Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Paper
Should we talk about the ‘benefits’ of breastfeeding? The significance of the default in representations of infant feeding
  1. Fiona Woollard
  1. Correspondence to Professor Fiona Woollard, Department of Philosophy, School of Humanities, University of Southampton, Southampton S017 1BJ, UK; f.woollard{at}soton.ac.uk

Abstract

Breastfeeding advocates have criticised the phrase ‘breast is best’ as mistakenly representing breastfeeding as a departure from the norm rather than the default for infant feeding. Breastfeeding mothers have an interest in representing breastfeeding as the default, for example, to counteract criticism of breastfeeding outside the home. This connects to an increasing trend to frame feeding babies formula as harmful, which can be seen in research papers, public policy and information presented to parents and prospective parents. (1) Whether we frame infant-feeding decisions in terms of harming or benefit, protection or risk matters because these distinctions are generally morally significant and thus (2) holding that those who decide to use formula ‘harm’, ‘risk harm’ to their babies or describing formula feeding as ‘dangerous’ is likely to contribute to guilt associated with formula feeding and thus to undermine the well-being of vulnerable women. It may undermine attempts to improve breastfeeding rates by leading women to reject information about health outcomes surrounding infant-feeding decisions. However, (3) these distinctions do not apply easily to infant-feeding decisions, in part because of difficulties in determining whether we should treat breastfeeding as the normative baseline for infant feeding. I show that neither the descriptive ‘facts of the matter’ nor moral or pragmatic considerations provide an easy answer before discussing how to respond to these considerations.

  • children
  • family
  • feminism
View Full Text

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Footnotes

  • Contributors This paper is the sole work of the author.

  • Funding This paper is associated with a research project funded by Program for Research, Development and Innovation Oriented to Societal Challenges, Ministry of Economy in Spain (grant no. FFI2016-77755-R).

  • Competing interests None declared.

  • Patient consent Not required.

  • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

  • Data sharing statement No unpublished data are used in the study.

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles