Literally (and figuratively)!!

Women who breastfeed: it may protect them from heart disease, says research in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology.

Among 90,000 women, those who had breastfed for two years or longer had a 23 per cent lower risk of coronary heart disease decades later than women who had never breastfed. An accompanying editorial says this adds to other studies showing lactating women to have a more favourable metabolic profile than non-lactating women. The favourable effects on cardiovascular risk factors persist after weaning, it says.
Am J Obstet Gynecol
2009;200:138.e1-8 (Stuebe A, et al), 2009;200:119-120 (Gunderson E)

Remember it doesn't have to be breastfeeding only one child for two full years - cumulative breastfeeding experience counts! But breastfeeding even one child for two years is perfectly normal and a good thing to do  - that is the recommendation of the World Health Organization, and the American Academy of Family Physicians.  Many of the commentators on this study feel compelled to point out that breastfeeding 2 years is unreasonable or unlikely, and while it is unusual, it is biologically perfectly normal and has many benefits for all. 

Still, every bit of breastfeeding for any length of time is a great gift to a child (and its mother).  All breastfeeding moms deserve a lot of credit!

When asked how many products their children had made them buy, on average parents only reported half the number of purchases that had been secretly observed. "Considering that the majority of purchase decisions in a supermarket are made in the store, neither retailers nor parents should underestimate the importance of child-induced purchase decisions", said Udo Wagner, professor of business administration of the University of Vienna.  MORE

I have been too busy with sick family members to focus too much this week on the furor over the Atlantic Monthly's article that is stirring up all sorts of passions on "both sides" of the breastfeeding "debate."  However, I have heard from one breastfeeding counselor who has cleverly summed the article up as follows:

I think this article could be summed up and rewritten as follows:

I am angry, resentful, and frustrated because in my attempt to have it all, I am now overwhelmed and stressed, which adversely affects me, my marriage and my family. But instead of acknowledging that perhaps I had unrealistic expectations or that I have not made the best choices, it’s easier for me to blame my problems on breastfeeding. After all, it’s breastfeeding that keeps me “stuck at home” and prevents me from working “in any meaningful way.”

Yet, I remain conflicted because despite my efforts to discredit the value of breastfeeding, I continue to nurse my infant son. I have experienced firsthand the benefits of breastfeeding, benefits that simply cannot be measured and quantified by any scientific research.

has been posted.

From First Things

Edward C. Green, the director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at the Harvard Center for Population and Development Studies, and Allison Herling Ruark, a research fellow at the Center, wrote just one year ago in First Things:

In fact, the mainstream HIV/AIDS community has continued to champion condom use as critical in all types of HIV epidemics, in spite of the evidence. While high rates of condom use have contributed to fewer infections in some high-risk populations (prostitutes in concentrated epidemics, for instance), the situation among Africa’s general populations remains much different. It has been clearly established that few people outside a handful of high-risk groups use condoms consistently, no matter how vigorously condoms are promoted. Inconsistent condom usage is ineffective—and actually associated with higher HIV infection rates due to “risk compensation,” the tendency to take more sexual risks out of a false sense of personal safety that comes with using condoms some of the time. A UNAIDS-commissioned 2004 review of evidence for condom use concluded, “There are no definite examples yet of generalized epidemics that have been turned back by prevention programs based primarily on ­condom promotion.” A 2000 article in The Lancet similarly stated, “Massive increases in condom use world-wide have not translated into demonstrably improved HIV control in the great majority of countries where they have occurred.”

Faith communities are not shutting their eyes to evidence when they choose to emphasize the “core recommended strategy of abstinence before marriage and faithfulness within marriage.” These behaviors have, in fact, proved far more effective than condom use in curbing HIV transmission for the vast majority of any population. A 2001 study of condom use in rural Uganda found that only 4.4 percent of the population reported consistent usage in the previous year, a rate that is probably typical of much of Africa. In contrast to the estimated 95 percent or more of Africans who did not practice consistent condom use in the past year, studies from all over Africa show a solid majority of men and women reporting fidelity over the past year, with a majority of unmarried young men and women reporting abstinence.

