Ban the bag and government involvement

[tuansprincess]

Ok - so my dad sent an e-mail to all my sibs a about how great it was that Romney helped lower Mass taxes. I replied with -
Yeah - it's so nice of Romney to lower the tax burden while also sabatoging new mothers giving birth in MA hospitals, endangering infants by getting into bed with Bristol-Myers Squibb, the worlds largest formula manufacturer.

My bro replied saying that he thinks it's best to get the government out of the people's personal decisions. That the same BIG corporation is providing services to mothers unable to breastfeed and is constantly researching to improve their products. He thinks if we are really worried about BIG formula manufacturers, perhaps we should move to get rid of government subsidies of said corporations (i.e. WIC/welfare programs).

He says that he feels I should put him in the "I hate babies" camp with Mitt Romney. (It seems funny how quickly people can turn to emotional arguments as a source of comfort.) and to just let the mothers make their own decisions, or the government intervention could come back in many "unintended" ways.

:
This is rediculous! It isn't government that is providing the formula - it is the companys. They would like us to think that to draw attention away from them. But if the govenor of the state can over-rule the ban, then what is the governments involvment.

And I know there is that board created by formula stooges to couche their views with a "rights for moms" language to cloud that they are really limiting and could care less about mother's rights and freedoms.

So - could you please help me articulate this to my brother and sibs in a clear way? Oh - I should probably put in a disclaimer about how I don't think moms who ff are evil - they adopted a little girl and were required to ff (not induce lactation or milk bank I'm guessing) because they were her foster parents first before adopting. Clear as mud?

TIA!

[evlu]

banthebags.org has a lot of information and resources that might give you some ideas. http://banthebags.org/?p=54 has a good summary of how to frame arguments so you don't get sucked into the "choice" debate. http://banthebags.org/?p=33 has more arguments/counterarguments.

The issue you want to focus on is Romney's decision to overturn the proposed ban on formula bags in hospitals. This doesn't have anything to do with dictating women's choices; it is a question of whether hospitals should permit commercial marketing of an inferior, usually unnecessary, product to a captive audience. Research has shown that this marketing leads to fewer breastfed babies and shorter duration of breastfeeding -- which we know is less healthy. I really like one of the slogans on the Ban the Bags website: Hospitals should market health, and nothing else. That about sums it up.

[tuansprincess]

Thank you so much evlu for the links. They are very helpful.

I think that I'm also going to point out to him that distribution of these bags is a violation of the WHO/Unisef International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes which the USA unfortunately doesn't uphold. I'm not sure he realizes that he is so gungho to encourage violations of an international law.

[rupiezum]

Originally Posted by evlu

The issue you want to focus on is Romney's decision to overturn the proposed ban on formula bags in hospitals. This doesn't have anything to do with dictating women's choices; it is a question of whether hospitals should permit commercial marketing of an inferior, usually unnecessary, product to a captive audience. Research has shown that this marketing leads to fewer breastfed babies and shorter duration of breastfeeding -- which we know is less healthy. I really like one of the slogans on the Ban the Bags website: Hospitals should market health, and nothing else. That about sums it up.

The other point which may resonate with tuanprincess's dad is this - the formula company that gets to send home their samples and promotional materials has paid the hospital for the privilege. That contract goes to the highest bidder. But the hospital implies endorsement in handing it out to their mothers - like "I gave you Tylenol" versus "I gave you acetaminophen." So the mothers go out and buy whatever formula they were given in the hospital (95% of them stick with that brand, rather than switch) - and that formula is always the most expensive one in the manufacturer's line.

The key thing with someone like your dad is to stress that the formula is still there, still available to anyone who wants it, but that HIPAA defines those bags as marketing materials, and that getting rid of them allows your HCPs to concentrate on your health rather than selling you a product.

[i*wish]

I don't know if this is too late or not but I wanted to mention, re: your brother's point, but this is very much a government issue and not a 'personal decision' issue...it is a public health issue. Even those who are for the most minimal government involvement agree that public health should be part of the gov't's 'to do' list.
Also, I'm not sure if they're into morality/character and all that but what he (Romney) did was *really* underhanded down to firing three people who supported the appropriate public health action (banning the bags). This is the argument I use with my conservative family members who think Romney is this very moral, upstanding guy.... It shuts them up every time