WHY BREASTFEEDING IN A COURTROOM IS WORTHY OF APPLAUSE, NOT SHAME
In my doctor’s office, a new mother with a days-old tiny newborn, sits recovering from birth with its physical and emotional changes and expresses a concern shared by almost every patient I see.
“This is so difficult and I’m barely able to adjust to how to feed at home. I can’t imagine doing this anywhere else, I just wouldn’t be comfortable. What if someone said something?”
As a Perinatal GP, Breastfeeding Medicine Specialist and Lactation Consultant this sentiment is repeated over and over by many of my patients. They have grown and birthed a whole new being, are nourishing them often singlehandedly to ensure their baby survives and thrives and yet their concern is around the public perception of them responding to their baby’s needs. One of their foremost fears is that they may be shamed for providing their baby with the necessities of food so that they don’t die from dehydration and malnutrition.
To breastfeed a baby exclusively, a mother’s body requires more nutrients and calories than it does during her third trimester of pregnancy when she is carrying a fully grown foetus in utero. When she does breastfeed postpartum, the daily caloric expenditure is equivalent to running 5km per day.
It is in this context, that in recent days, I and many of my colleagues were appalled to hear of a Victorian Judge removing a breastfeeding parent from a courtroom on the basis that this may “distract” the jury. This individual who was feeding her child, was publicly shamed and vilified for responding to her child’s needs.
For context, a newborn baby will feed between 8 and 12+ times in 24 hours. Older babies and toddlers will also often feed frequently, and this is biologically entirely normal. Breastfeeding provides nutrition but also allows a parent to responsively soothe their infant at times of distress, tiredness, or unsettled behaviour. It is more than milk. In what seems a rather obvious concept, babies are unaware that these needs, that is to be fed or soothed, are acceptable only in certain spaces. Any parent will know predicting when these needs will be expressed is entirely futile.
Whilst I have not spoken to the mother in question, I would presume that either her child was hungry or fussing and she chose to breastfeed to settle and keep them quiet, being very aware she was in a courtroom. Reports suggest she asked court staff as to whether she could come into the court with her infant. I would venture that breastfeeding was far less distracting to the Jury than the Judge’s comments and subsequent media coverage.
In previous years, though still in many parts of the world today, it was expected that breastfeeding be done privately and entirely out of view. In a society where breasts are seen as valuable when sexualised and offensive when functional, only certain displays of breasts were socially acceptable. These views persist today, as evidenced by the incident under scrutiny. We no longer police how breasts are adorned in public spaces, but it seems their legitimate functional use is not afforded the same freedom.
It has been a step forward for public spaces to be designed with breastfeeding in mind, with significant research undertaken to determine what would be most supportive for parents. To have spaces such as Parent rooms where families can breastfeed privately is reassuring for many with young children.
However, to require a parent to breastfeed only in these and not fully public spaces continues to stigmatise the act of breastfeeding itself and shame those doing it who put their infant’s needs above those of society who may disagree. A courtroom is indeed a controlled environment of serious consequence. It is however a public space open to all members of the public where no-one should be discriminated against. Members of Parliament are now able to breastfeed their children during sitting sessions.
To ask a breastfeeding mother to leave any space creates a society where women being an equal member is conditional. Under no circumstance should we accept that any aspect of a woman’s biology makes her a conditional member of society. This is frank discrimination and the lack of response from Judicial organisations is disappointing. A lack of apology from the Judge is question is deeply concerning.
I reviewed a patient last week who I had been caring for during some significant breastfeeding medical issues. She had expressed concern around feeding publicly in our first meeting. She’d persisted through pain she described as worse than childbirth and concern around her baby’s weight gain. Her baby was now thriving, she was breastfeeding without pain, and she was feeling more positive about adjusting to life as a parent.
As I walked with her to my consultation room after saying hello, she could barely contain herself and she said with a large smile, “You would be so proud of me. I went for a walk, and he started fussing whilst I was some distance from home. I wasn’t sure what to do but I picked him up and found a brick fence to sit on. I helped him start breastfeeding and then stood up and walked home all whilst feeding and pushing the pram. Can you believe it? After I said I would never feed in public?”. But it wasn’t me who was proud, it was her. She was proud of herself, of what she was able to achieve and how far she had come.
What would have looked externally like a routine occurrence was a major achievement worthy of a round of applause. As is every feed, no matter the mode, and moment of care a parent gives to their baby.
How much better a society would we live in, if women and especially mothers, could participate in society unconditionally, always? If routine care of our young was applauded, valued, and supported? Be it quietly on a suburban street or in a courtroom where a mother decides to breastfeed their fussing baby.