…

Thus far, research has produced no evidence that condom promotion—or indeed any of the range of risk-reduction interventions popular with donors—has had the desired impact on HIV-infection rates at a population level in high-prevalence generalized epidemics. This is true for treatment of sexually ­transmitted infections, voluntary counseling and ­testing, diaphragm use, use of experimental vaginal microbicides, safer-sex counseling, and even income-­generation projects. The interventions relying on these measures have failed to decrease HIV-infection rates, whether implemented singly or as a package. One recent randomized, controlled trial in Zimbabwe found that even possible synergies that might be achieved through “integrated implementation” of “control strategies” had no impact in slowing new infections at the population level. In fact, in this trial there was a somewhat higher rate of new infections in the intervention group compared to the control group.

Pam mentions the article.  Here are some thoughts I shared with some people I was corresponding with when it came out last week.

As for the Atlantic article, I do think it’s sad to read how betrayed the author feels.  In addition to my clinical work, I teach a research methodology course in a Ph.D. program and the truth is you can torture any quantitative study to get it to say pretty much whatever you want (e.g., Twain’s, “lies, damn lies, and statistics” comment).  It is difficult for post-positivist scientific research to “prove” anything to people, especially if the facts are personally inconvenient. 

That said, I know where the author is coming from.  I talk to many women like her in my practice.  Most people nurse because of the qualitative benefits the author mentions at the end of the piece.  They nurse because they want the relationship and they think the science behind it is a cool value-added benefit. 

But the author didn’t come to nursing from this relational perspective.  For reasons either personal or philosophical, she has become alienated from the goodness and meaning of her body and the only reason she could convince herself to begin nursing in the first place was because she felt she had to in order to convey some scientifically validated benefit to her children.  

It wasn’t about love and relationship. She saw that as an afterthought.  Nursing, for her, was strictly a duty, grudgingly rendered, for the sake of science.  A kind of “lie back and think of med school” sort of reaction to the nursing relationship, if you get my drift.  When she found out that there were academic counterarguments to be made for some of these benefits, they confirmed her earlier reluctance to nurse, and she felt betrayed by…whomever. 

Here's an analogy.  Imagine reading an article written by a woman who was convinced--or convinced herself-- to have sex with her husband only because she read a few studies claiming  that people who have happy sex lives are, on average, happier and healthier than those who don’t (true, BTW).  Then, learning that there was research that contradicted this point (also true), she decided to write an article for the  Atlantic saying, “You know, these people who say that sex is ‘all that’ are just a bunch of liars!  I know plenty of married people who don’t have sex and they don’t get sick.  All those wives who are having sex with their husbands for health reason ought to just knock it off and stop feeling so guilty.  It isn’t going to kill you to say ‘no’ after all.”  

The argument is sound, as far as it  goes, but it rather misses the point.  The physical connection between two human beings (whether we are talking about the physical connection of nursing in the parent-child bond or the physical connection of sexual intimacy in adult pair bonding) is ultimately about intimacy, not medical benefits,.  And although there are certainly medical benefits to be gained by having healthy intimacy with other human beings, anyone who has to convince themselves to engage in those intimacy building activities solely because of the medical benefits they imagine they might gain is going to be ultimately disappointed by the experience and be looking, the whole time, for a way out.

In spite of herself, the author of the piece  in the Atlantic feels that the nursing relationship has changed her somehow for the better and she knows that she’ll miss it (see the last paragraph), but the connection hasn’t been strong enough to undo the programming that alienated her from her body in the first place. Rather than doing the work of reintegrating she’s going to take out her frustration by killing the messenger (the breastfeeding friendly moms and professionals).  Sadly, there are a lot of hurting people like her.

Tomorrow we celebrate one of the two Solemnities that occur during Lent, giving us something of a brief break from the penitential character of this holy season. As I was looking at the Mass readings for the feast of St. Joseph, I was struck by something about the faith of which St. Paul writes to the Romans, the faith that Abraham had and that Joseph had. It is actually faith and hope together. It is a response to God's self-disclosure and also to his promises.

