BF in a jacuzzi?????

[special_kala]

The law states that it is NOT illegal to ask someone to not BF when there is a health and safety risk which there is in this case

 

[MommyJogger]

The law states that it is NOT illegal to ask someone to not BF when there is a health and safety risk which there is in this case

I would think in a legal scenario, you'd have to prove the health and safety risk. Can that be shown in this case? The only thing I can think would be to argue about the bm in the water, but it's not classed as a bodily fluid, sooo... any legal experts here?

 

[special_kala]

The no food or drink would be enough to show there is a H&S risk otherwise the rule wouldnt be there

 

[MommyJogger]

The no food or drink would be enough to show there is a H&S risk otherwise the rule wouldnt be there

That's not true at all. If that were the case, they would have to prohibit lactating mothers from being in the same area no food is allowed.

 

[Strike]

The law states that it is NOT illegal to ask someone to not BF when there is a health and safety risk which there is in this case

I would think in a legal scenario, you'd have to prove the health and safety risk. Can that be shown in this case? The only thing I can think would be to argue about the bm in the water, but it's not classed as a bodily fluid, sooo... any legal experts here?

1. Chance of mother slipping and hurting herself since her hands are occupied;
2. Chance of baby getting hurt if mom slips as her hands are occupied;
3. Risk of someone else in the pool getting injured and not being noticed due to lifeguard keeping an eye on mom and baby in case they fall.

I'm sure there are more, but these are the ones that I can think of offhand.

 

[staralfur]

The no food or drink would be enough to show there is a H&S risk otherwise the rule wouldnt be there

That's not true at all. If that were the case, they would have to prohibit lactating mothers from being in the same area no food is allowed.

I think the point is to limit water contamination as much as they can without going over the top. Checking every woman for lactation or menstruation would be ridiculous. The next best thing is to prohibit food and drink.

 

[MommyJogger]

The law states that it is NOT illegal to ask someone to not BF when there is a health and safety risk which there is in this case

I would think in a legal scenario, you'd have to prove the health and safety risk. Can that be shown in this case? The only thing I can think would be to argue about the bm in the water, but it's not classed as a bodily fluid, sooo... any legal experts here?

1. Chance of mother slipping and hurting herself since her hands are occupied;
2. Chance of baby getting hurt if mom slips as her hands are occupied;
3. Risk of someone else in the pool getting injured and not being noticed due to lifeguard keeping an eye on mom and baby in case they fall.

I'm sure there are more, but these are the ones that I can think of offhand.

All of these would happen just by having a baby at the pool. Your hands are going to be occupied holding the wet baby whether you're bf or not. That's the point. What is specific to bf in this scenario that would cause a HnS concern? If your points were true, they'd have to prohibit babies from the pool period because someone might try to hold them with both arms, like I would actually expect anyone to with a wet infant.

 

[MommyJogger]

The no food or drink would be enough to show there is a H&S risk otherwise the rule wouldnt be there

That's not true at all. If that were the case, they would have to prohibit lactating mothers from being in the same area no food is allowed.

I think the point is to limit water contamination as much as they can without going over the top. Checking every woman for lactation or menstruation would be ridiculous. The next best thing is to prohibit food and drink.

Either lactating in the pool is a HnS risk or it isn't. Bf or not, milk will get in the pool. Besides, I thought the conclusion we came to was that she wasn't in the pool, but was at poolside?

 

[staralfur]

To be honest I'm not even sure what you're debating at this point.

 

[MommyJogger]

I think people are still unclear as to whether she was within her rights to bf there and whether it was technically illegal to ask her to stop/move. I'm not sure myself, but I have yet to actually see a reason that bf beside the pool would violate HnS standards in ways that wouldn't just be violated by lactating/having a child in the pool.

 

[special_kala]

A baby breastfeeding is a baby eating, to me its as simple as her breaking the no eating/drinking rule.

 

[special_kala]

I will protect a womans right to feed her child in public until im blue in the face but not in this situation. Breastfeeding is normal and i will feed Fox where ever i would eat myself because he has the same rights to eat as anyone else. I have no right to eat in a pool.

 

[MommyJogger]

I will protect a womans right to feed her child in public until im blue in the face but not in this situation. Breastfeeding is normal and i will feed Fox where ever i would eat myself because he has the same rights to eat as anyone else. I have no right to eat in a pool.

