I do not agree with the general tenor of this post, but the crust of the biscuit has validity, IMHO.
...
"With each bottle a mother requests and receives, sheĀll also get a talking-to. Staffers will explain why she should offer the breast instead."
...
ĀItĀs the patientĀs choice,Ā said Allison Walsh, of Beth Israel Medical Center. ĀBut itĀs our job to educate them on the best option.Ā
This is the core of coercion, and it saddens me that more people don't see it. The condescension is rampant, and it's coupled with an assumption of authority where there is none (at least not yet).
It begins with the determination that 'we' know what is 'best' for everyone else. This may nor may not have a basis in fact, but it's often used as the basis for further action whether it is right or wrong.
It proceeds to an 'education' that is mandatory, not optional. Instead of providing the new mother with educational material, she is given a 'talking-to' which she is forced to listen to.
What is not seen in the quotes above is the end-game scenario, which often follows the first two steps. When 'education' doesn't provide the desired results, the next step is to change the laws so that is it no longer "the patientĀs choice." This is seen in laws banning such things as trans-fats, salt, large-sized soft drinks, and other substances which are legal but deemed 'unhealthy' by authorities and busy-bodies.
It is also difficult to have a discussion about this phenomena because quite commonly, the response is a shocked "but it's NOT HEALTHY for you!" as if that were all the justification needed to restrict someone's liberties. It is impossible to discuss freedom and liberty with people who think that the state has a legitimate right to make you do the healthy thing, for your own good, even against your will.
For the record, since a couple clot-brains will find this impossible to infer, I firmly believe that natural mother's milk is far better for infants than formula. I also believe that's not the point, not the point at all.
As to whether or not this will lead, as billcihak says, to invasion of the bedroom by regulating do-gooders, it's possible, but I would guess not, at least not right away. If it were the case, the health-nazis would already have locked up all the gay people and the illegal IV drug users because AIDS was originally transmitted primarily by way of anal sex and sharing dirty needles. They did not do this because they believe that a person's right to put their phallum bway bway wherever they wish to trumps the state's interest in them making wise health decisions. They do not see the food we eat or what we feed our infants in the same light.
