Baroness Nicholson's unanswered letter

La Leche league have some explaining to do

Dear La Lèche International Co-Chairs, Dear Ms Schesch Wernick and Ms. O'Connor,

I write with reference to your British Branch policy of encouraging natal males to mimic breast feeding using untried, drug stimulated male chest liquids squirted directly into apparently living babies’ mouths. This practice, which is one which your organisation strongly supports would seem to be in direct opposition to UK laws, customs and practice. Indeed, most would find it both abhorrent to mothers and harmful to the infant.

Let me explain.

First, the word ‘mother’ is of critical importance here. The charitable registration of your British Branch claims that its purpose is to support breastfeeding mothers.

I draw your attention to two recent High Court cases of immediate application in this matter.

In the UK the very word ‘Mother’ is placed securely, and I believe rightly in law as the one who carries the foetus in the womb and gives birth to the baby. Your moral and legal obligation is to that person, who is a natal female in English law.

Although you mention the word ‘woman’ once in your registration the bulk of the justification you offer is your support for the mother. So called ‘chest feeding’ by natal males, irrespective of any gender reassignment does not confer the status of

motherhood and is therefore unquestionably outside that definition (viz case FD18F00035 of 2019 and its Appeal following with Case Nos C1/2019/2730, C1/2019/2767). The decision by the High-Court states: “… there is a material difference between a person’s gender and their status as a parent. Being a ‘mother’, whilst hitherto always associated with being female, is the status afforded to a person who undergoes the physical and biological process of carrying a pregnancy and giving birth. It is now medically and legally possible for an individual, whose gender is recognised in law as male, to become pregnant and give birth to their child. Whilst that person’s gender is ‘male’, their parental status, which derives from their biological role in giving birth, is that of ‘mother’.”

Secondly, in the High Court judgement of the Keira Bell case handed down on Tuesday of this week it was made clear that untried drug use on under 18 year olds should in each case be subjects of court orders (viz Case No: CO/60/2020). The decision by the High Court states: "A child under 16 may only consent to the use of medication intended to suppress puberty where he or she is competent to understand the nature of the treatment. That includes an understanding of the immediate and long-term consequences of the treatment, the limited evidence available as to its efficacy or purpose, the fact that the vast majority of patients proceed to the use of cross-sex hormones, and its potential life changing consequences for a child. There will be enormous difficulties in a child under 16 understanding and weighing up this information and deciding whether to consent to the use of puberty blocking medication. It is highly unlikely that a child aged 13 or under would be competent to give consent to the administration of puberty blockers. It is doubtful that a child aged 14 or 15 could understand and weigh the long-term risks and consequences of the administration of puberty blockers.

In respect of young persons aged 16 and over, the legal position is that there is a presumption that they have the ability to consent to medical treatment. Given the long term consequences of the clinical interventions at issue in this case, and given that the treatment is as yet innovative and experimental, we recognise that clinicians may well regard these as cases where the authorisation of the court should be sought prior to commencing the clinical treatment.

" Since male chest liquids used as alternates to mother’s milk is a wholly unresearched feedstuff, and given that the principle drug used to create the male’s chest liquid is forbidden by NICE for children (it is an antiemetic) and for older adult males as it causes arrhythmic heart failure I see this as another potential failure of considerable magnitude with your British Branch’s heavy and determined promotion of the practise.

Please find below the La Leche Registration that gives focus on mothers:

Source: https://register-of-charities.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-search/- /charity-details/283771/governing-document

Activities: LLLGB is a voluntary organisation dedicated to providing education, information, support, and encouragement to women who want to breastfeed. Our mission is to help mothers to breastfeed through mother-to-mother support, encouragement, information and education, and to promote a better understanding, of breastfeeding as an important element in the healthy development of the baby and the mother

Charitable objects: To promote the physical and psychological health of mothers and children through education in the technique of breastfeeding, and to advance the education of the public and especially those concerned with the care of children in the health benefits both immediate and long-term of breastfeeding.

Nowhere does your charitable registration mention so called ‘chest feeding’ and as I have said earlier in this letter, care of the mother is your accepted objective.

I hope you will take my points as of overwhelming importance for the survival of your British Branch.

Yours sincerely,

Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne