[ozmidwifery] An article from Archives of Disease in Childhood (http://adc.bmjjournals.com)
Carolyn Hastie ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) has sent this article to you from Archives of Disease in Childhood: Breast feeding and resilience against psychosocial stress http://adc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/adc.2006.096826v1?maxtoshow=HITS=10hits=10RESULTFORMAT=fulltext=karolinskaandorexactfulltext=andsearchid=1FIRSTINDEX=0sortspec=dateresourcetype=HWCITeaf Hello colleagues, I thought you may be interested in this study. warmly, Carolyn This is sent to you as an email-a-friend feature from Archives of Disease in Childhood at http://www.archdischild.com -- This mailing list is sponsored by ACE Graphics. Visit http://www.acegraphics.com.au to subscribe or unsubscribe.
Re: [ozmidwifery] Question of the week.
I think you'll find there's only one piece of research that said this. No others ever backed it up. You should look into it really carefully before the woman decides for herself what is best for her and her baby. Lisa Barrett - Original Message - From: Synnes To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 12:04 PM Subject: Re: [ozmidwifery] Question of the week. They need to keep the menigiocele intact, C-section is the best way to ensure this as it is outside the body and is very fragile. They then will perhaps perform an operation to repair it which will help the child to walk and have function in the future. Amanda - Original Message - From: Mary Murphy To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Sent: Thursday, August 03, 2006 9:33 PM Subject: [ozmidwifery] Question of the week. An interesting question from Midwifery Today E News. I am 21 weeks pregnant with my third child, which has been diagnosed with spina bifida. This is quite a shock since my other two children were homebirths and the specialists said I would require a c-section. I understand the need to deliver in a hospital where the baby can receive immediate medical treatment soon after birth, but does anyone know if there is any evidence that c-section is better than vaginal birth when delivering a child with spina bifida? No virus found in this incoming message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/407 - Release Date: 8/3/2006 No virus found in this outgoing message.Checked by AVG Free Edition.Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.5/407 - Release Date: 8/3/2006
RE: [ozmidwifery] Question of the week.
I have seen large and small spina bifida's birthed normally. It is important to keep the membrane intact to prevent infection. These babies are usually operated on very quickly. -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Mary MurphySent: Thursday, 3 August 2006 10:03 PMTo: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.auSubject: [ozmidwifery] Question of the week. An interesting question from Midwifery Today E News. I am 21 weeks pregnant with my third child, which has been diagnosed with spina bifida. This is quite a shock since my other two children were homebirths and the specialists said I would require a c-section. I understand the need to deliver in a hospital where the baby can receive immediate medical treatment soon after birth, but does anyone know if there is any evidence that c-section is better than vaginal birth when delivering a child with spina bifida?
Re: [ozmidwifery] Henci Goer's Article on GD
Precisely why I never had the OGTT in my pregnancy. No proven improved outcomes for mums or babies with diagnosed and 'treated' GD.JoOn 04/08/2006, at 4:49 PM, Mary Murphy wrote:The best way for those who disagree is to find the definitive studies that address all of Henci’s points. If is such an important issue, those studies would be available for us all to read. There is harm being done to mothers and babies by the definition of Gestational diabetes. MM What are everyone’s thoughts on Henci Goer’s GD article? It’s caused a bit of a stir in my GD forum:http://www.bellybelly.com.au/forums/showthread.php?p=382564 but I don’t feel that I know enough about it to comment…Best Regards,Kelly ZanteyCreator, BellyBelly.com.au Gentle Solutions From Conception to ParenthoodBellyBelly Birth Support - http://www.bellybelly.com.au/birth-support
RE: [ozmidwifery] Henci Goer's Article on GD
I agree. There seems to be a real misconception even amongst obstetricians that gestational diabetes has the same risks as pre-existing diabetes. A couple of years ago I did a bit of research on it for my masters and could find no evidence that this was so. And according to cochrane the OGT test is not reproducible 50-70% of the time.Cheers MichelleMary Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:The best way for those who disagree is to find the definitive studies that address all of Hencis points. If is such an important issue, those studies would be available for us all to read. There is harm being done to mothers and babies by the definition of Gestational diabetes. MMWhat are everyones thoughts on Henci Goers GD article? Its caused a bit of a stir in my GD forum: http://www.bellybelly.com.au/forums/showthread.php?p=382564 but I dont feel that I know enough about it to comment Best Regards,Kelly ZanteyCreator, BellyBelly.com.au Gentle Solutions From Conception to ParenthoodBellyBelly Birth Support - http://www.bellybelly.com.au/birth-support Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
RE: [ozmidwifery] Henci Goer's Article on GD
