Present Day Milk Outsourcing

Today, real wet nursing is rare. It runs a steep price tag and it is so taboo in present culture that you would be hard pressed to find a wet nurse willing to talk to the media. Unless of course you’re the woman from the video in yesterday’s post, Wet Nursing & Cross Nursing in the Media. I think there’s something about paying another woman to breastfeed your child that makes most of society squeamish. There’s that instant judgement that takes place. “Why would anyone ever want to hire somone to do what nature intended the real mother to do?” “Why would a mother ever want to share that incredibly intimate bond with her baby with someone else?” But people have their reasons, and luckily for them, modern day wet nurses do exist. Presently, in California, you can hire a wet nurse at Certified Household Staffing for the starting price of $1000/week. Or at least that’s what they charged in 2007.

Why do people hire wet nurses?

Upper class women today choose to hire a wet nurse because they know that breastmilk is best for babies and either do not have the time to breastfeed, or they are unable. Breast implants, some medications, grave illness, adoption circumstances, and needing to return to work are some reasons women might employ a wet nurse today. Gay men who adopt a baby may also want the services of a wet nurse as may fathers of infants whose mother has died.

Milk Banks

Of course, milk banks do exist for those who would prefer a less intimate choice of nourishment for their children, but some people prefer an unpasteurized version to one that  breaks down some of the important qualities of pure live breastmilk. I am guessing that these are the same people who like their cow and/or goat milk raw, fresh out of the udders. Maybe not. But I digress. Of course, along with pure live breastmilk comes a host of other things mothers carry. We tend to think about all the good things in breastmilk, antibodies and the right proportion of vitamins and minerals for a growing baby, but breastmilk can also transmit bacteria and viruses.

Transmitting infection

However, the chance of this happening is pretty low. For instance, an HIV-infected mom who breastfeeds her child runs a 5-8% chance of transmitting the virus to her child within the first six months. Breastfeeding for up to two years increases the risk to 16%. Any decision about possible infection of an infant or child through breast milk should weigh the tremendous benefits of breastfeeding against the potential risk for transmission and the possible severity of the illness. I would hope that any woman who offers her services as a paid wet nurse would go through an extensive health screening to ensure the avoidance of litigation if the nursling ever got sick. I would hope the parents would insist upon this, regardless of the low chance of infection transmission.

Cross-Nursing

What does La Leche League think?

The emotional risks

Exploitation of poor women

Another issue, an important one to consider, is how does working as a wet nurse impact the wet nurse’s own baby? Is that baby getting enough milk? Is it being supplemented with formula or being exclusively formula fed so mom can bring home a pay cheque? Are mom and baby being given time and space to bond? The Lactivist brought up this point a couple years ago. She also referenced Jennifer James from Black Breastfeeding Blog who put the issue of wet nursing into an African American historical perspective. She believes that the main reason black women have lower rates of breastfeeeding is because they were forced to act as wet nurses to white families. Because of their  slave duties they were not able to provide their baby with sufficient nourishment or bond with their own babies. She says, “these reasons alone make wet nursing one of the worst institutions imposed upon black women.” Wow. Now I really want to read A Social History of Wet Nursing in America: From Breast to Bottle.

The sexual thing

My poll

I ran a poll on Monday asking “Would you breastfeed another woman’s baby?” So far the number of women (I assume they’re women!) saying “yes” far outweigh the “no’s” and “I-don’t-know’s” (86% vs. 4% and 4% respectively).  Out of those who left a comment, most of them said they would only do it under special circumstances, like in an emergency, and only with permission from the mother, and/or only for close friends or relatives. Most said they would not want a stranger to breastfeed their own baby unless it was in an extreme emergency and they could not be there. All of these situations fall under what is today called “cross-nursing” or “co-nursing,” breastfeeding another woman’s child not for pay, but to help her out when needed. It’s actually quite a lovely thing, I think, moms helping moms, women supporting women, sisters being sisters. But it’s never that simple is it?

Your comments are welcome and encouraged. And if you liked this post please consider subscribing by RSS or email. It would make my day!

No related posts.

Tags: breast milk, co-nursing, cross nursing, HIV transmission, La Leche League, milk banks, wet nursing