Why would someone who is going to adopt a baby which has been apprehended by social services be called selfish

Question

I asked a question about my brother and sister in law adopting a newborn, who has been apprehended and placed immediately for adoption by the state (the mother's 6 previous children have been adopted also). My sister in law obviously needs to formula feed but was interested in attempting to induce lactation and supplementing with breastmilk, purely to benefit the child's health as he is very underweight and sickly.

Two people claimed that my sister in law is sick, unnatural and selfish for wanting to do this.

This baby is the 7th child taken off his 'mother' for a horrendous record of past abuse and neglect. She is HIV positive, riddled with STD's, and uses drugs and alcohol, while pregnant.

After giving birth to her last child, she took her out of the hospital 2 hours later and placed a notice up at a nearby store advertising her baby as a healthy (the poor child is HIV positive) white infant for sale for $500. So why is my sister in law selfish?

Answer 1

It is wrong for ANY breastfeeding woman to think that what goes into their bodies, including medication that induces lactation, will not be in their milk and will not affect the baby.  

It is wrong to continue breastfeeding with no hope for building a good supply.  Ever try to feed a baby with low supply?  Round the clock feeding involving long nursing sessions followed by formula supplement, constantly hungry baby, baby tired from feeding constantly and falling asleep during feeding, upset digestive system from mixing formula and breast milk.  A baby deserves to be fed properly when it's hungry, not put through an unnecessary feeding process involving a long nursing session with little to no milk followed by formula, or having some apparatus stuck in its mouth along with a nipple while he sucks.  

If an adoptive mother wants the baby to have the benefits of breast milk, she should seek out a milk bank or hire a wet nurse.  Otherwise it's largely for the adoptive mother's satisfaction of wanting a nursing experience and that is just plain wrong.

Answer 2

For once, I am sort of agreeing with you.  I am dumbfounded that the child's natural mother was even allowed to have more children.  Bizzi is right about how broken the system is.  Human rights violation or not, a woman who keeps popping them out sick and addicted needs to be forcefully sterilized.  

Aside from the fact that I find the breastfeeding thing sort of icky, my only real concern would be the hormones used to induce the lactation.  And if the baby is truly very sick, he may need more than the breastmilk.  She needs to speak with a doctor who has handled HIV positive/addicted newborns.  What she is doing is a wonderful thing for a child who truly needs a home.  I am sad that this baby may never get to know his siblings, but at least he has a fighting chance at life, something he obviously would not have gotten if he stayed with his natural mother.

if the child has already been feeding from formula, then she may just want to stick with the formula.  i was told that changes like that (switching between breast and formula) could sometimes cause a shock to the baby's system and possibly make them sicker (I might be wrong, so just have your SIL look into it!)

Answer 3

Adopting a baby that is HIV positive is a very unselfish thing to do! I guess that the people who called her selfish don't understand the health benefits of breastmilk and assumed that your sister in law just wants to do it for her own benefit. I'm sure that for an HIV positive baby, the antibodies in breastmilk would be great for their overall health and immune system.

Answer 4

If you already asked this question but did not get the answers you were looking for, why are you asking it again, except to try to flame another fight?

If your sister breastfeeds a child that is not hers and HIV positive, she may be making that infant sick with anything she may have in her system that the infant is too sick to fight off because of the HIV.

--EDIT--

Well, since you have the answers already, good luck to you, your SIL and your pediatrician!!!!!

Answer 5

When children are in state custody they are the State's children.

When a child is placed into a  PRE-Adoptive family there is a mandatory post placement period. Most states require 6 months and hopefully have post placement supervision visits.

During this period of time the child placed as pre-adoptive is STILL the states child and until the adoption is final the parents are viewed as a "Foster" placement. During this time there is STILL a chance this placement will not finalize in adoption therefore the state maintains their role as the legal parent until it does.

Foster parents are not permitted to breast feed the states children or those children whom may be reunified with their biological parents or relatives. There are a number of things that people who are not the legal parents cannot decide for a child...

For example: they cannot decide not to immunize the baby for any reason until the adoption is final.