This is one angry mums reply any tips I can offer back? I am sorry but this article is very short sighted and misinformed. It totally ignores the symptomatic effects of any level of hyperglycaemia to the mother and the subsequent physical effects on bodily functioning. Regardless of what is happening to the baby here, there is also a mother involved who I am sure would like to maintain normal organ and metabolic functioning for the rest of her pregnancy and beyond. I will come back and post more when I have calmed down...this article has made me very angry!! (Then in a later post) It is far from an exact science Emilyespecially for us type ones who produce no insulin of all to back us up. I agree that there should be a series of tests done to confirm GD as you correctly point out fluctuations are normal and can just tip you over the edge. I also don't agree with unnecessary interventions such as induction ceaserean etc. I agree that bubs should be monitored for a time but the changing trend is for them to monitor the baby whilst in your care..that scenario is more a hospital protocol thing and as with most things re-education takes time to filter through. What I don't like about this article is that it totally ignores the mother and the effect that high sugars have short and long term on physiological systems. It appears to be advocating no treatment because the treatment doesn't affect outcomes...for the baby maybe, but definitely not for the mother. Even one trimester of hyperglycaemia will cause permanent damage to organs. It mentions a low carb diet as causing ketosis...true maybe in some cases but extended hyperglycaemia will lead to ketoacidosis which could kill both mother and baby in a matter of hours...which is worse? It also doesnt mention that hyperglycaemia can cause placental breakdown and spontaneous fetal death in utero. I couild go on but wont. I reiterate that I agree that intervention is an old school tool that needs revamping and in most larger hospitals this is happening...it again depends on the education of obs and hospital policies. But I am angry because I feel that this article, which is no more than a very biased literature review could lead to people who have less knowledge about hyperglycaemia getting the wrong idea that it is okay not to treat itIt is not okay to ignore high blood sugars at any time pregnant or not...at the very least they make you like a puppy, drink like a fish, feel like crap, have blurry vision, no energy...Hang on I'm just describing pregnancy...hehe..at the worst they can lead to kidney damage, circulation problems, permanent eye damage, cardiac issues and nerve damage..I just want people to be aware there is more to this issue than that article presents*end rant* *off soapbox* Best Regards, Kelly Zantey Creator, BellyBelly.com.au Gentle Solutions From Conception to Parenthood BellyBelly Birth Support - http://www.bellybelly.com.au/birth-support From: owner-ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au [mailto:owner-ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au] On Behalf Of Michelle Windsor Sent: Saturday, 5 August 2006 8:51 AM To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] Henci Goer's Article on GD I agree. There seems to be a real misconception even amongst obstetricians that gestational diabetes has the same risks as pre-existing diabetes. A couple of years ago I did a bit of research on it for my masters and could find no evidence that this was so. And according to cochrane the OGT test is not reproducible 50-70% of the time. Cheers Michelle Mary Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The best way for those who disagree is to find the definitive studies that address all of Hencis points. If is such an important issue, those studies would be available for us all to read. There is harm being done to mothers and babies by the definition of Gestational diabetes. MM What are everyones thoughts on Henci Goers GD article? Its caused a bit of a stir in my GD forum: http://www.bellybelly.com.au/forums/showthread.php?p=382564 but I dont feel that I know enough about it to comment Best Regards, Kelly Zantey Creator, BellyBelly.com.au Gentle Solutions From Conception to Parenthood BellyBelly Birth Support - http://www.bellybelly.com.au/birth-support Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
RE: [ozmidwifery] Henci Goer's Article on GD
From the The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006 Issue 3 : Background Gestational diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) in pregnancy affects between 3 and 6% of all pregnancies and both have been associated with pregnancy complications. A lack of conclusive evidence has led clinicians to equate the risk of adverse perinatal outcome with pre-existing diabetes. Consequently, women are often intensively managed with increased obstetric monitoring, dietary regulation, and in some cases insulin therapy. However, there has been no sound evidence base to support intensive treatment. The key issue for clinicians and consumers is whether treatment of gestational diabetes and IGT will improve perinatal outcome. Main results Three studies with a total of 223 women were included. All three included studies involved women with IGT. No trials reporting treatments for gestational diabetes met the criteria. There are insufficient data for any reliable conclusions about the effect of treatments for IGT on perinatal outcome. The difference in abdominal operative delivery rates is not statistically significant (relative risk (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.51 to 1.45) and the effect on special care baby unit admission is also not significant (RR 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 1.24). Reduction in birthweight greater than 90th centile (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.61) was not found to be significant. This review suggests that an interventionist policy of treatment may be associated with a reduced risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.86). No other statistically significant differences were detected. A number of outcomes are only reported by one study resulting in a small sample and wide confidence intervals. Authors' conclusions There are insufficient data for any reliable conclusions about the effects of treatments for impaired glucose tolerance on perinatal outcome. Looks like the studies have not been done. MM From: owner-ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au [mailto:owner-ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au] On Behalf Of Michelle Windsor Sent: Saturday, 5 August 2006 6:51 AM To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] Henci Goer's Article on GD I agree. There seems to be a real misconception even amongst obstetricians that gestational diabetes has the same risks as pre-existing diabetes. A couple of years ago I did a bit of research on it for my masters and could find no evidence that this was so. And according to cochrane the OGT test is not reproducible 50-70% of the time. Cheers Michelle Mary Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The best way for those who disagree is to find the definitive studies that address all of Hencis points. If is such an important issue, those studies would be available for us all to read. There is harm being done to mothers and babies by the definition of Gestational diabetes. MM What are everyones thoughts on Henci Goers GD article? Its caused a bit of a stir in my GD forum: http://www.bellybelly.com.au/forums/showthread.php?p=382564 but I dont feel that I know enough about it to comment Best Regards, Kelly Zantey Creator, BellyBelly.com.au Gentle Solutions From Conception to Parenthood BellyBelly Birth Support - http://www.bellybelly.com.au/birth-support Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
[ozmidwifery] 'Breast' Cover Gets Mixed Reaction
Oh PUH-LEASE. 'Breast' Cover Gets Mixed Reaction Thursday July 27, 2006 4:53pm NEW YORK (AP) - I was SHOCKED to see a giant breast on the cover of your magazine, one person wrote. I immediately turned the magazine face down, wrote another. Gross, said a third. These readers weren't complaining about a sexually explicit cover, but rather one of a baby nursing, on a wholesome parenting magazine - yet another sign that Americans are squeamish over the sight of a nursing breast, even as breast-feeding itself gains greater support from the government and medical community. Babytalk is a free magazine whose readership is overwhelmingly mothers of babies. Yet in a poll of more than 4,000 readers, a quarter of responses to the cover were negative, calling the photo - a baby and part of a woman's breast, in profile - inappropriate. One mother who didn't like the cover explains she was concerned about her 13-year-old son seeing it. I shredded it, said Gayle Ash, of Belton, Texas, in a telephone interview. A breast is a breast - it's a sexual thing. He didn't need to see that. It's the same reason that Ash, 41, who nursed all three of her children, is cautious about breast-feeding in public - a subject of enormous debate among women, which has even spawned a new term: lactivists, meaning those who advocate for a woman's right to nurse wherever she needs to. I'm totally supportive of it - I just don't like the flashing, she says. I don't want my son or husband to accidentally see a breast they didn't want to see. Another mother, Kelly Wheatley, wrote Babytalk to applaud the cover, precisely because, she says, it helps educate people that breasts are more than sex objects. And yet Wheatley, 40, who's still nursing her 3-year-old daughter, rarely breast-feeds in public, partly because it's more comfortable in the car, and partly because her husband is uncomfortable with other men seeing her breast. Men are very visual, says Wheatley, 40, of Amarillo, Texas. When they see a woman's breast, they see a breast - regardless of what it's being used for. Babytalk editor Susan Kane says the mixed response to the cover clearly echoes the larger debate over breast-feeding in public. There's a huge Puritanical streak in Americans, she says, and there's a squeamishness about seeing a body part - even part of a body part. It's not like women are whipping them out with tassels on them! she adds. Mostly, they are trying to be discreet. Kane says that since the August issue came out last week, the magazine has received more than 700 letters - more than for any article in years. Gross, I am sick of seeing a baby attached to a boob, wrote Lauren, a mother of a 4-month-old. The evidence of public discomfort isn't just anecdotal. In a survey published in 2004 by the American Dietetic Association, less than half - 43 percent - of 3,719 respondents said women should have the right to breast-feed in public places. The debate rages at a time when the celebrity-mom phenomenon has made breast-feeding perhaps more public than ever. Gwyneth Paltrow, Brooke Shields, Kate Hudson and Kate Beckinsale are only a few of the stars who've talked openly about their nursing experiences. The celeb factor has even brought a measure of chic to that unsexiest of garments: the nursing bra. Gwen Stefani can be seen on babyrazzi.com - a site with a self-explanatory name - sporting a leopard-print version from lingerie line Agent Provocateur. And none other than Angelina Jolie wore one proudly on the cover of People. (Katie Holmes, meanwhile, suffered a maternity wardrobe malfunction when cameras caught her, nursing bra open and peeking out of her shirt, while on the town with husband Tom Cruise.) More seriously, the social and medical debate has intensified. