To feel a bit uncomfortable about someone actually using a Wet Nurse for their baby in this day and age?

[NobodySpecial]

Basically when my DD was born, my SIL told me about a woman in her daughter's school who had a baby around the same time and she had a nanny/wet nurse for him who looked after him all day and nursed him aswell.

I find this weird. I understand that she may have had problems with producing milk etc, but still...hiring someone to feed your baby physically? What about milk banks? Or if she didn't have problems with milk production then what about expressing?

I always thought this was something that happened in the olden days and didn't occur anymore, but I was obviously wrong. It would make me uncomfortable if anyone tried to nurse my baby, the biggest exception being my Mum, but she passed away a long time ago so that leaves no one...even my sister or close relative (not that I know anyone who still breastfeeds)...

For plenty of babies in the 3rd world and the ones that died as a result of contaminated formula milk in China, yes.

Whether you like it or not, Malificence, formula milk leads to more disease and worse outcomes for the babies than breastmilk. Breastmilk is only "better" if formula is used as the basis for normalcy is taken to be formula. If comparisons between formula and breastmilk were made with breastmilk being the norm then breastmilk is not better, formula is worse.

Women are NOT being given the full information to make an informed choice between formula and breastmilk if everyone shilly shallies around the issue because we don't want to upset the little wimmin and make them feel bad.

I'd have no problem with it.

I was breastfed by one of my mum's friends & she fed (co-feeding? ;) ) children of her friends on occasion. The need has never arisen for me but if it did I would be far happier with my babies being fed by a willing lactating friend rather than having formula milk. None of mine have ever been fussy about whose boob they rooted for & tried to latch on. I think it is great that you could find a child carer willing to wet nurse tbh.

Feeding two children isn't a big deal - I've tandem fed all of mine, you just make more milk.

ohdear,
and plenty of babies in africa die or become terminally ill because they are breastfed with HIV infected breastmilk.

When you donate blood every single sample of blood is tested for HIv (or normally in Britain HIV antibodies), however with a wetnurse, the milk is not tested. The nurse can be tested, but she can give a negative result even if she has HIV as it can take months to show up. So you would have to test her, watch her like a hawk for six months (i.e make sure she does not have unprotected sex with anyone whatsoever), test her again, then continue watching her until she stopped breastfeeding. It is a myth that only drug users get HIV (there are apparently nurses in the UK with HIV), and plenty of people have HIV without realising it. My husband works in this field and he said he was shocked to find out that a high proportion of people who come to get tested, and test positive never come back for their results until years later when they start getting symptoms so for ten years are walking around carrying hiv without being aware). Virtually any disease that can be passed on via bodily fluids, can be passed on through breast milk. And medicines can also be passed on in breastmilk, including anti-biotics which increases their risk of antibiotic resistance.

So a wetnurse is a lot more dangerous then getting a blood transfusion at the hospital. So unless you were prepared to get a blood transfusion where the blood itself had not been tested, but the donor had been (remembering the problems with it showing up), I do not get why you would feed your baby untested breastmilk and expose them to a risk you would never expose yourself to. As I said wetnurses are fine in theory, but unless it was someone I knew extremely well I would not take the risk, as I would never take that risk with my own health.

and if made correctly with clean water formula does not lead to more disease than if the baby had been fed with breastmilk.

Kelly - actually the WHO now recomends baby's in aftrica are breastfed even if the mother is HIV infected as transmision is not garanted and infant mortality is higher if baby's are fed formula. They recomend mum's are given antiretroviral as well. But excuslivily BF actualy seems to redudce the mother to infant transmision. The risk is only 4% if excuslivly Bf for at lest 6months.

It's only in the west that HIV mum's are recomended to give formula as we are lucky to have clean water and be able to affored the hight cost of formula

if made correctly with clean water formula does not lead to more disease

Yeah, have you seen parts of rural africa ?

And you are conveniently ignoring the requirement for some fuel source to heat the water for the formula to a safe temperature, a light for the mother to be able to see what she is doing at 3am in the middle of the Ugandan countryside, the ability to read the english instructions on the packet, the access to sufficient clean water and fuel to sterilise the bottles, the wherewithall to buy sufficient quantities of formula powder to feed the baby adequately rather than watering down. For millions of families worldwide they are forced to survive on less than a dollar a day. When a tin of formula costs a week's money what do you think happens ?

Safe use of formula is almost impossible for the vast majority of the world's poor.

I don't have a problem with it, nor would I have problem sharing my own milk, but that's me.
It beats the formula milk in any case.

It is relatively easy to increase your milk once your supply is established. I'm currently bf my 5mo ds. I'm also expressing 1pt per day for my local milkbank. My DS is thriving and he was a huge baby (over 11lb at birth) and it is not that I have an abnormally large supply - I couldn't produce enough to feed my first DD due to attachment issues and bad advice.

Kelly, it is not just clean water that can cause illness with ff. The powder itself is not sterile. Babies in developed countries can also end up very sick.

I just don't get why it is icky. I can't think of anything more natural than feeding a child, whether or not it is your child. (Not that I ever have - I do recognise that many other mothers do not share my feelings on this issue.)

I don't think I'd feel comfortable with it - possibly because I am a bit sqeamish and also because I feel breastfeeding is a great bonding experience and so I'd probably feel a bit jealous.

That's not to say there's anything wrong with it though - more personal preference.

It would make me sad to see one of my babies bf with a another woman. A bit like if they had another mother.

Would have no problem with using a milk bank though

No idea why but I find it very very strange. I could never ever nurse someone elses child, it may not be rational but it just doesnt sit right with me!

Really SouthStar? I'm just pondering on what you said "never ever". I know this is not what we've been talking about and I'm not trying to be controversial, truly just curious. What if there was some kind of emergency, earthquake say and you could feed a baby that was in great need as well as your own, without harming your own...