The pre-adoptive family cannot drive over state lines with the child unless they have written documentation from the state saying they can do so....

The pre-adoptive family cannot do anything that the Foster parents can't do. They cannot have the baby sleep in their bed for example as the state will not allow foster parents to have foster children sleep in an adults bed....

So, the state will decide that a pre-adoptive placement of a states child cannot be with an adoptive parent wanting to breast feed. It is too intimate and if for some reason the adoption did not finalize the state would be responsible for answers to whom ever might take issue with a baby being breast fed by any other woman aside from the biological mother.

The state would not want to deal with Any Possible Implication of any kind of sexual abuse and since breast feeding involves b*****s--and a persons body fluids it could be contraversal...so it is not going to be permitted even for the best of reasons. In this case the state cannot allow an exception it opens too many risks for liability with the state.

Answer 6

I dont see her as being selfish I see her as wanting to care for an infant she plans to make a home for. She isn't turning the child down for his faults but loving it for the amaazing fact its life. Sorry people are saying stuff like that!

Answer 7

I don't think adopting this kind of child is selfish at all. I will say that I think trying to breastfeed this child is not something I would try to do. Aside from the "ick' factor, I don't think that inducing lactation using hormones is good for mom or baby. No one is sure exactly what they may do to the infant. Also I personally find aparent breastfeeing disgustin (This is Me and I want to stress that, it is my own Opinion!) Also I would like to point out that a mothers breastmilk is tailored for her child, the chemical makeup of the milk changes with the needs of the child. This is not something that would happen with an adoptive mother. (yes I know that wet nurses were used for many years, back in the day when there were no formulas and it was a necessitiy, but today there are very good formulas available so a wet nurse is not needed) Thank you for providing more information about your sister in law and the baby, I will say I think that taking on a child who is HIV postive is not something (At least I think so) most people would do. I wish the entire family good luck and I pray that the child will be healthy and stay healthy. With all the new treatments available it is very likely this little one will live a very long and healthy life.

Also thank you for rephrasing your previous question and editing it for content. That is much appreciated!

Answer 8

Some people cannot see past their own noses.  They are ego centric, and believe that if people do not think like they do, they are worthless.  Some folks on this board have a very narrow minded attitude towards adoption, and cannot even think about allowing that some adoption is good, healthy and has a good outcome.  Because for them to take that in, means they have to deal with their own reality -- that probably adoption was best for them, too.  And some find it too hard to imagine that.  They want to hold onto the fantasy that if their bio family had raised them, they wouldn't have any of the problems they have now.  I say, in most cases, they would likely just have different problems.

Answer 9

I think what your sister in law did is wonderful but does she realize how u are describing the baby as being sickly that isnt a healthy attitude in my opinon, the baby isnt responsible how it was born and are u sure u are ok with having a hiv positive baby in your family... No i dont think they are selfish by no means but i think u are prejuidice by describing this infant as sickly and hiv positive...

Answer 10

Your sister is incredibly un-selfish.

Good luck to her with the breastfeeding!

Answer 11

Your sister in law is definitely NOT selfish - in fact- her wanting to breastfeed shows that she is as very LOVING, NURTURING, and WONDERFUL MOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I think you've asked a wonderful question - actually, after I read your first post, I posted a similar question, but I mentioned one of the posters by name and got flamed, so I removed it.

I think the person(s) who called your mother selfish have serious mental health issues / mental illnesses. That's the only reason I can think of that they would say that?

If you post the question on the lalecheleague.org board you would get totally different responses!!! Also, you would get positive responses if you posted it on a breastfeeding group on cafemom, babycenter, or ivllage - you might try that :)

There are lots of mothers that are called selfish everyday for choosing to formula feed. (Which is not that bad but breastmilk is best.) In fact, the World Health Organization (I think that's what its called) encourages pediatricians to talk to adoptive parents about trying adoptive breastfeeding!!!!

KUDOS to your sister in law for being an AMAZING and AWESOME mother!!!!!!!!!! :) :) :)

Answer 12

No it's not selfish. (Yeah I said that) Wanting to help is great.

