E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAfter years of hoping, planning and waiting, Anne Schaeffer finally held her adopted son in her arms – and breast-fed him.
Courtesy Anne Schaeffer
Anne Schaeffer with her son Robbie, who she adopted, and breast-fed, as an infant.
Once upon a time, adoptive breast-feeding, or induced lactation, was rare. And while it’s still not the norm, a growing number of adoptive mothers are nursing their young babies. They do it for the health benefits of breast milk for babies, but also for the emotional benefits for both mother and child.
“It’s impossible for me to know what our bond would be like if I hadn’t done it, but I could not feel closer to my son,” said Schaeffer, whose son is now 11 months. “He’s got a really wonderful, very secure attachment to me. I don’t know how much (breast-feeding) played into it, but it sure didn’t hurt.”
It wasn’t easy. Schaeffer and her husband were pretty beaten up, mentally and physically, after four in-vitro fertilization cycles and four miscarriages. Shortly after they decided to adopt, Schaeffer’s mother told her about an NPR segment she’d heard about induced lactation.
“It was such a relief, such a consolation that I would be able to have some sort of physical bonding,” said Schaeffer.
Live Poll
What do you think of adoptive breast-feeding?
She contacted Julie Bouchet-Horwitz, an Irvington, N.Y.-based nurse practitioner and lactation consultant who breast-fed her adopted daughter 16 years ago. She coached Schaeffer throughout the process, using the Newman-Goldfarb Protocols for Induced Lactation, a guide developed in 1999 by a Canadian pediatrician and a woman becoming a mom through gestational surrogacy.
To make breast milk, women take birth control pills continuously for several months, tricking the body into thinking it’s pregnant. The guide also suggests domperidone, a gastrointestinal drug with a side effect of milk secretion – even in men.
Domperidone isn’t FDA-approved, and Reglan, a similar drug available in the U.S., has been shown to cause depression. There are also herbs that can help with milk production, but most women who go the medication route take domperidone; Schaeffer ordered hers from a pharmacy in New Zealand.
As the adoption day nears, adoptive moms come off the birth control pill and continue domperidone to produce milk. Nipple stimulation – the kind that comes from a baby nursing, or a breast pump – triggers oxytocin, the hormone that causes the milk “let-down” effect.
Courtesy Jane Anne Wilder
Jane Anne Wilder, breast-feeding her adopted newborn.
It’s even possible for women to produce milk without drugs. Jane Anne Wilder, an actress from the Seattle area, adopted 17 years ago. Her doctor told her she could go on hormones to prepare for breast-feeding, but she was leery. “If the adoption had fallen through, I was going to be devastated enough. So I wanted to start when the adoption was solid.”
Wilder was at the hospital when her baby was born. She used a supplemental nursing system, a device used by both adoptive and biological moms. Formula or breast milk goes in a little bottle, which is fed to the baby through tiny tubes taped to the mother’s nipple. Baby doesn’t know the difference, and the sucking causes mom to make more milk.
Within three days, Wilder was “honest to God lactating,” although she never made enough milk to breast-feed without supplementing. Few adoptive moms, whether they take drugs or not, will make enough milk to breast-feed exclusively. But Wilder kept at it for the bonding.
“This wasn’t my biological child, so I wanted to take every opportunity to bond with this baby that I could possibly get,” said Wilder. Plus, she added, “I had cleavage for the first time.”
More great stories from TODAY Moms:
20 kids and counting! Michelle Duggar is pregnant again
Sure, turn off ESPN. But you still have to talk about the Penn State scandal.
Breast milk shortage hits milk banks
"Like" TODAY Moms on Facebook, and follow us @TodayMoms
Leave a Comment:
So does this mean that the 4 kids I gave birth to but was unable to nurse (for various reasons) didn't attach to me? I'm happy that these families we able to adopt children and great for them that they were able to breast feed. But the article makes it sound like you'll never bond with your child if you don't do that. I'm thinking that the hours I spent in the NICU, lack of sleep when he finally came home and I just listened to the monitors telling me he was breathing OK and all the late nights with croup and asthma along with all the normal diaper changes and feeding helped me to bond with my youngest just fine. He's OK with anyone else, but given the choice he wants Mama.
Okay, you were a good mom. Feel validated now? Can we just be happy for these adoptive mothers, without stroking the delicate egos of non-breastfeeders?