For much more by way of reflection on St. Joseph's faith, let me make my annual recommendation that everyone read the Servant of God Pope John Paul the Great's Apostolic Exhortation on Joseph, Guardian of the Redeemer. And for much more on the very close connection between faith and hope, see the opening sections of our Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI's Encyclical on hope, Spe Salvi.

And through the intercession of St. Joseph, and through our devout and joyful celebration of his feast, and also through our observance of the season of Lent, may God grant us continuous increase in his grace and so in the saving - of ourselves and of others - virtues of faith, hope, and love.

In Africa, the Pope stated that condoms are not an effective means of preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS.  The fact is, the Pope, epidemiologists, and even Dr. Ruth are on the same side on this issue (although they probably wouldn't want to stand too close to each other at a cocktail party).  For example:

Dr. Susan Weller of the University of Texas Medical School calculated the efficacy of condoms by pooling all the published studies of heterosexuals in which one partner was infected with HIV and the other was not. Although contraceptive research indicates that condoms are 87% effective in preventing pregnancy, she found that condoms reduce the risk of HIV infection by approximately 69%.

Weller noted that in “the large European Collaborative study, when the clinical state of the index patient, the practice of anal intercourse, and a history of sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are considered, condom use no longer significantly reduced HIV transmission.”

She also warned that the “public at-large may not understand the difference between ‘condoms may reduce risk of’ and ‘condoms will prevent’ HIV infection. It is a disservice to encourage the belief that condoms will prevent sexual transmission of HIV.”

And Dr. Ruth…

Question :

I was wondering how effective condoms are in protecting against HIV. I was told that they are pretty effective. I was wondering what your input on this matter was.

Answer :

There's a very good reason that I only speak of safer sex and not safe sex, and that's that there is no 100 percent sure way of preventing the transmission of HIV if you are having sex with an infected partner. Latex condoms,  do prevent the virus from entering the vagina, but condoms do break once in a while; some people are careless in removing the condom and leakage could seep into the vagina; and the virus can also be communicated through oral sex. If you really want to be protected against AIDS, in addition to using condoms, both partners should be tested for the virus first, and after you've been given the all clear, you have to be able to trust one another not to cheat and have sex outside of the relationship.

---

I'm back.

The fact is, most studies asserting condom effectiveness—both in preventing pregnancy and in preventing HIV transmission—have been done under strict lab conditions. Fortunately (for intimacy) and unfortunately (for public health experts) most people don’t have sex under strict lab conditions.   In the real world, condoms are often not used properly (causing them to slip down the penis about 13% of the time and potentially allowing the transfer of infected fluids), or they are used inconsistently (30-60% of those who claim to use condoms do not use them consistently).

From a public health perspective, condoms may help contain the social risk of HIV transmission (i.e., that it will become an epidemic), but they are not adequate for eliminating the personal risk of HIV infection.  Further,  they will never be  used consistently or to the strict degree that is necessary for them to do much good for the larger society.  Plus, the illusion that is given by condoms that protected sex is “safe” sex has been shown to increase sexual activity which may actually increase both the personal and social risk of HIV transmission.

So…

The Pope has science as well as moral theology on his side.

For those of you who are interested in learning more about how the truth of Catholic sexuality can set you free, please check out my book, Holy Sex! in which these and many other matters are discussed.

Taken from Our Lady's Warriors.

Litany of St. Joseph

Lord, have mercy.

Christ, have mercy.

Lord, have mercy.

Christ, hear us.

Christ, graciously hear us.

God, the Father of Heaven, have mercy on us.

God the Son, Redeemer of the world, have mercy on us.

God the Holy Spirit, have mercy on us.

Holy Trinity, One God, have mercy on us..

Holy Mary, pray for us.

St. Joseph, pray for us.

Renowned offspring of David, pray for us.

Light of Patriarchs, pray for us.

Spouse of the Mother of God, pray for us.

Chaste guardian of the Virgin, pray for us.

Foster father of the Son of God, pray for us.

Diligent protector of Christ, pray for us.

Head of the Holy Family, pray for us.

Joseph most just, pray for us.

Joseph most chaste, pray for us.

Joseph most prudent, pray for us.

Joseph most strong, pray for us.

Joseph most obedient, pray for us.

Joseph most faithful, pray for us.