But see if people thought solely about the children the mom would not have got to child number 6. But... sadly the adoption and foster care and law business don't see it like that they see it like that is 6 X $20  000 +bonuses and federal foster care funds until they are sold.

Wanting to help a child is not selfish.

The system is broken is so many ways... that is just one of them.

I am glad that baby has a place to go.

Answer 13

Many adoptive mothers breast feed their children.  It's NOT selfish at all...  in fact, it can hurt, be messy, etc., for the mother.  Don't listen those who call her names- they are NOT fully educated about the issue.  Look up wet nurses.  Breastfeeding children other than biological children has been done forever.

Answer 14

Yes, I said it was selfish.  And it’s true, I'm not a fan of adoptive mother's breastfeeding adopted children.

However, the reason I was so adamant in my answer is because this is a neglected, malnourished child.  I don't believe your SIL can possibly provide enough milk, or milk with the right amount of fat in it to stimulate proper brain development.  This is akin to an 'experiment' on your SIL's part, and she'd be conducting it on a child who can't afford NOT to have every bit of nutrition he can get.  I have had 3 children in the last five years.  They were all born very healthy.  It's hard to convey just how hungry newborns are--my DH called it 'frantic'.  Any newborn cannot afford NOT to get the proper nutrition in the first 12 mos., let alone an "underweight and sickly" baby.

If your SIL really wants to give this child breast milk, I would suggest that she get some from a milk bank, as other answerers have suggested.  It doesn't sound like your SIL has done much reading about infant nutrion, or spoken with a pediatrician about managing the health of this child.  That's why I called the desire to breastfeed a child (that she did not give birth to, and she is not already fully lactating), selfish.  I think she is either woefully ignorant about infant nutrition, or wants to ‘bond’ with this child to suit her own needs.

Yes, it is good of your SIL to adopt this child so obviously in need, I hope she doesn't guilt trip him for the rest of his life about saving him either.  She wanted a newborn, and she got one, so in essence, he is saving HER.

Answer 15

You should be separating the situations. Its not about where the baby has come from, its not about the babies circumstances, its about my opinions on the reasons behind adoptive parents wanting to breastfeed.

I personally don't feel its natural, nor would I recommend it to anyone, and thats just ME and thats just life.

I DO think its selfish for an adoptive parent to try and breastfeed. I think inducing unnatural milk with the assitance of hormones would give the baby.....hormone milk. And as a mother, thats something I wouldn't give to my child. I don't feed my kids hormone cow milk now that they're older, and when I was breastfeeding them, i didn't eat anything with hormones in it.

Its the whole idea behind wanting whats best for your child that doesn't co-exist with hormoned induced breast feeding in my mind. I see that as selfish motivations on the adoptive parents behalf because I don't see how that could be "better" for the child than forumla.

The mothers body grows the perfect milk for the child, only her body can know what exact make up of milk is appropriate for the baby.

I've spoken with a LLL representative who told me the same thing, of course she advocated for breastmilk from a donor over formula, but its the hormones that bother me.

My children eat all organic food. I grow alot of it. I cook almost everything for them, and when they were babies I made all of their baby food at home. I take care of my children, what I feed them, forms them aside from all of the other factors of life ( emotions, outside influences etc. ) I don't want my children getting their periods in the 4th grade because they've eaten too many hormones from meat and milk so their bodies think they're older than they are. And giving a baby breastmilk, induced by hormones to me, in my opinion, isn't putting the child first.

Would you SIL allow a mother who isn't inducing milk via hormones to act as a wet nurse to the adoptee? The answer to "that" question would help me pinpoint how "selfish" she is or isn't being. Or does she want to be the "only" breastmilk feeder" to the child, which, in my opinion, would be the selfish answer.

I wonder why you feel the need to slander the childs natural mother in order to justify your sister in laws breastfeeding?

Answer 16

I don't see how wanting to give your child the best start possible is selfish.

I know of 2 women , one who fostered a baby who was born to an addicted mother, and one who adopted a baby. Both breastfed(with supplemental feeders, the adopted mother was able to establish a milk supply, but not enough to exclusively breastfeed)

For the baby who was suffering through withdrawals, all the skin to skin contact and being able to hear the moms heartbeat was very calming.