Wow JLM, got a real attitude problem there? It is normally the lactationists who run around telling us women who did not or could not breast feed how very unfit we were as mothers. It is not really that important where the milk comes from, it is the nurturing that goes with the feeding that matters. It is so ridiculous to have a constant battle over who is a better mom because of how or what she first feeds her baby. Mothers should be united in caring for their children and helping others care for their children, not out waving banners saying one is better than the other. Cat is more right than you are on this one....
Just because someone is pro-something, doesn't mean they are anti-something else. This is wonderful. Let's celebrate mothers instead of tearing each other a part. Support other mothers or keep your thoughts to yourself.
Nowhere in the article does it say that you can't bond if you don't breastfeed and nowhere does it say that breastfeeding mothers are superior. Why the defensiveness? This article was simply about adoptive mothers who chose to breastfeed, not about mothers who could not breastfeed or mothers with babies in the NICU.
I don't think JLM was the one with the chip there so I'm not sure why their comment was collapsed. Maybe Cat's feeling a little raw from her experience but I didn't read anything in the article implying a lack of bonding anywhere. Everyone needs to not take every article so personally. This one did a pretty good job of just reporting.
i think the article was wonderful...perhaps cat you are feeling a little oversensitive about not nursing(for various reasons) but this article was showing that even tho you did not give birth to these babies they can physically feel they are supporting them in an awesome way. Great for them!
I think the bonding aspect of it was to help because we had our babies inside of us for the pregnancy to bond. They heard our voices, knew our scents, etc so they are predisposed to bond with that person. For those who adopt, they didn't get those special moments from the womb time and want to connect still and this is a way to do it.
As an adoptive mom who has successfully nursed 3 of my babies(all adopted) it's all about using breastfeeding to begin the attachment process that a biological mom has already had for nine months. You had that time, your baby knew YOU'RE voice and smell, etc. I had to work to make sure my babies/kids knew I was their Mama. There ARE other ways to bond with a child(which I did with my other 4 that I couldn't/didn't breastfeed) who wasn't born to you, but nursing has been the most amazing bonding experience for me. Just my 2 cents worth for you.
I'm a biological mom, and I can't say I felt much of a bond during pregnancy. I didn't feel any established "bond" when the baby was born, and I think it was about 2 weeks later that I actually felt bonded with the baby. So personally, I don't think adoptive moms are missing out that much on pregnancy. A baby in utero can't "smell" mom, and although they might be able to hear her voice, it'd be a garbled, underwater version of it. Breastfeeding and restless nights are the major bonding forces, I think.
Studies have actually shown that babies know their birthmothers voice This is just one link but I could provide plenty more for you. As for a baby knowing it's birthmom's smell, most experts agree on this:
So, it seems, that babies are smarter than you think. Thus, the importance of beginning bonding quickly when in an adoption situation. Breastfeeding definitely helps promote that bonding with an infant.
A fetus cannot smell their mother. Air intake is necessary for aerial particulates to pass through the olfactory system and be perceived as a smell. So a pregnant mother and her baby do not bond over her smell, though a "smell bond" is conceivable after birth (for either a biological or adoptive mother).
The reseach disagrees with you about whether a baby can smell in the womb.
I would be happy to see a link to this research in a peer-reviewed scientific journal!
There are just so many logical problems with that assertion. First, the olfactory system senses gaseous molecules, which are not present in utero. Second, the fetus is encased in an amniotic sac, preventing the exchange of gases between the mother's and baby's bodies. Thirdly, a mother's internal "smell" is not going to resemble her external one!
I don't think it's saying if you don't breastfeed you're not attached to your child. I think they just meant it was a physical way for these particular mothers to feel attached since they weren't pregnant with these children.
If these drugs are not FDA approved is there any way for us to know whether or not these drugs are good for the baby that they are being passed to while breastfeeding?
Very good point. How far is too far, what risk is too great?
4 failed IVF? Drugs from New Zealand? 4 IVF is not healthy...those are serious hormones/drugged that can promote liver and uterine tumors.
What is wrong with adoption? Why is that viewed as a back plan to IVF? And what risk to non approved drugs pose to mother and child? All to somehow pretend to have a complete mom experience?
just because a drug is not FDA approved does not mean it is not safe- the pharmaceutical company may not have chosen to jump the hoops to get FDA approval. Many drugs are approved in other countries & not the US. Domperidone has been around a very long time & has a good track record. Domperidone has been approved by the American Academy of Peds for nursing moms & it's Lactation Risk Category is L1- safest. So as for safety it is considered as safe as Tylenol. Reglan IS FDA approved but using it for induced lactation or increasing milk supply is "off label use" which happens ALL the time. Cytotec is not FDA approved for labor induction but commonly used by OBs in most hospitals for that purpose. Reglan's considered an L2 or "safer"-other L2s are Zyrtec & Benadryl. Very few drugs are actually contraindicated for nursing moms. Hope that answers your question!
Reglan and domperidone are both used in the U.S. and Canada to increase GI motility. They both happen to have a side effect of increasing prolactin levels which can increase milk supply. Reglan is more readily available in the U.S. and is safe and sometimes used for babies with reflux. (Domperidone is available in the U.S. through some compounding pharmacies) Domperidone does not cross the blood brain barrier as Reglan does, thus it does not have the risk of depression and is often a safer alternative for breastfeeding moms from that standpoint. Thomas Hale reports both drugs being safe for breastfeeding mothers to use in his book "Medications and Mothers Milk". which is the standard reference book utilized by lactation consultants and pediatricians.
I was surprised to read that Domperidone isn't approved over there. I'm an American living in The Netherlands and we gave this drug to our daughter just last week to help her stop vomiting (suppository). You don't even need a prescription for it and the dr tells you to buy it. We have the same thing with getting meds I know are approved in America over here. Each country has to do their own studies and some haven't been done there or here yet. Domperidone is definitely safe.
I think it's wonderful...it isnt just about the bonding. It's what is best for the child!!! There are numerous health benefits to breastmilk.
This is bizarre. I can't imagine how messed up you have to be to be so desperate to take drugs to force lactation. It makes me very concerned for these children. I can understand wanting to be a parent but I can't understand forcing your body to go through the process of pregnancy so you can feel like a "real" mother. If they think the physical component is what is most important than they're not ready to be mothers.
I agree. How does it make you less of a mother if you don't breastfeed anyway? I know plenty of moms who are attached to their adopted child and they never felt the need to do this.
Damn, you are hot.
Just FYI Diana, a lot of women who have biological children and aren't producing enough also seek out "these drugs" so it's really not as uncommon as you believe. Also, no one's saying it makes anyone less of a mother, it's just something they want to do.
Taking hormones is not a healthy move. Carcinogenic....bad for the heart...etc....
A woman who adopts a baby has likely given up a desire to carry a baby in her own womb. What in the world is wrong with a woman deciding that she didn't want to give up the breastfeeding experience too? There are many, many, many benefits of breastfeeding that go WAY beyond bonding. Of course you will still love and be bonded to your baby if you can't or choose not to breastfeed. It's not about that! Breastmilk is by far the healthiest option for babies. The World Health Organization recommends that babies be breastfed. If they cannot be breastfed, the next recommendation is donor breastmilk, and only if donor breastmilk is not available do they recommend formula. If an adoptive mom wants to do everything she can to provide the healthiest food for her baby, no one should disempower her. Adoptive babies deserve breastmilk too! For those of you that were not able to breastfeed, another mother's choice to breastfeed is not meant as an insult to you so please don't take it that way! Many of you weren't "able" to breastfeed because of hospital policies and procedures or lack of staff support (such as in the NICU). That is NOT your fault and you shouldn't take it out on other moms who choose to try breastfeeding. You are every bit as good of a mother whether you formula feed or breastfeed. Let's not tear each other down for our different choices.
@Jessica Weed-I think it a bit overboard to think that a mom chooses to adopt when she does not desire to carry a baby in her womb, How about those who are infertile?
BTW, I also believe breast milk is best for babes, going so far as to find donor milk for moms with newborns who could not have breast milk any other way. If mom chooses not to breastfeed (and is healthy and capable), in my experience, I have found that whether or not her baby gets milk vs. formula is not so important. (There are cases where mental medical situations, etc make it so breastfeeding is unhealthy for mom or child). There are also donor sites where one can obtain donor milk. Milk banks are very expensive. If a mom, adoptive or not, chooses to induce through medications, I think more power to her....for whatever reason she wants to do it! Breast milk is still the best alternative!
FYI, you do not HAVE to take drugs or birth control in order to induce lactation. This is one way of inducing lactation that takes a very long time and is intensive and one I wouldn't recommend.
I don't think these women would say this is the only way they could attach, but for them this physical connection enhanced the process. If you want more info on breastfeeding a child through adoption or surrogacy, check out the extensive resources at the adoption and infertility education nonprofit, Creating a Family (), which include a podcast and video, as well as a FAQ page where our expert addresses the question of the safety of the drugs on the mom and infant.
Is it just me or are these people not thinking straight? They are so desperate to breastfeed because of the "if you don't breastfeed you are not doing what is best for your child" schpiel that they are taking drugs and hormones galore that artificially makes them produce milk without knowing the ramifications on their poor children. It seems incredibly selfish and it wouldn't surprise me if they have negative effects on the children, and maybe even the mothers, for intaking excessive amounts of hormones.
Since you asked, Hot.... It's just you!
Honestly they don't need to take the drugs to lactate, I'm sure you've heard of the "myth" of men lactating, It's true, honestly all they need is for the baby to latch a few times a day and supplement until it does happen, think about it, when women couldn't lactate waaaay back when, they had a wet nurse or if the mother died in child birth I'm sure the father had to take that role if he was a poor man, a human body is designed to provide for infants.
It's not excessive or unknown hormones. It's like taking birth control pills. Do you think thats crazy too? There is no reason to believe that given all the physical benefits to women (aside from the benefits to the child) that happen from lactation, that there would be negative effects simply because it is induced.
I do not think this is bizzare. It is no different that doing all you can to bear a child because you want to experience childbirth. What is so different in wanting to experience breastfeeding? I think if a mother wants to use a SNS (supplemental nursing system) and induce lactation to the extent of trying hormones to lactate, then do it.
I am SO relieved my mother didn't have to deal with this nonsense. I couldn't imagine what today's mothers would have put her through for NOT breastfeeding her adopted children. We got formula and we're fine.
I feel incredibly sorry for neurotic woman's poor kids.
Why does a woman wanting to breastfeed her child make her neurotic?! Breast milk is the ONLY food ALL babies should be getting. Period. If you can't lactate then you should search for donor milk. Read the WHO recommendations. Formula should be a LAST resort. Just because you "got formula" and are fine doesn't mean that another child will be fine. Formula is artificial milk made of substandard ingredients. What these women are doing is amazing. If it makes you uneasy for any reason then you should look within yourself and find out why. No one is criticizing anyone in this article. Maybe some of you ladies feel disenfranchised because you weren't breastfed as a baby or maybe you feel guilty because you didn't or couldn't breastfeed your own children. Either way, I commend all women who do this.
Did it occur to you that some women do not want to nurse ? it does not mean they do not love their children, but they prefer to share the feeding experience with others. A social event ! Formulas are fine as many times breast milk may be easily contaminated. Different opinions and actually, it is your call...your choice...your breasts....using the pump is very popular.....with working women. The kids get the breast milk but not the breast.
Saying "women may not want to nurse" is like saying "women may not want the best for their child." Breast is best. Period. And for a woman to decide that they just dont want to is selfish. Yes sometimes there are medical reasons a woman cannot breastfeed. Yes, sometimes a woman doesn't get the support or the education on breastfeeding that she needed to succeed in nursing her child. If that is the case, then by all means, give your child a bottle, guilt free. But if you are sitting there and you are able to say, "I didnt breastfeed, because I didnt want to" you are selfish, and maybe you should re-evaluate what it really means to be a parent.
I'm almost 40 and always looking for another mommy.
As a mother who is currently breastfeeding my 11 month old son and has enjoyed the closeness and nurturing that this has given to us, I think it's very special and courageous that adoptive mothers will do the work to become breastfeeding mothers. I also had lactation problems due to underlying health issues, and like these women enlisted the help of lactation support. I used domperidone with success and I find the comments of some previous posters ignorant. Though the FDA has not done the testing, the drug is used to induce lactation in many countries outside the US and legitimate testing in these countries has shown miniscule amounts in breast milk that are both harmless to the infant and are far outweighed by the benefits of breast milk for the child.
It never fails to amaze me just how defensive women who don't breastfeed can be when a woman doesn't want to just shake up a bottle of formula. If breast feeding CAN be achieved and maintained, it should be given a chance. There is NOTHING better for a baby and breast milk is PERFECT human food for a human baby. Formula is adequate, but distinctly inferior. Think a McDonalds hamburger as opposed to a spinach salad - food, yes; best food? No.
That being said, if you were unable breastfeed successfully, I'm sorry; that happens and it's unfortunate. If you never tried, that's truly sad, but don't judge. If you tried and couldn't maintain it, it's probably due to a lack of needed support and I wish it had been different for you. But for God's sake, let a woman who wanted to be a mother from conception to birth and beyond and couldn't, resulting in adoption, have as close to an authentic motherhood as she can without a bunch of judgement heaped on her for a choice she makes for her own child and her own body.
Mothers are judged enough by everyone else; Could we NOT both judge and crucify these mothers? They love their babies - Let them love them with mother's milk.
On that note, I'm going to go freeze mine for the daycare stash....Milk: IT does a baby good!!!!
your milk is as good as your health and your diet. Many women cannot nurse for a variety of reasons. It has become a big deal which is blown out of proportion. To raise a child has to do with offering this child unselfish opportunities that will make him or her an independent human being. To share the feeding of a child between parents and friends may actually be better for the child than being stuck on mother's nipple. Yes...to nurse an infant for a few months helps the immune system..so they say.....maybe.
Alunette that's a very misinformed comment. I think you will find that breastmilk is not just as good as your diet. Scientific research has shown that a mother will be affected by the symptoms of poor diet long before the quality of her breastmilk is affected. if scientific research is not to be believed then all we need to do is look at the mothers in poor and deprived countries who manage to sustain breastfeeding their infants even though their own diets are seriously compromised.
There is an attachment process that goes on between the mother and child when breastfeeding...adoptive mothers do not do it out of 'selfishness' as most of you seem to suggest, quite the opposite. It is for the emotional well-being of the child mostly, and the bond between mother and child. You seem to be forgetting the fundamental difference between not breastfeeding your biological child and not breastfeeding an adopted child- your child has grown inside of you for the past 9 months. When your child arrives into this world it is secure in who its mother is- you have been bonding for the last 9 months and there is already an attachment made biologically from naturally occurring chemicals in your system (oxytocin). The biology of attachment is there. For adoptive parents and their babies, none of this attachment is present. No chemistry, no familiar voices, smells, genetics... Please think about it before making such judgmental statements because someone chooses to breastfeed an adopted child, and perhaps read some books on attachment disorder in adoption and then you will be better equipped to discuss this topic. Lack of attachment can have serious mental and emotional repercussions for both child and mother, and if these mothers are trying to lessen that, then we need to encourage them.
The drug, Domperidone, is used regularly in Canada to help breastfeeding mothers (biological mothers), and it is actually prescribed to babies who experience reflux too. In regards to 'excessive amounts of hormones' taken by women it is just the birth control pill BEFORE lactation starts. No more than many women take before getting pregnant.
Awkward for those teens that get adopted...........
I am going to be harsh now. Anything that makes these women feel successful as a mothers is A okay with me. Unless you have gone through the absolute devastation of watching your body fail you and then going through the ordeal that comes with adoption process (I love adoption) you have no right to dictate ANY judgement calls on what these ladies do. If it makes them feel physically closer go for it. If a bottle is whats best then go for it. Wow we are a country of mean biddies. I had a friend do this exact lactation exercise with her adopted baby. Nice well adjusted kid 10 years later. I have 5 kids and have breastfed, bottlefed and combo fed. But I never had to battle to conceive.....no jokes please... I meant to have 5. Adoption is not like birth it has its own challenges and adjustments but the end result is the same we are a parent. We should celebrate whenever we see a successful parent not poke mean spirited holes. There are many ways to parent and still be wonderful. PLAY to your strengths whatever they are.
I was adopted in the 60's. Bonded completely with both parents without the benefit of breast feeding. Stop trying to make adopted kids an extension of your self. If you really want to help kids and the world, be a healthy, unselfish role model to create a better, more kind, more sustainable world.