Mirror of patience, pray for us.

Lover of poverty, pray for us.

Model of artisans, pray for us.

Glory of home life, pray for us.

Guardian of virgins, pray for us.

Pillar of families, pray for us.

Solace of the wretched, pray for us.

Hope of the sick, pray for us.

Patron of the dying, pray for us.

Terror of demons, pray for us.

Protector of Holy Church, pray for us.

Lamb of God, who take away the sins of the world, spare us, O Lord!.

Lamb of God, who take away the sins of the world, graciously hear us, O Lord!.

Lamb of God, who take away the sins of the world, have mercy on us. .

V. He made him the lord of his household.

R. And prince over all his possessions.

Let us pray. O God, in your ineffable providence you were pleased to choose Blessed Joseph to be the spouse of your most holy Mother; grant, we beg you, that we may be worthy to have him for our intercessor in heaven whom on earth we venerate as our Protector: You who live and reign forever and ever. R. Amen.

Here is their call to action!

Pro-lifers, rouse yourselves and comment to save the conscience protections for pro-life  and NFP-only physicians!!

The readings for the fourth Sunday of Lent this year seem to be linked by the theme of God's mercy. In his mercy, God had tried to bring his Old Testament people back to fidelity to himself, and even when he finally punished them, their punishment did not last forever. In the New Testament, we find the perfect revelation of God's mercy. St. Paul writes about God's merciful gift of forgiveness and life in Jesus Christ. And Jesus also speaks of God's gift of life and salvation through the Cross, again a gift of mercy. St. Paul uses not only the word "mercy," but also the word "grace" - the latter being the theme of my Lenten reflections this year. This week, then, I would like to consider the meaning of mercy and the connection between grace and mercy.

Let me begin by addressing very briefly what I suspect is a somewhat common misunderstanding of mercy. I know that I have heard more than once that some criminals deserve mercy because of various mitigating factors in their situations. Taking such factors into account is not mercy - it is basic justice. Mercy goes beyond this. Mercy is not deserved - not because of such factors, not for any other reason. God's mercy reflects who he is, not anything about us. Indeed, we begin to see here the connection between mercy and grace.

Let me add that what makes this merciful grace possible is that God himself pays the price of our sin. We see a hint of this in the beginning of Jesus' words in our Gospel reading: "Just as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of Man be lifted up ..." Again, Jesus is clearly speaking here of how he will be "lifted up" on the Cross - of his sacrificial death for us. Notice something about the words quoted. Jesus specifies explicitly the one by whom the serpent was lifted up - Moses - but he does not specify the one by whom he himself will be lifted up. But we can, and ought to, "fill in the blank." It was God who had ordered Moses to mount a bronze serpent on a pole; it was Moses as God's instrument who did so. We should infer that Jesus' crucifixion will, in like manner, be God's work - God's gift. It is God the Father and Son who bring about this saving action.

How are we to respond in faith to this gift, as Jesus and St. Paul tell us to do; how are we to live this truth and in this light, in Jesus' words; how are we to receive this merciful grace? We might note something from our first reading. The Chronicler tells us that the Babylonian exile was punishment especially for sins like idolatry, and, drawing from the prophecy of Jeremiah, that the exile needed to last "until the land ha[d] retrieved its lost Sabbaths." The Sabbath - now fulfilled in the Lord's Day - is, of course, a day of (right) worship of the one true God. Above all, God wants this worship as our way of receiving his gift of merciful grace.

Another essential part of receiving this gift of mercy is practicing the same mercy in our own lives - the authentic mercy that is a pure and undeserved gift, the mercy that perfects justice only by surpassing it, the mercy that is given even at significant cost to ourselves. And we are to practice this mercy in every aspect of our lives as individuals and together.

This message about mercy is an important element of the Church's living Magisterium. It is a key theme of the Servant of God Pope John Paul the Great's thought. We see it mentioned in his first encyclical, The Redeemer of Man (no. 9); and then developed throughout his second one, The Mercy of God (which begins by quoting from St. Paul's words in Sunday's second reading); and then referred to in - for example - The Gospel of Life (nos. 9 and 25). John Paul spoke of God's mercy also in, of course, his homily for the canonization of St. Faustina. Then-Cardinal Ratzinger pointed out the importance of this theme in his homily for John Paul's funeral Mass. And as Pope Benedict XVI, he has practiced mercy, as he pointed out very recently in his letter regarding the remission of the excommunications of the Lefebvrite bishops.