Your sister in law is not being selfish and is putting this child's needs first. If people see something wrong with it, they are the ones who have a problem.

I was a LLL leader for a few years, and have "wet-nursed" a few babies for sick moms and to help the mom's learn to attach properly.

Nursing other peoples children is very common in other cultures. It's "westerners" who have weird hang-ups about breastfeeding in general.

Answer 17

When I read your question, I see your SIL as being a very caring, loving person that wants to do whats best for this baby.

I hope that she is looking at breastfeeding as an option, and not the only way. Without the introduction of hormones, it will just not be physically possible to breastfeed alone. When you introduce hormones to bring on breastfeeding un natuarally, it's not in the best interests of the mom, and definitly not in the baby ~ especially a sickly one.

There are other options though, as I explained there are apparatuses to piggy back,  there are breast milk banks where she could purchase breast milk for the baby, and there's formula.

Formula's, are widely availible, and have come along way in the past few years, they've become closer and closer to breast milk...

It's really best to consult the child's pediatrician as for what's best for this child. Being HIV positive, she's probably already on medications, it's really really best to consult the ped.

Answer 18

Well, the previous question was solely about the breastfeeding issue.  People who said you SIL was being selfish weren't saying she's selfish for adopting the child. They felt she may be selfish for wanting to be the only source of milk, as it appeared by the question that possibly she would be.

If you take some time and read, you won't find anyone here who finds a person selfish for adopting children whose parents' parental rights have been terminated.  Everyone here is in favor of adopting out of foster care.  

It was the breast feeding issue that was concerning to some, not the adoption.  It appears that 1 or 2 or the responders here had the same misunderstanding.

Answer 19

Your SIL is NOT selfish she is WONDERFUL. I am adopted and I have disagreed with a comment or two of yours before but this I am in total agreeance. I believe in adoption when the child is orphaned OR in Danger. This child is CLEARLY In danger.

For her to consider relactation well Id like to give her a medal. Please give her a hug from me.

"

She is NOT Selfish she is a GEM.

UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ....

Please tell her to go to La Leche for some help in relactating and to get on to kellymom site for some help as well

BRAVO x

ETA OMG I Cant believe the thumbs downs people are getting - Wake up

ETA2 Just to clear this part up

I think inducing unnatural milk with the assitance of hormones would give the baby.....hormone milk

The mother would be given something like motilium a dopermide to induce the lactation, I had  it myself for my own baby to help increase my supply. The mother would be be given a short term supply to increase the supply. If you look at La Leche League or Australia Breastfeeding Association you will see that it is in fact written about on their websites.

Once the milk has started the medication is ceased in the majority of cases.

ETA

Not only that but a SNS Can be used - a Supplemental Nursing System, Where by you hang a specifically designed bottle with formula in around the neck , the baby sucks at the breast and the thin tube feeds in the formula, sucking is what helps increases milk supply

So the Dr may put the A Mum on the Domperidone drug to commence the start of lactation and then combined with the SNS it will increase in most cases.

As far as mums making the right milk for their own baby yes this is correct however what about the days gone by with wet nurses ? and also currently in some states of Australia we have Milk Banks.

Because Breast Milk wins hands down over formula anyday.

(I am NOT Anti Formula Feeding Mothers I am just stating the fact, if someone has to ff then I do not condem them)

It is also about the bonding, Lactation brings alone its own set of natural hormones endorphins, this helps to encourage babies sleeping and it helps to relax baby, Also there is the closeness in bonding. from Breastfeedng.

The benefits of choosing to breastfeed far outweigh the beneifts not to breasfeed

ETA Sunny I agree with regards to how hungry newborns get and sick malnourished ones need special care, As I said the SNS feeder would adequately take care of the nutritional need via feeding the formula in that, whilst breastfeeding is being established

personally I think the negativity is more about the *ick* factor that people have noted

ETA please have a read here http://www.llli.org/NB/NBadoptive.html about adoptive feeding from the LLL