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently concluded a two-year breast-feeding awareness campaign including a TV ad - criticized as over-the-top even by some breast-feeding advocates - in which NOT breast-feeding was equated with the recklessness of a pregnant woman riding a mechanical bull. There have been other measures to promote breast-feeding: in December, for example, Massachusetts banned hospitals from giving new mothers gift bags with free infant formula, a practice opponents said swayed some women away from nursing. Most states now have laws guaranteeing the right to breast-feed where one chooses, and when a store or restaurant employee denies a woman that right, it has often resulted in public protests known as nurse-ins: at a Starbucks in Miami, at Victoria's Secret stores in Racine, Wis. and Boston, and, last year, outside ABC headquarters in New York, when Barbara Walters made comments on The View seen by some women to denigrate breast-feeding in public. It's a new age, says Melinda Johnson, a registered dietician and spokesperson for ADA. With the government really getting behind breast-feeding, it's
RE: [ozmidwifery] Henci Goer's Article on GD
Bah, should have thought about looking there, I do it so often thanks Mary J Best Regards, Kelly Zantey Creator, BellyBelly.com.au Gentle Solutions From Conception to Parenthood BellyBelly Birth Support - http://www.bellybelly.com.au/birth-support From: owner-ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au [mailto:owner-ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au] On Behalf Of Mary Murphy Sent: Saturday, 5 August 2006 9:39 AM To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] Henci Goer's Article on GD From the The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006 Issue 3 : Background Gestational diabetes and impaired glucose tolerance (IGT) in pregnancy affects between 3 and 6% of all pregnancies and both have been associated with pregnancy complications. A lack of conclusive evidence has led clinicians to equate the risk of adverse perinatal outcome with pre-existing diabetes. Consequently, women are often intensively managed with increased obstetric monitoring, dietary regulation, and in some cases insulin therapy. However, there has been no sound evidence base to support intensive treatment. The key issue for clinicians and consumers is whether treatment of gestational diabetes and IGT will improve perinatal outcome. Main results Three studies with a total of 223 women were included. All three included studies involved women with IGT. No trials reporting treatments for gestational diabetes met the criteria. There are insufficient data for any reliable conclusions about the effect of treatments for IGT on perinatal outcome. The difference in abdominal operative delivery rates is not statistically significant (relative risk (RR) 0.86, 95% confidence interval 0.51 to 1.45) and the effect on special care baby unit admission is also not significant (RR 0.49, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.19 to 1.24). Reduction in birthweight greater than 90th centile (RR 0.55, 95% CI 0.19 to 1.61) was not found to be significant. This review suggests that an interventionist policy of treatment may be associated with a reduced risk of neonatal hypoglycaemia (RR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.86). No other statistically significant differences were detected. A number of outcomes are only reported by one study resulting in a small sample and wide confidence intervals. Authors' conclusions There are insufficient data for any reliable conclusions about the effects of treatments for impaired glucose tolerance on perinatal outcome. Looks like the studies have not been done. MM From: owner-ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au [mailto:owner-ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au] On Behalf Of Michelle Windsor Sent: Saturday, 5 August 2006 6:51 AM To: ozmidwifery@acegraphics.com.au Subject: RE: [ozmidwifery] Henci Goer's Article on GD I agree. There seems to be a real misconception even amongst obstetricians that gestational diabetes has the same risks as pre-existing diabetes. A couple of years ago I did a bit of research on it for my masters and could find no evidence that this was so. And according to cochrane the OGT test is not reproducible 50-70% of the time. Cheers Michelle Mary Murphy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The best way for those who disagree is to find the definitive studies that address all of Hencis points. If is such an important issue, those studies would be available for us all to read. There is harm being done to mothers and babies by the definition of Gestational diabetes. MM What are everyones thoughts on Henci Goers GD article? Its caused a bit of a stir in my GD forum: http://www.bellybelly.com.au/forums/showthread.php?p=382564 but I dont feel that I know enough about it to comment Best Regards, Kelly Zantey Creator, BellyBelly.com.au Gentle Solutions From Conception to Parenthood BellyBelly Birth Support - http://www.bellybelly.com.au/birth-support Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com
[ozmidwifery] CTG reminder.