On this Laetare Sunday and every day, let us rejoice in God's merciful grace. Let us do so in our worship on the Lord's Day and throughout the week, especially in the celebration of the Eucharist (the focus of last week's reflection), and let us rejoice in this mercy also in our practice of it in our relationships with others.

Strong Evidence Base for Benefits of Breastfeeding,
According to Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine

New Rochelle, NY, March 19, 2009—Breastfeeding offers irrefutable and long-lasting health benefits for both mother and baby, which are supported by a comprehensive body of scientific research, including original articles and reviews such as those in Breastfeeding Medicine, the peer-reviewed journal of the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine. The Academy is a global organization of physicians dedicated to the promotion, protection, and support of breastfeeding through education, research, and advocacy ( www.bfmed.org).

According to leaders of the Academy, despite a sound scientific basis for the advantages of breastfeeding, dissenting opinions that aim to discredit breastfeeding, and question its relevance for women, receive exposure in the mass media such as the recent article in The Atlantic. Critics of breastfeeding do a disservice to new mothers around the world who seek the facts about the proven health benefits of breastfeeding as they often misrepresent the scientific findings and wrongly base global recommendations on the experiences and views of select groups of women.

Clinical and basic science research supports the role of breastfeeding in the development of a baby's immune system and the presence of maternal antibodies protect infants against infection. Artificial feeding is also associated with increased risk of common disorders of early childhood such as ear infections, asthma, skin disorders, digestive problems, and respiratory tract infections. Studies have also linked artificial feeding to increased risk for obesity, type 1 and 2 diabetes, childhood leukemia, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), and necrotizing enterocolitis. Mothers benefit as well, and a history of breastfeeding has been associated with a reduced risk of type 2 diabetes and of breast and ovarian cancer.

With this growing body of evidence, and increasing support among health and medical professionals, breastfeeding rates in the U.S. are in fact on the rise. "But we are reminded as articles like this arise that misinformation abounds. Our goal is to continue to educate healthcare professionals to support mothers who understand the singular importance of breastfeeding and choose to do so," remarks Caroline J. Chantry, MD, President of the Academy.

"The Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine encourages all women to make an informed choice when faced with the question of how to feed their infants based on strong, well-referenced scientific information. The data are compelling, scientific, and reinforced constantly. Breastfeeding for the new mother may not always be easy, but it is important and rewarding for both mother and infant," says Ruth A. Lawrence, MD, Editor-in-Chief of Breastfeeding Medicine, from the Department of Pediatrics, University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry.

The Academy promotes the development and dissemination of clinical practice guidelines, and offers clinical protocols for the care of breastfeeding mothers and infants which are available on the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's (AHRQ) National Guideline Clearinghouse website. The education of physicians and other healthcare professionals is the continuing goal of its Annual International Meeting; the 2009 Meeting will be held November 5-8 in Williamsburg, VA.

Breastfeeding Medicine is an authoritative, peer-reviewed, multidisciplinary journal published quarterly. The journal publishes original scientific articles, reviews, and case studies on a broad spectrum of topics in lactation medicine. It presents evidence-based research advances and explores the immediate and long-term outcomes of breastfeeding, including the epidemiologic, physiologic, and psychological benefits of breastfeeding. The Academy's complete position statement appears on the Academy website ( www.bfmed.org).

The Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine, 140 Huguenot St., New Rochelle, NY 10801-5215
(800) 990.4ABM (914) 740.2115 Fax: (914) 740.2101
abm@bfmed.org www.bfmed.org

There is a web site dedicated to addressing the scandal.  On the one hand, I can understand inviting the President of the United States.  On the other hand, a politician doesn't get much more pro-abortion. 

If you won't do it for me, contact the Obama administration to urge the continuing conscience protection for health care workers for Cardinal George. 

You can listen to his personal appeal on YouTube right here!!