It is not smart to fool with mother Nature. Breast feeding is trendy but not mandatory to establish a bond between mother and child. A little more cerebral and less suggestible may work out just fine....cuddling is pretty great as well. This person seems self absorbed. The child does not need her breast milk, or her breasts.
"Breastfeeding is trendy" - really? It's the one, consistent, age-old, tried and true through the centuries means of feeding one's child across every culture in the world. It was around long before bottles, and all the other technologies invented by man across the ages.
While I agree that it is not NECESSARY as a means to bond with an adopted child, it certainly is an option available to moms now. And whatever means a mom chooses to nourish her child, inside and out, or to forge a bond with her child, birthed or adopted, it's really not an issue of "more cerebral" or being "self absorbed" - it's a matter of personal choice and freedom to raise a family as she sees fit.
Why would any of us, who are purportedly thinking intelligent women take that choice away from another woman? Or bash it? Hollie (poster above) is right - judgments like this and the others on the board serve no one. Rather, they provide yet another tool by which women/moms divide into disparate camps and choose pettiness over support and encouragement for personal choice.
(smh)
Last time I checked, Mother Nature didnt intend for us to feed our young formula out a plastic bottle with a rubber teat.
What the...? :D I usually go overboard to remain neutral and diplomatic, but alumette's intentional misinformation and hostile attitude towards breastfeeding is just totally out of line.
Do not mess with mother nature - therefore, BREASTFEED. Adoptive mothers have breastfed infants for hundreds of thousands of years. Why stop now? It's in our genes. Yes, some may take medication to help them lactate more, but it can be done without hormones, too.
I don't understand where you have gotten the ridiculous idea that brestfeeding is somehow bad for the child, that breastfeeding would be self-absorbed or only beneficial for the mother. Babies, especially adopted babies, stand to gain a LOT from breastfeeding. I can't imagine judging someone for not breastfeeding an adopted infant because induced lactation is a lot of work in the beginning, but I'm really having trouble understanding how someone could possibly see induced lactation as a bad thing.
Decades ago when formulas were not available and cows not handy, some kids would have "wet nurses". These women had their own children and they had enough milk to feed multiple infants. These were life saving opportunities. The present attempt at lactating to satisfy a special contact is laughable. Really, I can't believe we have come this far just to satisfy a concept.
Why are the lactation consultants not pushing this hormone regimen and drugs for fathers(the article does point out that the drugs used induce lactation in males)?Shouldn't we encourage the fathers to also assume this role and not rely soley on mom for baby's nourishment? My friend who adopted attended a LaLeche meeting and was told about this procedure but never once was this mentioned that males could also achieve milk production. You would think LLL would want to spread the word that fathers can actively participate in breastfeeding and that it is not just "Mom's domain"
You think men should take female hormones to latcate and feed their babies? Do you understand the gender issue there? Men and women have different breasts. I for one don't want my husband developing "moobs" and possibly becoming impotent.
A better use for this science might be to help those mothers who have trouble producing enough milk so that nearly all mothers who give birth and some of those who adopt can breastfeed. Why are you wanting to shirk the responsibility/give up the privilege of being the sole source of nourishment for your baby?
Ah, they call breast milk - gold. And it is that color, full of nutrients and vitamins and antibiotics that protect the little one for a long time. That's all he or she needs for a whole year. However, the milk in a mother's breast is for her baby not someone else's. There has been times when a baby was nursed by another and it caused sickness.
Also a baby can not have cow's milk for a year, too much sodium.
Maybe the couple in the article was trying too hard and just need to be patient. Many times after adoption, a natural one is born.
I'm all for adoption because I was at three days old.
"Children are a heritage from the LORD and fruit of the womb is his reward."
what are you smoking!?
I wanted to respond to 2 of your comments that are simply just not true.
"Many times after adoption, a natural one is born." The statistics for those dealing with infertility who adopt and then end up pregnant is only 8%! Obviously that is very far from your "many times" statement. It would be nice if people stopped making assumptions and what they think is true and do some research before they spout it as truth.
"There has been times when a baby was nursed by another and it caused sickness." You are very misinformed. A healthy woman nursing a baby that she did not give birth to has no more reason to "cause sickness" as the biological mother herself would.
And, one last thing. Is your reference to the Bible verse because you believe children are a heritage and reward or are you trying to say that adoptive parents aren't getting the "reward" part because the child didn't come from the adoptive mom's womb?