And I'd stand up for a woman's right to soothe her child with a nipple anywhere you could use anything else. It's not like it was a scheduled feed that she just decided to have in the pool.
Regardless, just legally speaking, I'd really like to know whether she can lawfully nurse in the pool. Just straight curiosity.

 

[onetwothreebp]

If I have to take the two minutes to get out of the pool with my son to soothe him, so can she.

Breastfeeding women are not entitled to do whatever they please.

 

[MommyJogger]

If I have to take the two minutes to get out of the pool with my son to soothe him, so can she.

Breastfeeding women are not entitled to do whatever they please.

I don't think they're entitled to do whatever they please, either, but the argument that she should adopt the inconveniences of a different feeding method out of principle is flawed. I guess I just don't get what you're saying. By that rule, you should have to pull a breast out when you bottle feed in public.

 

[onetwothreebp]

You really love to twist people's words.

She is feeding her baby. There is a no feeding/drinking rule in place.

What's so hard to understand??

 

[MommyJogger]

You really love to twist people's words.

She is feeding her baby. There is a no feeding/drinking rule in place.

What's so hard to understand??

Which words did I twist? You said if you have to get out, so should a bf mother, but that doesn't make sense to me because the practicalities of our two feeding methods are so different.

It's not that I don't get the idea behind "rules are rules". I do. But
1. bf is more than just food. It's comfort. She had a baby who was getting upset. I can totally see why she might want to prevent it from escalating into a meltdown. The eating/drinking rule is to prevent pollution and contamination in the water and surrounding area, but bf isn't going to do that any more than just being a lactating woman in the water would anyway. So I guess I just don't see the big deal.

2. I'm genuinely wondering out of pure curiosity whether legally this rule can apply to bf mothers. It's a really fascinating legal question to me.

 

[onetwothreebp]

Sucking on a nipple soothes her baby. Sucking on a nipple soothes my child. Her nipple is attached to her breast, my son's soothing nipple is attached to a bottle. Either way, both soothe their children.

Sure she might want to avoid a meltdown - who wouldn't?! However, a lot of parents don't get that option and she shouldn't get it simply because she breastfeeds.

If you want to breastfeed in public, great. If you want to normalise breastfeeding, even better. But that doesn't make you above the rest of the world's population and act so entitled.

 

[smokey]

The no food or drink would be enough to show there is a H&S risk otherwise the rule wouldnt be there

That's not true at all. If that were the case, they would have to prohibit lactating mothers from being in the same area no food is allowed.

I think the point is to limit water contamination as much as they can without going over the top. Checking every woman for lactation or menstruation would be ridiculous. The next best thing is to prohibit food and drink.

Either lactating in the pool is a HnS risk or it isn't. Bf or not, milk will get in the pool. Besides, I thought the conclusion we came to was that she wasn't in the pool, but was at poolside?

No she was in the water and was asked to go to the poolside.

 

[MommyJogger]

1. Sucking on a nipple soothes her baby. Sucking on a nipple soothes my child. Her nipple is attached to her breast, my son's soothing nipple is attached to a bottle. Either way, both soothe their children.

2. Sure she might want to avoid a meltdown - who wouldn't?! However, a lot of parents don't get that option and she shouldn't get it simply because she breastfeeds.

If you want to breastfeed in public, great. If you want to normalise breastfeeding, even better. But that doesn't make you above the rest of the world's population and act so entitled.

1. Bottle feeding would require you to take time to make the bottle anyway-- you'd already be out of the pool. Then bottle feeding would have the risk of dropping several oz of milk into the pool and you'd have a bottle (and packaging? I have no idea if you'd have anything else) left that you'd have to sit somewhere afterward. That's why I think they're not comparable in this situation. If a ff mom wanted to take her top down and latch him on to a non-lactating nipple or bring a paci into the pool, I think those things would be comparable.

2. The nature of your feeding method precedes you having that option any day of the week, not just in a pool. You'll always have to sterilize, pour, mix, etc.
That's why I don't really think it makes sense to try and keep things equal for both choices in this situation-- they very, very different on a practical level.

And that still doesn't determine whether it's legal or not.