Archive for 2009

Bedsharing is not a risk.

Sunday, June 21st, 2009

The Alaska Division of Public Health (ADPH) has stated since 2000 “that infants may safely share a bed for sleeping if this occurs with a nonsmoking, unimpaired caregiver on a standard, adult, non-water mattress.”  Because the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated in 2005 that infants should not share a sleep surface with adults or other children, the ADPH decided to research the issue once again in case their 2000 statement needed modifications.  The ADPH also expressed some concerns with the studies supporting the AAP findings. 
     Bedsharing with an infant is common in Alaska.  Those infants who always or almost always shared a bed increased from 33% in 1996 to 43% in 2005.  After researching all Alaskan infant deaths from 1996-2003,  the ADPH concluded that “almost all bedsharing deaths occurred in association with other risk factors despite the finding that most women reporting frequent bedsharing had no risk factors; this suggests that bedsharing alone does not increase the risk of infant death.”  Risk factors were “maternal cigarette smoking habits currently and during the last three months of pregnancy, prenatal smokeless tobacco or chew use, prenatal marijuana use, number of alcoholic drinks in an average week during the first three months before pregnancy and currently, and the position in which the infant was most often laid down to sleep.” 
     The ADPH reaffirms three policies:  1) that infants sleep on their backs unless told differently by a medical provider, 2) that infants never sleep on a couch or water bed, and 3) that infants sleep in an infant crib or with a nonsmoking, unimpaired caregiver on a standard, adult, non-water mattress.
     This study was published in Public Health Reports , July-August 2009. 
For 21 advantages of bedsharing, see Chapter 4 of The Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding.
For safety guidelines on bedsharing and free brochures on this topic, go to “links” at left column on the Home Page of www.NFPandmore.org.  Scroll down to “Safe Bedsharing for Mother and Baby” and “Reactions to the AAP’s Policy Statement on SIDS.”

Sheila Kippley

Pill as Pollutant

Sunday, June 14th, 2009

In early January 2009, there was a brief flurry of headlines about the birth control pill as a major pollutant in the waterways of the Western countries. This has made headlines before, but the kicker in January was a report in La Osservatore Romano, the official newspaper of the Vatican. In that article, Pedro Castellvi, president of the International Federation of Catholic Medical Associations, reported that the Pill was having devastating effects on the environment. He also linked this to increasing male infertility. (Source: The Pill causes male infertility, says the Vatican, Simon Caldwell, MailOnline, 090106)

As one might expect, this was dismissed by some pharmaceutical organizations, saying that these hormones were distributed by other causes as well and were all over the place including plastics, disinfectants, and the meats we eat. One Italian scientist denied that the Pill had any characteristics of female hormones after it was metabolized. That assertion certainly seems open to challenge because the success of the Pill has been the fact that it does not break down as natural hormones do. It was engineered to resist being broken down so that it could be taken orally and still be effective after having been digested. Women have been urinating their natural female hormones since Eve, but it’s only been in recent years that these waste products have been feminizing the male fish.

I googled “Pill and environmental pollution” and got 48,200 responses. The Vatican statement was prominent in the first pages, but on page 5 of the search results I found a reference to a recent book, The Really Inconvenient Truths by Iain Murray published in 2008. You can read it online. Chapter 3 is titled “The Pill as Pollutant” and is helpful. Among other things, Murray describes what happened when the mountain streams near Boulder, Colorado were found to have these pollutants. Or it is better to say what didn’t happen. It appears that as soon as the liberals discovered that their favorite birth control mechanism was responsible or partially responsible for this, all of sudden they lost interest.

The article in the Vatican paper was based on a 100-page report with 300 bibliographic citations, but it was breezily dismissed by those who make money selling the Pill. Yes, there are other sources of overall pollution, but the question needs to be studied further. To what extent have the other possible sources been deliberately constructed so as to be resistant to normally breaking down as natural hormones do? And yes, it would be good to get rid of the contamination from the other sources, which may or may not be feasible. But one thing is certain. Any and all pollution caused by the Pill and its derivatives such as the Morning-after Pill, the Shot, implants, and hormone-laced IUDs can be completely eliminated by a ban on their manufacture. There are other ways to avoid pregnancy that do not pollute and that do not carry abortifacient properties.

And the best of all of these is Natural Family Planning, both systematic and ecological breastfeeding.

John F. Kippley
Sex and the Marriage Covenant: A Basis for Morality

Decreased Breastfeeding and Contraception

Sunday, June 7th, 2009

Allow me to offer an opinion on at least one cause of the population panic of the last 40-some years. For centuries, breastfeeding kept the world population stable or at a low growth. The abandonment of breastfeeding in the 1930s was accompanied by the growth of contraception and so population remained stable. In the 1950s, the postwar boom in having babies was welcomed by almost everyone, but it put a tremendous burden on moms who were having babies every year because of the lack of breastfeeding. This induced the panic reflected in Ehrlich’s negative fantasy of 1968. It also helped to induce panic in the Catholic population and the consequent rejection of Catholic teaching regarding unnatural forms of birth control.
    One answer to the problem is what my wife has termed “ecological breastfeeding” or eco-breastfeeding for short. Even in the culture of the United States, mothers who do this type of breastfeeding average between 14 and 15 months before they have their first postpartum period. In some less-developed cultures, breastfeeding accounts for average birth intervals of 48 months with no contraception or taboos against intercourse while nursing. The Eskimos used to keep  their families to 3 to 4 children using traditional breastfeeding.
    God has a plan revealed in the book of Nature and we need to respect it.

John F. Kippley
Sex and the Marriage Covenant