justifiable due to the double effect principle.) However,

> > for breastfeeding it would start to be a problem, when it would be used

> > primarily for family planning.

> >

> > Lactational amenorrhea is increasingly mentioned in the context of

> > informed consent for potential postfertilization effects. I do not

> > fully

> > agree with the logic used in these arguments, which usually do not

> > consider exceptional situation of breastfeeding, but in this context I

> > would rather advocate the use of mucus observation during breastfeeding

> > than blindly relying on the absence of menstruation.

> >

> > So my conclusion is: breastfeeding is for breastfeeding, its other

> > effects can be welcomed, but should be not extensively sought for

> > themselves.

> >

> > I do not advocate against any of the recommendations of ecological

> > breastfeeding or alternatives - it is only about the emphasis.

> >

> > Regards

> > Mikolajczyk, MD

> >

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free

> from AOL at *AOL.com* <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000437>.

>

August 8, 2007

Dear list,

Dr. Pedulla asked me about my faith and since I could respond to the

e-mail server I asked him first why he wants to know it. He responded

that it is important to know ones presuppositions.

I disagree: I think he should not ask this question. I think we should

on this list just assume honesty of each other and that the expressed

opinions and not somebody's faith should be addressed.

It would be also very against my own principles, because I try strongly

to separate the language of faith and language of science, even when

addressing issues of religion.

Since Dr. Pedulla reacted to my statement about Humanae vitae, I would

like to add one issue: I think it is pretty liberating to acknowledge

that its argument is not very obvious and maybe not that convincing.

There is only a really small minority of moral theologians who fully

appreciate the position of HV and many priests I talked to were not able

to rephrase the argument correctly. So why to think all of them are

dumb, selfish, hard-hearted? Maybe the logic of HV's argument is not so

straightforward.

pedullad@... wrote:

>

> Oh, sorry for not explaining myself better. I meant are you writing as a

> fully practicing Catholic without any faith reservations with the document?

>

> Sincerely yours,

>

> Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPh

> Varicoseveins1@...

> Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, OU Health Sciences Center

> Medical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center

> President, The Edith Stein Foundation

>

> Re: Re: breastfeeding and special populations

> >

> > Thank you - but:

> >

> > imagine, once we got a healthy nutrient, which based on how human

> > physiology works, is able to stop ovulation... In fact, I think that for

> > some women some hormonal preparations can have positive effects.

> >

> > So, I do not know -

> >

> > I think Humanae vitae makes a better argument against barrier methods

> > than against hormonal contraception. At least I found its arguments

> > rather unsatisfactorily, reading some contesting moral theologians. For

> > my own understanding I derived a better argument from a maybe not very

> > obvious statement in Veritatis splendor, but this ended up in a moral

> > distinction between observing and influencing the cycle as language of

> > the female human body. This is why I am rather unwilling to see any

> > action taken directly to introduce infertility as morally allowed.

> >

> > One problem is also that I do not see, how the subdivision into three

> > factors constituting the morality of human act would address the use of

> > hormonal contraception. Since the intention can be good and

> > circumstances not involving any pressure (or how do you define

> > circumstances?), leaving it only to the first aspect: and I do not think

> > the action " swallowing of the pill " is itself evil. So where is the

> > point to reject oral contraception?

> >

> > The issue is also that I do not think human acts are so totally

> > separable from their purpose. You addressed the issue of purpose under

> > the heading intention - but it creates another problem: because then

> > intention has to accumulate both aspects:

> > - the purpose / goal of the action

> > - and the moral condition of the subject.

> > In contrary, I would suggest to understand the goal of the action as its

> > part, at least for more complicated act structures: taking hormones to

> > use the back loop between estrogen and FSH to achieve infertility;

> > breastfeed to use the back loop between prolactine and FSH to achieve

> > infertility. And leaving intention to the more distant " why " and " how

> > pure " issues.

> >

> > In this unlikely imagined situation we currently discuss, the purpose of

> > the action would in my opinion define breastfeeding on the purpose of

> > stopping ovulation as contraceptive behavior.

> >

> > F. Kippley wrote:

> > >

> > > ï»¿

> > >

> > > Dear ,

> > >

> > > There is much in your message of August 5 with which I heartily agree.

> > > You say it should be stressed that â€œthe main motivation for

> > > breastfeeding should be breastfeeding itself, not the infertility

> caused

> > > by it.â€ I would phrase the first part of that somewhat more

> > > specifically such as, â€œThe main motivation for breastfeeding should

> > > be that it is Godâ€™s own plan for baby care.â€

> > >

> > > On the other hand, you offered for the sake of argument that it â€œwould

> > > be contraceptionâ€ for a woman to breastfeed â€œonly to keep herself

from

> > > menstruating and thus available for sex.â€ I must respectfully disagree

> > > on that point. I agree with you that it is unlikely that a mother would

> > > breastfeed only for such purposes, but let us, for the sake of

> argument,

> > > imagine that there is a mother who does ecological breastfeeding

> > > according to the Seven Standards only for such a purpose..

> > >

> > > 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, 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 and baby ecology. That is a normal effect that God

> > > himself has built into the nursing-mother and baby ecology. Therefore,

> > > what she desires is a God-given good.

> > >

> > > Such behavior is neither a contraceptive behavior nor the fruit of a

> > > contraceptive intent nor the fruit of a contraceptive mentality.

