From http://www.lalecheleague.org/llleaderweb/LV/LVJulAug95p53.html
Wet nursing and cross nursing have been controversial since the beginning of recorded history. About 2000 years B.C., the Code of Hammurabi became the law of the Babylonian Empire. Believe it or not, this oldest of written laws included rules for wet nursing. One of the rules stated that if a wet nurse had been feeding an infant who died for any reason, she was prohibited from taking on another infant to wet nurse.
The Book of Exodus in the Old Testament of the Bible, written about 1250 B.C., tells of a wet nurse being hired for Moses. (Unbeknownst to her employer, the wet nurse was Moses' own mother!) In 900 B.C., Homer referred to wet nursing in his famous epic poems. The Koran, written about 600 A.D., permitted parents to "give your children out to nurse." Hippocrates, the Greek physician, stated in 377 B.C., "One's own milk is beneficial, others' harmful."
As you can see, the practice of wet nursing has been controversial and has gone in and out of fashion throughout history. In Sparta during the fourth century B.C., women; including the wives of kings, were required to nurse their oldest sons. Commoners had to nurse all their children. In one instance a second son of a king inherited the kingdom because he had been nursed by his mother while his older brother had been wet nursed. In ancient Greece and Rome, while wet nurses were slaves, they held a position of respect within the household. They were boarded in the home of the infant and often remained as servants in the family home after the baby weaned.
In 1472 A.D., Paul Bellardus wrote the first pediatric text published in northern Italy. The book included a section on the qualities of a good wet nurse.
From the 16th to 18th centuries, well-to-do mothers in Europe and North America rarely nursed their babies. The infants were placed with wet nurses and returned home only when they were weaned, if they lived.
Fashionable women of the period wore corsets made of leather or metal with stays of bone. The corsets not only broke ribs but also damaged breast tissue and nipples, making breastfeeding impossible. Employing wet nurses was a sign of a family's high status in society, showing that the family had the resources to pay someone else to do any physical tasks.
It was expected that the noblewoman would provide heirs for the family. Even in 17th century England, there was knowledge of the contraceptive effect of breastfeeding; to nurse would have reduced the number of pregnancies, thus heirs. For a noblewoman to have 12 to 18 pregnancies was not uncommon.
Peasants, who not only breastfed their own children but wet nursed for hire and cross nursed in child care, rarely had more than a half dozen children. In addition, it was believed that a breastfeeding mother should not have sexual relations while lactating lest it somehow taint her milk. The conjugal needs of noblemen were more important than those of wet nurses and their husbands.
In 18th century France, wealthy and middle income Parisian women sought to keep their beauty by placing their infants with wet nurses. They believed breastfeeding would ruin their figures and make them old before their time. Also in this period, laws regarding wet nurses were enacted. A wet nurse could not nurse more than two infants along with her own. Each infant required its own crib so the wet nurse would not take a baby to bed and possibly suffocate it.
In the 18th and early 19th centuries, bleeding was believed to he a remedy for most ills. It was used during pregnancy for various problems and complaints; as a result many women died in childbirth. The children whose mothers succumbed to poor prenatal care and obstructed labors were saved only by the services of a wet nurse.
During, the latter part of the 18th century, Dr. William Cadogan wrote an essay on nursing and the management of children from birth to age three. He observed that peasant women who nursed their own babies had healthier children and that early breastfeeding prevented mastitis and engorgement. He therefore advocated breastfeeding for the benefit of both mother and baby.
At various times over the centuries, societal support for breastfeeding waned. Mothers refused to take on the function of lactation. The social attitudes of urban women and their greater access to alternatives led to greater use of wet nurses and less focus on the adequate care of children.
In the mid-19th century, a number of physicians began seeking a breast milk substitute to replace the use of wet nurses. Wet nurses were believed to be the source of disease, especially syphilis. The wet nurse also feared being infected by infants with the disease. It was this widespread fear that motivated the development of artificial feeding.
The turn of the century also saw the establishment of human milk banks. Doctors sought to improve the prognosis for babies denied breast milk since their chances of death were six times greater than breastfed infants. This began the separation of the product from the producer and removed control of feeding from wet nurses.
During the Industrial Revolution through World War II, women began working at jobs in factories where babies could not accompany them. Thus, artificial feeding became well established and accepted.
In many countries today, wet nursing/cross nursing is common practice. Some cultures have strong beliefs and customs that dictate the practice of nursing a baby other than one's own baby. A baby whose mother has died or who cannot nurse is passed among nursing mothers or adopted by a lactating mother whose own baby has died. In Japan and Thailand, breast milk can be given only to a baby of the same sex as the mother's own. In other cultures, breast milk is believed to be the conduit through which the child receives his ancestry, thus only women of the mother's or father's family can be a wet nurse for the infant.
3 days ago
1 comment:
What interesting information! Thanks for posting. What are the current laws for wetnursing in the United states or does it vary by State? Are women allowed to wetnurse? If so, it must be very hush-hush because I never hear of anyone doing it.
Post a Comment