If you had no breastmilk, would you use a breastmilk bank?

On the subject of the mothers diet and if they have consumed more than 2 glasses of alcohol, or recreational drugs. I would assume that the mothers who chose to go out of their way to donate would already be diligent breastfeeders who watched what they ate closely.

From personal knowledge of a couple of women who chose to drink (even occasionally) and 1 who smoked pot while BF - they are definately not the women who would actually think of donating.

If on the other hand women were paid for the donations thats when I think you would have more of a chance in women with these extra-curricular activities donating.

I don't think I would like to see donors paid, I would prefer to see them helped out with equipment, such as pump hire etc I know after I had to express a lot that having access to a double electric pump made the whole process much easier.

i like that analogy fionajill, "risks/side effects" that all medications have" it is so true, but the benefits outway them by farrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr imo. true astrid about the pump, i agree. i wouldn't want payment but a free pump would be nice!

LOL, I am picturing a little room off the hall with instead of pictures of porn for the usual type of "donantion" we would have a littel nursery set up with lots of pics of babies & even a cd on repeat of baby sounds. Maybe some posters of those "milky waterfalls" too. LMAO!

Another thing to ponder. DH and I were discussing this the other day (like me he wouldn't hesitate to use the milk bank), and he wondered if using bank milk would be even more beneficial in buidling immunity, than milk from mum alone, as it contains the anitbodies from lots of women. Interesting thought anyway!!

That is an interesting thought!

I might be wrong here - but dont milk banks work by basically pouring all the milk ina big vat and babies are fed off that (I know its not exactly liek that, but you get the picture ;) )
So dont all womans milk get diluted and strengthened by the other mums? So if one woman has something in her diet that may react with bubs - theorectically this will be watered down by someone elses milk.
And they babies wont be getting much milk anyway - as they are premmies etc - so I'm thinking the effect of food on the milk quality would be negligable.
Just my thought - not sure if this is correct or not.

:

---

he wondered if using bank milk would be even more beneficial in buidling immunity, than milk from mum alone, as it contains the anitbodies from lots of women.

---

That actually occurred to me too. Did I read it in this thread or another (oh.. probably the immunisation debate thread) that whilst the mum is sick, the baby gets the antibodies to fight it.. and is less likely to catch whatever the mum's got. Soooo.. could it be that our fears of diseases being transmitted through donated milk be are a bit ott? If anything.. they could be receiving the antibodies? I know things like HIV etc are transmittable.. but those ones are screenable.

There's certainly a lot to think about with it.. but I'm sure the 'experts' have weighed all these things up for a very long time before opening the bank.

The ABC (TV channel) just had an excellent report about this on their 7.30 Report. Now I'm even more convinced I would use human breast milk if I had a premmie.

Ooo that sounds interesting, Bathsheba. What were the main points?

They gave a couple of case studies of mothers and babies using it and went through the whole process of making sure it was a safe product. It's certainly a lot more regulated than most women imagine... probably even more so than some formulas. They emphasised it was exclusively for premmie babies. They can help only 50 a year at this stage.

I notice that since I posted in this thread more woman have selected the "no" option than "yes". I wonder if that was done merely on first impulse or after reading the info on the subject. I guess it's just a poll and people have felt free to make a decision based on an emotional response rather than a scientific/informed one. I'm not critising people for doing that I'd just hope that they would take the time to find out more information if they found themselves with a vulnerable premmie baby. My intital reaction was "Urgh!" as well btw. But as last night's show highlighted: it's safer than a blood transfusion (which most people agree to at the drop of a hat) and there have been no negative outcomes, only positive. Where's the risk?

I've wondered that too about the poll. Might be interesting to re-run the poll to see if peoples views have changed. I know I would now vote yes, rather than I don't know.

Yep, when I first discovered the poll there was no further information in the thread... I imagined that it was human milk, unpasturized (the 7.30 Report confirmed that it underwent a special pasturization treatment that preserved the goodness etc). I made many incorrect assumptions when I selected "unsure"... if the poll was redone after providing some basic information I think the results would be very different.

WEll.. the info was there in the link.. but I would agree that most would have voted on emotions before reading it or really thinking it through. LIke me! :o

Whoops! Was it? (Just went back and checked... you're right!) But it's also very easy just to vote without thinking hey? It wasn't until I was about half way through reading this entire thread (reading everyone's comments) that my opinion clarified... I think there was info pasted into the actual thread that swayed me.

yeah same here. FJ quoted some info, which made me a definite maybe. LOL. But the more I think about it, and thinking of it as medicinal for a little premmie.. I would most likely use it.

for me it is not whether it is pasturised or not. i would give any breastmilk over cow's milk formula any day as for my family i believe breastmilk of any kind is less risky than formula for my children.

Beckles I am of the same opinion as you.

Jo