> > > Contraceptive behaviors are those that do something to prevent the

> sperm

> > > from reaching the ovum or otherwise render procreation impossible. They

> > > are always against the natural effects of the marriage act. We need to

> > > be careful how we use the terms â€œcontraceptionâ€ and â€œcontraceptive

> > > mentality.â€ 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 NFP, especially systematic NFP, fearfully,

> > > selfishly, etc. Thatâ€™s why sections 10 and 16 of /Humanae Vitae /teach

> > > that couples need sufficiently serious reasons to use [systematic] NFP

> > > to avoid pregnancy.

> > >

> > > For the sake of argument, you might say that the mother has acted with

> > > less than the best intentions. To that I would offer two responses.

> > > First, letâ€™s assume you are correct. There is, however, no moral

> > > teaching of which I am aware that obliges us always to act out of the

> > > best intention. Thatâ€™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 make such a pledge without good spiritual

> > > direction. It would be a recipe for scrupulosity and could tie a

> > > sensitive person into knots. Second, her intention is to achieve a

> > > God-planned effect, not an unnatural effect. What can be wrong with

> that?

> > >

> > > You are not the first person who has raised the issue. People who

> > > should know better have raised the question whether a mother doing

> > > ecological breastfeeding with the hope of the baby-spacing effect would

> > > be â€œusingâ€ her baby. And they did not raise it â€œfor the sake of

> > > argumentâ€ as you did. 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. For 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 sinful in this area is to

> > > suggest seriously, and not just for the sake of discussion, that such a

> > > mother may be acting sinfully, â€œusingâ€ her baby in a pejorative

sense.

> > > That plants the seeds for a scrupulous conscience. In my opinion it is

> > > very 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 â€œusingâ€ their babies in some sort of

wrongful

> > > way. What if a mom is feeling engorged, and she nurses primarily, 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. Let us be done with negative talk about â€œusingâ€ a breastfeeding

> > > baby.

> > >

> > > You raised other issues on which I intend to comment in the

> > > NFPInternational blogsite. Some are such that I will seek informed

> > > guidance before posting. I will inform the List when such items are

> > > posted. Thanks for raising some good questions for discussion. I

> > > welcome feedback from you and the List.

> > >

> > > F Kippley

> > > " Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality " (Ignatius, 2005)

> > > " Natural Family Planning: The Question-Answer Book " an ebook at

> > > www.NFPandmore <http://www.nfpandmore/> <http://www.nfpandmore/

> <http://www.nfpandmore/>>.org

> > <http://www.NFPandmore.org <http://www.nfpandmore.org/>

> <http://www.nfpandmore.org/ <http://www.nfpandmore.org/>>>

> > >

> > > * Re: Re: breastfeeding and special

> > > populations

> > >

> > > Dear list,

> > >

> > > I found Kipley's clarifications very helpful - but I still have

> > > some doubts, which I would like to discuss and hear opinions about.

> > >

> > > First, I think it should be stressed that the main motivation for

> > > breastfeeding should be breastfeeding itself, not the infertility

> > > caused

> > > by it. Otherwise breastfeeding would be instrumentalized. In the real

> > > world it is unlikely that a woman would breastfeed only to keep herself

> > > from menstruating and thus available for sex, but for the sake of

> > > argument - I think this would be contraception.

> > >

> > > My other concern is the luteal insufficiency following first ovulation

> > > before first bleeding. Roughly speaking this effect might reduce the

> > > risk of unintended pregnancy by half, increasing the effectiveness of

> > > lactational amenorrhea. I think this effect size is similar to the

> > > perfect use of the oral contraception and in general I would accept

> > > such

> > > risk when OC is used as a medication. (I know that there are some

> > > results suggesting that the use of OC is never justified, but it is not

> > > general knowledge. So I stick with interpretation that in such cases

> > > the

> > > use of OC is justifiable due to the double effect principle.) However,

> > > for breastfeeding it would start to be a problem, when it would be used

> > > primarily for family planning.

> > >

> > > Lactational amenorrhea is increasingly mentioned in the context of

> > > informed consent for potential postfertilization effects. I do not

> > > fully

> > > agree with the logic used in these arguments, which usually do not

> > > consider exceptional situation of breastfeeding, but in this context I

> > > would rather advocate the use of mucus observation during breastfeeding

> > > than blindly relying on the absence of menstruation.

> > >

> > > So my conclusion is: breastfeeding is for breastfeeding, its other

> > > effects can be welcomed, but should be not extensively sought for

> > > themselves.

> > >

> > > I do not advocate against any of the recommendations of ecological

> > > breastfeeding or alternatives - it is only about the emphasis.

> > >

> > > Regards

> > > Mikolajczyk, MD

> > >

> > ----------------------------------------------------------

> > AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free

> > from AOL at *AOL.com* <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000437

> <http://www.aol.com/?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000437>>.

> >

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free

> from AOL at *AOL.com* <http://www.aol.com?ncid=AOLAOF00020000000437>.

>

August 8, 2007

Oh, sorry for not explaining myself better. I meant are you writing as a fully practicing Catholic without any faith reservations with the document?

Sincerely yours,

Dominic M. Pedulla MD, FACC, CNFPMC, ABVM, ACPh

Varicoseveins1@...

Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, OU Health Sciences Center

Medical Director, The Oklahoma Vein and Endovascular Center

President, The Edith Stein Foundation

Re: Re: breastfeeding and special populations