Abstract Background Cardiotocography (sometimes known as electronic fetal monitoring), records changes in the fetal heart rate and their temporal relationship to uterine contractions. The aim is to identify babies who may be short of oxygen (hypoxic), so additional assessments of fetal well-being may be used, or the baby delivered by caesarean section or instrumental vaginal birth. Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of continuous cardiotocography during labour. I realize this is an old issue, but it doesnt seem to have translated into everyday practice. MM Search strategy We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group Trials Register (March 2006), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2005, Issue 4), MEDLINE (1966 to December 2005), EMBASE (1974 to December 2005), Dissertation Abstracts (1980 to December 2005) and the National Research Register (December 2005). Selection criteria Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials involving a comparison of continuous cardiotocography (with and without fetal blood sampling) with (a) no fetal monitoring, (b) intermittent auscultation (c) intermittent cardiotocography. Data collection and analysis Two authors independently assessed eligibility, quality and extracted data. Main results Twelve trials were included (over 37,000 women); only two were high quality. Compared to intermittent auscultation, continuous cardiotocography showed no significant difference in overall perinatal death rate (relative risk (RR) 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 1.23, n = 33,513, 11 trials), but was associated with a halving of neonatal seizures (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.80, n = 32,386, nine trials) although no significant difference was detected in cerebral palsy (RR 1.74, 95% CI 0.97 to 3.11, n = 13,252, two trials). There was a significant increase in caesarean sections associated with continuous cardiotocography (RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.30 to 2.13, n =18,761, 10 trials). Women were also more likely to have an instrumental vaginal birth (RR 1.16, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.32, n = 18,151, nine trials). Data for subgroups of low-risk, high-risk, preterm pregnancies and high quality trials were consistent with overall results. Access to fetal blood sampling did not appear to influence the difference in neonatal seizures nor any other prespecified outcome. Authors' conclusions Continuous cardiotocography during labour is associated with a reduction in neonatal seizures, but no significant differences in cerebral palsy, infant mortality or other standard measures of neonatal well-being. However, continuous cardiotocography was associated with an increase in caesarean sections and instrumental vaginal births. The real challenge is how best to convey this uncertainty to women to enable them to make an informed choice without compromising the normality of labour.
[ozmidwifery] Biophysical profile
Guess who is browsing Cochrane today? Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006 Issue 3 Types of studies Published and unpublished randomized trials comparing fetal biophysical profile (scoring system derived from B-mode ultrasound monitoring of fetal movements, tone and breathing, ultrasound assessment of amniotic fluid volume, and electronic fetal heart rate monitoring) with other forms of antepartum fetal assessment. We anticipated that early trials may not have used strictly random allocation and, therefore, we planned to include trials that used a quasi-randomized method of treatment allocation such as alternation by hospital number or woman's date of birth. Types of participants Women with high-risk pregnancies (hypertension, intrauterine growth retardation, post-term, diabetes, previous stillbirth, decreased fetal movements, antepartum haemorrhage, premature labour, Rhesus disease). Results When compared with conventional fetal monitoring (usually cardiotocography) biophysical profile testing showed no obvious effect (either beneficial or deleterious) on pregnancy outcome. There was an increase in the number of inductions of labour following biophysical profile in the Alfirevic 1995 trial. (If CTG has already been shown to be unreliable, then we are really left with no method to reassure us baby is o.k. No wonder the medical profession is nervous MM). Discussion Available evidence from randomized controlled trials provides no support for the use of biophysical profile as a test of fetal well-being in high risk pregnancies. However, the total number of women included in this meta-analysis is only 2,839. This is a very small number bearing in mind that overall incidence of adverse outcomes was so low (perinatal deaths = 0.8%; low Apgar score = 2.4%); thus, one could not assume that the biophysical profile is without value. For example, to make any meaningful conclusion about the impact of the biophysical profile on perinatal mortality in excess of 10,000 women would need to be studied. Furthermore, the impact of the biophysical profile on obstetric interventions, length of hospitalisation, serious neonatal morbidity and parents satisfaction are virtually untested. (Looks like it is under researched) The increase in inductions of labour observed in the small trial by Alfirevic and Walkinshaw (Alfirevic 1995) highlights the need for careful evaluation of the impact of different fetal monitoring policies on a much wider range of relevant outcomes. The observed increase in inductions in this study was thought to be caused by the difference in the type of test used to assess amniotic fluid volume in two groups (amniotic fluid index in the biophysical group and maximum pool depth in the control group) rather than by the biophysical profile itself. The amniotic fluid index was more frequently abnormal than maximum pool depth leading to more obstetric interventions in the biophysical profile group.
