When my babies were born, those who promote breastfeeding as the only effective method for nourishing a child and preventing illness urged and pushed and prodded me to embrace their beliefs. I did believe them, never doubted them, and sometimes felt guilty I wasn't able to nurse my children -- a previous breast reduction surgery disabled my milk flow.I got over it. Bottles and formula worked well for my family, allowed my husband to share middle-of-the-night feeding duties, and grew my two little boys into sturdy, healthy beings.
What I haven't completely gotten over is that breastfeeding could have done a whole lot of good for me too. It could have prevented the breast cancer I developed just after my second child stopped drinking formula from his bottle.
Research indicates breastfeeding can decrease the risk of breast cancer for women who have their first baby after age 25. I was 31 when my first child was born.
Previous studies showed that having a first baby before the age of 25 or having no children protected against breast cancers fueled by hormones. It did not, however, stop the less common, harder-to-treat tumors not fueled by hormones, like mine. It seems even breastfeeding would not have prevented my cancer.
That was then. This is now.
New studies show women who give birth after age 25 are twice as likely to develop either type of breast cancer. Therefore, breastfeeding really protects all women bearing children after 25 from both forms of the disease. It turns out breastfeeding could have helped me. But I couldn't do it. So it didn't.
What's done is done. I'll get over it. And I may just become one of those women who urge and push and prod others to embrace the benefits of breastfeeding.
1. Great blog. There are many good reasons to breastfeed. If it prevents cancer, that another benefit. But, I don't see a real problem with interspersing breastfeeding with some formula to give Mom a break every now then.
Bigger Question, though: In the latest issue of Scientific American, there's a fascinating article by Dr. Peter Duesberg, who asserts that the triggering mechanism of cancer, isn't a gene mutation, but rather a derangement at the chromosome level.
See Scientific American
I'd love to hear your take on whether aneuploid is the actual cause of cancer.
Posted at 4:56PM on Apr 19th 2007 by Barbara G