In My Opinion

If you haven't seen the ABC News segment with Selma Hayek in Sierra Leone, then follow THIS LINK and watch the video clip then come back here to read on.

Some facts from the story include Selma's humanitarian trip to Sierra Leone with a push towards erradicating neonatal tetanus, which is often transmitted via an infected umbilical cord stump. Protection from neonatal tetanus can come by sterile birth practices or via a maternal tetanus toxoid immunization during pregnancy. This latter method is what is being focused on here and by Unicef and Pampers. The two organizations have joined together to make tetanus vaccines available to women in need in developing countries.

Some points of controversy with the story:

During the nightline video, an infant is shown taking its last breath, dying from tetanus. The actual death is shown. Secondly, Selma, who is still lactating, breastfeeds a hungry african infant on camera.

Some of my admittedly random thoughts on the story.

It is enlightening to those of us in the developed world to hear of such easily preventable tragedies. Never would we think of packing an umbilical cord with manure or mud....as is done in Africa and other such developing countries, contributing to this horrible death for the infants. Yes, a simple, cheap vaccine can potentially save many babies from needless death. And, think what could be accomplished with the education of those women, teaching the importance of a clean environment for childbirth. It does inspire us to give to help reach the helpless babies in time.

However, I'm not so thrilled with the idea of pamper's "help" being tied to America's commercialism. "If you buy 1 pack of pampers; we will deliver 1 tetanus vaccine." Hmmm, not so heart felt, it would seem.

Secondly, I take offense to the airing of the infant's death on national media. Was consent to air the child's dying breath given by the baby's mother? If so, did she truly understand that it would be plastered across the internet and aired nationally on Nightline? Even if she did consent, is it humane? Is it necessary to make the point? Are we sensationalized enough to expect to see a dying baby in a journalism piece on dying babies in Africa? In my opinion, it was senseless, needless and in poor taste.

Lastly, I have issues with Selma's breastfeeding the infant who was not hers. I am not disputing the fact that breastmilk is superior food for all babies, especially babies living in such plain disadvantage as those on the piece in Sierra Leone. I am just .... shall we say concerned about the details of the act. Was the mother of the infant alive? Did she give consent for the infant to breastfeed? Was Selma medically screened at all? In light of the subject matter, compared to dying of tetanus, contracting an illness from Selma's milk is probably a mute point. However, breastmilk has been shown to transmit such diseases as HIV and Hepatitis.

And, there are established human milk banks designed to do just such screening on donor human milk, which is then made available to those in need. This program is small and in need of promotion and expansion, for sure. Perhaps selma could put her celebrity power behind this established method for the safe distribution of breastmilk instead of randomly picking up a hungry infant and so genersously allowing it to suckle, as was portrayed in this piece.

Again, my thoughts are random. What are your thoughts? I do think that the issue is important.

Should Americans help with the shortage of funds available to vaccinate pregnant women in Sierra Leone? Yes.

Should we go a step further and strive to improve the unsanitary conditions newborns are exposed to? Certainly.

Would it be beneficial for all babies - everywhere - to breastfeed? Absolutely.

Does this journalism piece do justice to any of these issues? In my opinion, No.