This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://ift.tt/jcXqJW.
Want something else to read? How about 'Grievous Censorship' By The Guardian: Israel, Gaza And The Termination Of Nafeez Ahmed's Blog
Sunday 14 Dec 2014 - 15:26 Makkah mean time-22-2-1436 <div style="text-align: justify;"> London (IINA) - UK researchers said that if more women breastfed their babies for at least four months after birth, the healthcare cost savings could be significant, not to mention the health benefits for mothers and babies.<br /> “Studies show that there is often an unsympathetic public attitude to breastfeeding outside of the home, an acceptance of formula feeding as a normal and safe way to feed babies, a lack of expertise and experience of breastfeeding among health service staff,” said Subhash Pokhrel, a health economist at Brunel University in London who led the study.<br /> “Women’s choice to start or to continue to breastfeed is therefore constrained by the culture and community in which they live,” Pokhrel said in an email to Reuters Health.<br /> His group calculates, for example, that if 75 percent of the babies in British neonatal units were breastfed, rather than the current 25 percent, the country would save £6.12 million ($9.6 million) on a serious intestinal problem called necrotizing enterocolitis, which affects premature infants.<br /> Previous studies have shown that stomach, respiratory and eye problems are more common in babies who are bottle-fed. The new study’s authors argue that the costs of these childhood ailments add up for the UK National Health Service.<br /> They also point to research suggesting that women who breastfeed may have a lower risk of breast cancer later in life – and say that breastfeeding would provide additional cost savings in that regard.<br /> AB/IINA</div> |
No comments:
Post a Comment