Re: [ozmidwifery] 'Breast' Cover Gets Mixed Reaction
Just goes to show Sheila Kitzinger was right when she wrote:"Today bottle-feeding, because it eliminates display of the breasts, helps protect women, and their male owners, against such attack. Women's breasts are considered their husbands' possessions. The man decides what is done with them and to whom they can be shown. Shame and disgust about breastfeeding are closely connected to the view of a woman's body as male property" (Kitzinger, 2005, 43) The breast is supposed to be a sex object, therefore when it is used to nourish a child it is seen as perverse, it's supposed to be a play-thing for men. Wimmin's bodies remain sexually objectified pieces of male property, and men either have to be allowed to look at them or touch them in a sexual capacity, or be protected from them because they have sexual power, sickening. Cheers, Sazz"Kelly @ BellyBelly" [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh PUH-LEASE . 'Breast'Cover Gets Mixed Reaction Thursday July 27, 2006 4:53pm NEW YORK (AP) - "I was SHOCKED to see a giant breast on the cover of your magazine," one person wrote. "I immediately turned the magazine face down," wrote another. "Gross," said a third. These readers weren't complaining about a sexually explicit cover, but rather one of a baby nursing, on a wholesome parenting magazine - yet another sign that Americans are squeamish over the sight of a nursing breast, even as breast-feeding itself gains greater support from the government and medical community.Babytalk is a free magazine whose readership is overwhelmingly mothers of babies. Yet in a poll of more than 4,000 readers, a quarter of responses to the cover were negative, calling the photo - a baby and part of a woman's breast, in profile - inappropriate.One mother who didn't like the cover explains she was concerned about her 13-year-old son seeing it."I shredded it," said Gayle Ash, of Belton, Texas, in a telephone interview. "A breast is a breast - it's a sexual thing. He didn't need to see that."It's the same reason that Ash, 41, who nursed all three of her children, is cautious about breast-feeding in public - a subject of enormous debate among women, which has even spawned a new term: "lactivists," meaning those who advocate for a woman's right to nurse wherever she needs to."I'm totally supportive of it - I just don't like the flashing," she says. "I don't want my son or husband to accidentally see a breast they didn't want to see."Another mother, Kelly Wheatley, wrote Babytalk to applaud the cover, precisely because, she says, it helps educate people that breasts are more than sex objects. And yet Wheatley, 40, who's still nursing her 3-year-old daughter, rarely breast-feeds in public, partly because it's more comfortable in the car, and partly because her husband is uncomfortable with other men seeing her breast."Men are very visual," says Wheatley, 40, of Amarillo, Texas. "When they see a woman's breast, they see a breast - regardless of what it's being used for."Babytalk editor Susan Kane says the mixed response to the cover clearly echoes the larger debate over breast-feeding in public. "There's a huge Puritanical streak in Americans," she says, "and there's a squeamishness about seeing a body part - even part of a body part.""It's not like women are whipping them out with tassels on them!" she adds. "Mostly, they are trying to be discreet."Kane says that since the August issue came out last week, the magazine has received more than 700 letters - more than for any article in years."Gross, I am sick of seeing a baby attached to a boob," wrote Lauren, a mother of a 4-month-old.The evidence of public discomfort isn't just anecdotal. In a survey published in 2004 by the American Dietetic Association, less than half - 43 percent - of 3,719 respondents said women should have the right to breast-feed in public places.The debate rages at a time when the celebrity-mom phenomenon has made breast-feeding perhaps more public than ever. Gwyneth Paltrow, Brooke Shields, Kate Hudson and Kate Beckinsale are only a few of the stars who've talked openly about their nursing experiences.The celeb factor has even brought a measure of chic to that unsexiest of garments: the nursing bra. Gwen Stefani can be seen on babyrazzi.com - a site with a self-explanatory name - sporting a leopard-print version from lingerie line Agent Provocateur. And none other than Angelina Jolie wore one proudly on the cover of People. (Katie Holmes, meanwhile, suffered a maternity wardrobe malfunction when cameras caught her, nursing bra open and peeking out of her shirt, while on the town with husband Tom Cruise.)More seriously, the social and medical debate has intensified. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recently
