formula co gets free publicity from gruesome tragedy - Page 2

[Viola]

Originally Posted by busybusymomma

Okay... she had a miscarriage earlier this year sometime. Is it possible she has postpartum psychosis?

Maybe she's just psychotic.

I know this probably sounds like I have my priorities mixed up, but one of the first things I said was "Wow, that poor baby will never get to breastfeed." My husband said, "that is the least of her problems." No, it's all part of the same thing. I mean, she won't get to have her mom and the love of that mom. It's just so sad.

I remember a case not long ago where a Dad in or near Sacramento was getting breastmilk for his baby because the mom died in childbirth.

[loving-my-babies]

well, I agree that because her mama is dead the baby has to eat, so I'm glad they are helping out. I can't stand them when they appear as the "good ones" when really, it's a TV commercial for them, what they are doing with this, and also making people believe "they care".

[Peppamint]

Yeah, I thought on it more and I was thinking it's probably just the straw that broke the camel's back so to speak. She was probably not right before, but then miscarrying earlier this week. It's awful. That baby is deprived of ever knowing her mom outside the womb, never to be nestled against her mother's breast, never to be breastfed...

I can't imagine at formula company EVER paying for breastmilk. Are you kidding?

[Janice in Canada]

I think its entirely a publicity tactic. I mean, has there been any suggestion that this family is financially challenged? No. This is not the case where a family is destitute due to some nature or man-made disaster - ie house burns down, etc.

Are other companies rushing to give things like cribs, clothes etc for this baby? No, the family will buy it themselves, if they choose, just like any other family. I mean, maybe the family was going to formula feed anyhow, so they should have already budgeted for it. They would have been buying it anyhow, what the difference now?

The difference is that they are famous now, and will be getting a lot of publicity. So the formula co has hooked onto that. There are tons of families more needy than this - moms die all the time and leave babies behind, do the formula co's ever help these families out? If they really wanted to help, they could make "formula grants" to give to these families who are put in these situations. But they don't.

To me, it is like they are rubbing salt in the wound of this family, especially if they had wanted to breastfeed. If they family beleives in bfing, it would just hurt more to get the formula. If they were going to formula feed, they were going to have to pay for it anyhow, so whats the difference now?

By doing this give-away, the formula brand is trying to re-emphasize to us that they are SAVING lives by existing, after all, how would this baby be fed if not for the existence of formula??? Never mind that most users of formula do so by choice, not neccesity.

AND, if the different brands of formula are SO UNIQUE and special, why PRESUME that your brand is the best for that baby? They family could end up with a years supply of some brand they can't use. Again the formula co's are contradicting themselves - they want use to believe that each brand and formulation is so unique and scientific, but they they can give a years supply without consulting with the family.


you can see this irritates me.
Janice

[Peppamint]

Originally Posted by Janice in Canada

you can see this irritates me.
Janice

Me too. :

[Gidget]

First,how sick and sad for the poor woman who died.Also, I agree about the formula. Anything for publicity. Almost as sick as the kidnapper.

Does anyone know any details surrounding this miscarraige? How far along?I assume she was not carrying a dead baby in her body or she would have had to get some medical help. What I am wondering with all this is was her husband in on this, and how could he not know? Are they going to charge him as accomplice?

[Ruthla]

Originally Posted by Janice in Canada

I may get flamed for this, since obviously this woman was either very distressed, crazy or evil, (and so wasn't thinking responsibly about any of this) but the thought did come to me -

If we lived in a world where there were no formula, or if it was difficult to get (ie by prescription only), a woman would have to think twice before she tried to steal another woman's infant baby - how would she feed it???

At the very least, she would have had to visit a doctor, and the doctor may have questioned where this baby came from all of a sudden.

Janice

Before there was infant formula, babies were fed whole cow's milk or "formulas" made from canned milk and corn syrup. If formula was "by prescription only" then a lot of babies would be fed whole cow's milk before they were ready (that or there'd be a huge marketing of "toddler formulas" nearly identical to RX infant formulas.)

Also, anybody see the movie "The Hand That Rocks the Cradle"? Psycho woman who had a stillbirth becomes a nanny and bf the kid and basically tries to take over as its mother. She continued to pump after her baby died and had plenty of milk for the baby she tried to "adopt."

We also know that adoptive mothers can bf their children- a woman who'd miscarried and wanted to steal a baby COULD induce lactation before nabbing a baby.

[medaroge]

This first post as well as responding posts have really made me think about giving practices in general. I wonder how many companies would doate if all donations were anonomus? I hope it would be as much, but I fear donations would drop!

[Peppamint]

Originally Posted by medaroge

This first post as well as responding posts have really made me think about giving practices in general. I wonder how many companies would doate if all donations were anonomus? I hope it would be as much, but I fear donations would drop!

Unfortunately you're probably correct.