The WHO has announced that bacon will kill us all, except for my husband, who will die of pastrami instead. The decision to classify processed meats as a Class 1 carcinogen has all sorts of flaws, which have already been picked apart by the mainstream press, so I won't go into them here. What interests me is how society is willing to be skeptical of the WHO when it comes to bacon but completely credulous when it comes to controlling women's bodies.
There are two areas in particular where the word of the WHO is considered sacrosanct: C-section and breastfeeding.
In the past year, the WHO published a study on the relationship between C-section rate and mortality in low-income countries. The researches observed that mortality didn't improve when the rate exceeded 10%, and concluded that women in these countries should be discouraged from requesting C-sections without a medical indication so that more resources are available for the women whose babies might die without them.
The "low-income" part is critical to understanding the study. There is no such thing as an ideal C-section rate, and breech presentation shows why beautifully. The danger with breech presentation is that the baby's head gets stuck on the cervix while the rest of the body is out, compressing the umbilical cord and causing asphyxiation. We know based on historical studies that, even when the medical practitioner is experienced in vaginal delivery of breech babies, 1 in 800 babies will die and many more will suffer permanent brain damage. There is no way to predict ahead of time who the unlucky babies will be.
If you live in a developed country where there is no question that the mother can get a repeat C-section for the next delivery, then it is a no-brainer to deliver breech babies by C-section because C-section is an order of magnitude safer. However, if you live in a country where the mother may very well not be able to get a C-section at the next birth, performing a C-section is sentencing the mother and the next baby to a 1 in 100 chance of dying.
Nevertheless, the media and mommy shamers went wild for the WHO study, bashing women in developed countries who choose to give birth by C-section. Basic facts were ignored, including: no country with tolerable perinatal and maternal mortality rates has a C-section rate below 20%; in countries where there is no shortage of doctors or materials necessary to perform C-sections, pre-labor C-section is demonstrably safer for the baby (and potentially but not clearly more dangerous for the mother) than attempted vaginal delivery for up to 3 births; and the WHO has an embarrassing history of making statements about C-section rates based on no data whatsoever and then quietly dropping them.
The same sort of logic happens with breastfeeding. In areas without access to clean water, exclusive breastfeeding saves lives by keeping dirty water out of infants' guts and giving them valuable antibodies that help protect against diarrheal diseases. There are, unfortunately, places on the planet where it is safer for babies to drink HIV-infected breastmilk than it is to drink formula prepared with the local water. Extended breastfeeding is beneficial, even after the child starts digesting those antibodies instead of benefiting from them, simply because it reduces exposure to contaminated water.
In developed countries with clean water, the benefits are much, much smaller. Even the WHO, in a study that somehow magically never gets cited by breastfeeding bullies, admits that the only proven benefits to breastfeeding for healthy terms babies are statistically fewer minor illnesses during infancy. Furthermore, the WHO was founded to give public health recommendations to low-income countries. It stopped providing income-specific recommendations when it saw that doing so generated distrust of its recommendations and got in the way of its work. This is a matter of historical fact. It is not up for debate.
If you ask breastfeeding advocates, though, the WHO's recommendations apply to all countries. Sometimes these recommendations are used in a benign way, such as in an attempt to eliminate the stigma towards extended breastfeeding. Usually, though, they are used to tell women who do not exclusively breastfed that, "Nanny nanny foo foo, you aren't doing the best for your child like I am, and the World Health Organization says so."
The WHO does a lot of valuable work. Like all large organization, it also does silly things sometimes as well. I wish women wouldn't use the WHO to attempt to rob other women of their bodily autonomy.
There are two areas in particular where the word of the WHO is considered sacrosanct: C-section and breastfeeding.
In the past year, the WHO published a study on the relationship between C-section rate and mortality in low-income countries. The researches observed that mortality didn't improve when the rate exceeded 10%, and concluded that women in these countries should be discouraged from requesting C-sections without a medical indication so that more resources are available for the women whose babies might die without them.
The "low-income" part is critical to understanding the study. There is no such thing as an ideal C-section rate, and breech presentation shows why beautifully. The danger with breech presentation is that the baby's head gets stuck on the cervix while the rest of the body is out, compressing the umbilical cord and causing asphyxiation. We know based on historical studies that, even when the medical practitioner is experienced in vaginal delivery of breech babies, 1 in 800 babies will die and many more will suffer permanent brain damage. There is no way to predict ahead of time who the unlucky babies will be.
If you live in a developed country where there is no question that the mother can get a repeat C-section for the next delivery, then it is a no-brainer to deliver breech babies by C-section because C-section is an order of magnitude safer. However, if you live in a country where the mother may very well not be able to get a C-section at the next birth, performing a C-section is sentencing the mother and the next baby to a 1 in 100 chance of dying.
Nevertheless, the media and mommy shamers went wild for the WHO study, bashing women in developed countries who choose to give birth by C-section. Basic facts were ignored, including: no country with tolerable perinatal and maternal mortality rates has a C-section rate below 20%; in countries where there is no shortage of doctors or materials necessary to perform C-sections, pre-labor C-section is demonstrably safer for the baby (and potentially but not clearly more dangerous for the mother) than attempted vaginal delivery for up to 3 births; and the WHO has an embarrassing history of making statements about C-section rates based on no data whatsoever and then quietly dropping them.
The same sort of logic happens with breastfeeding. In areas without access to clean water, exclusive breastfeeding saves lives by keeping dirty water out of infants' guts and giving them valuable antibodies that help protect against diarrheal diseases. There are, unfortunately, places on the planet where it is safer for babies to drink HIV-infected breastmilk than it is to drink formula prepared with the local water. Extended breastfeeding is beneficial, even after the child starts digesting those antibodies instead of benefiting from them, simply because it reduces exposure to contaminated water.
In developed countries with clean water, the benefits are much, much smaller. Even the WHO, in a study that somehow magically never gets cited by breastfeeding bullies, admits that the only proven benefits to breastfeeding for healthy terms babies are statistically fewer minor illnesses during infancy. Furthermore, the WHO was founded to give public health recommendations to low-income countries. It stopped providing income-specific recommendations when it saw that doing so generated distrust of its recommendations and got in the way of its work. This is a matter of historical fact. It is not up for debate.
If you ask breastfeeding advocates, though, the WHO's recommendations apply to all countries. Sometimes these recommendations are used in a benign way, such as in an attempt to eliminate the stigma towards extended breastfeeding. Usually, though, they are used to tell women who do not exclusively breastfed that, "Nanny nanny foo foo, you aren't doing the best for your child like I am, and the World Health Organization says so."
The WHO does a lot of valuable work. Like all large organization, it also does silly things sometimes as well. I wish women wouldn't use the WHO to attempt to rob other women of their bodily autonomy.
