Indecent exposure

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Streaking is a type of indecent exposure

 

Indecent exposure is the deliberate exposure in public or in view of the general public by a person of a portion or portions of their body in circumstances where the exposure is contrary to local moral or other standards of appropriate behavior. The term indecent exposure is a legal expression. Social and community attitudes to the exposing of various body parts and laws covering what is referred to as indecent exposure vary significantly in different countries. It ranges from outright prohibition to prohibition of exposure of certain body parts, such as the genital area, buttocks or breasts. 

Decency is generally judged by the standards of the local community, which are seldom codified in specifics in law. Such standards may be based on religion, morality or tradition, or justified on the basis of "necessary to public order". Non-sexual exhibitionism or public nudity is sometimes considered indecent exposure. If sexual acts are performed, with or without an element of nudity, this can be considered gross indecency, which is usually a more serious criminal offence. In some countries, exposure of the body in breach of community standards of modesty is also considered to be public indecency. 

The legal and community standards of what states of undress constitute indecent exposure vary considerably and depend on the context in which the exposure takes place. These standards have also varied over time, making the definition of indecent exposure a complex topic.

Overview

This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Indecent exposure" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR (May 2019) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

It is generally accepted, at least in Western countries, that a naked human body is not in itself indecent. That principle is reflected, for example, in depiction of the human form in art of various forms. Nevertheless, as a general rule, it is also commonly expected that people when they appear in a public place will be appropriately attired. Inappropriateness is viewed in context, so that, for example, what may be appropriate on a beach may be inappropriate in a street, school or workplace. Depending on the context, some degree of inappropriateness may be tolerated, and perhaps described as eccentric, but in extreme cases of inappropriateness it may be regarded as "crossing the line". Besides the social disapproval of such a state of dress, most jurisdictions have laws to "maintain social order", variously described as public nudity, indecent exposure, as an affront to public morality, public nuisance, besides others.

History

What is an inappropriate state of dress in a particular context depends on the standards of decency of the community where an exposure takes place. These standards vary from time to time and can vary from the very strict standards of modesty in places such as Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia, which require most of the body to be covered, to tribal societies such as the Pirahã or Mursi where full nakedness is the norm. There is generally no implication that the state of dress objected to is of a sexual nature; and if such an allegation were to be made, the act would generally be described as "gross indecency". 

The standards of decency have varied over time. During the Victorian era, for example, exposure of a woman's legs, and to some extent the arms, was considered indecent in much of the Western world. Hair was sometimes required to be covered in formal occasions as in the form of a hat or bonnet. As late as the 1930s - and to some extent, the 1950s - both women and men were expected to bathe or swim in public places wearing bathing suits that covered above the waist. An adult woman exposing her navel was also considered indecent in the West into the 1960s and 1970s, and even as late as the 1980s. Moral values changed drastically during the 1990s and 2000s, which in turn changed the criteria for indecent exposure. Public exposure of the navel has been accepted during the 1990s, such as in beaches, while in the 2000s, the buttocks can be exposed while wearing a thong. Today, however, it is quite common for women to go topless at public beaches throughout Europe and South America and even some parts of the United States.

Symbolism

Although the phenomenon widely known as flashing, involving a woman exposing bare nipples by suddenly pulling up her shirt and bra, may be free from sexual motive or intent, it nonetheless is public exposure and is therefore defined by statute in many states of the United States as prohibited criminal behavior.

Breastfeeding

Breastfeeding in public does not constitute indecent exposure under the laws of the United States, Canada, Australia, or Scotland. In the United States, the federal government and all 50 states have enacted laws specifically protecting nursing mothers from harassment by others. Legislation ranges from simply exempting breastfeeding from laws regarding indecent exposure, to outright full protection of the right to nurse.

Public clothing

Public clothing varies by country and may be regulated by law. What parts of the body must be covered varies by region. Although genitals are usually expected to be covered in public in almost all societies, when it comes to other parts of the body such as female breasts, midriff, legs or shoulders, norms vary. For example, in some African cultures, it is the thighs, not the breasts, which must be covered. In some societies, the head hair, especially female, must be covered, usually with a scarf. The vast majority of cultures accept that the face can and must be seen, but some cultures (especially in the Middle East), require that it be covered under a burqa. In conservative societies, appearing in a public place in clothing that is deemed 'indecent' is illegal. In many countries there are exceptions to the general rules (social or legal) regarding clothing. For instance, a country which generally prohibits full nudity may allow it in designated places, such as nude beaches, or during various social events such as festivals or nude protests.

Outraging public decency

Outraging public decency is a common law offence in England and Wales and Hong Kong. It is punishable by unlimited imprisonment and/or an unlimited fine.

The first recorded example of the offence was Sedley's Case (1675) Strange 168, 1 Sid 168 – Sir Charles Sedley was prosecuted for urinating on a crowd from the balcony of Oxford Kate's tavern in Covent Garden.

Modern case law has established two elements that must be satisfied for the offence to have been committed:

1. the act was of such a lewd character as to outrage public decency; this element constitutes the nature of the act, which has to be proved before the offence can be established, and
2. the act took place in a public place and must have been capable of being seen by two or more persons who were actually present, even if they did not actually see it.

The offence is currently prosecuted around 400–500 times per year in England and Wales.

The foetus earrings case

In December 1987, artist Rick Gibson exhibited a pair of earrings made with freeze-dried human foetuses at the Young Unknowns Gallery in London. On 3 December 1987 the earrings were seized by the police.

On 11 April 1988, Gibson and the gallery owner Peter Sylveire, were formally charged with the common law offences of exhibiting a public nuisance and outraging public decency. This was the first occasion on which the charge of outraging public decency had been preferred in more than 80 years.

The trial started on 30 January 1989. On 6 February 1989 the public nuisance charge was dismissed.

The defence raised a point of law, that "outraging public decency" was no longer known in law so long after the last occasion on which the charge had been preferred. The judge ruled that it could still be preferred no matter how long the hiatus, provided the facts fitted the offence. On 9 February 1989 the jury found Gibson and Sylveire guilty of outraging public decency. Gibson was fined £500 and Sylveire was fined £300.

The defence appealed on the point of the validity of the charge of outraging public decency, which was dismissed by the Court of Appeal, which upheld the trial judge's ruling and went some way to restating the law in this area.

Europe

Attitudes towards nudity vary by country and are generally most relaxed in Scandinavia, where genitals and breasts are not normally considered indecent or obscene. Hence, laws and societal views on public nudity are generally relaxed. In Finland, it is very typical for patrons to bathe nude in the intense heat of saunas.

In the Netherlands, public nudity is allowed at sites that have been assigned by the local authorities and "other suitable places." On nudist beaches, in unisex saunas and in swimming pool changing rooms, remaining partially clothed is frowned upon and the social norm is to undress. 

In Barcelona, public nudity was a recognised right. However, on 30 April 2011, the Barcelona City Council voted a by-law forbidding walking "naked or nearly naked in public spaces" and limiting the wearing of bathing costumes to pools, beaches, adjacent streets and sea-side walks.

Other countries, such as the UK, Ireland or Poland are more conservative.

United Kingdom

Legislation concerning public nudity varies among the countries of the United Kingdom. In England and Wales public nudity is not in itself illegal; the use of the term "indecent exposure" dates back to earlier criminal law.

England and Wales

In the England and Wales during the 19th and 20th centuries, indecent exposure was prosecuted under either section 28 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 or section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824. The latter was a piece of legislation that made it an offence to sleep rough or beg and contained a provision for the prosecution of:

every person wilfully openly, lewdly, and obscenely exposing his person in any street, road, or public highway, or in the view thereof, or in any place of public resort, with intent to insult any female...

This provision was repealed by section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 which replaced the offence of "indecent exposure" and other sexual offences with legislation that is more specific and explicit. Current laws apply only to genital exposure with intent to shock those who do not want to see them. The maximum penalty is two years' imprisonment, but this is extremely rare as most cases are dealt with by a fine or through community service. People convicted of exposure contrary to section 66 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 must sign the Violent and Sex Offender Register if they are sentenced to a term of imprisonment or a community order in excess of 12 months, or if the person they exposed themselves to was aged under 18 years of age.

In the past public nudity in England and Wales could also be punished as "disorderly behaviour" under the Public Order Act 1986, sections 4A and 5. However, the law was clarified in the spring of 2018 and those sections are no longer considered to apply to simple public nudity. Guidance from the Crown Prosecution Service and the College of Policing does not recommend prosecution for public nudity if there is no intent to cause alarm.

Scotland

Under Scots law, "indecent conduct" in a public place, such as exposing the genitals or engaging in sexual activity, can constitute the common law offence of public indecency. Stephen Gough, a man known as the "Naked Rambler" who hiked across Britain wearing only shoes, was arrested numerous times in Scotland. He was convicted of the common law offence of breach of the peace and spent time in prison for contempt of court for refusing to wear clothes whilst in court.

Northern Ireland

The Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 brought the legislation regarding indecent exposure in Northern Ireland into line with that in England and Wales.

United States

Left: In New York City, toplessness in public is allowed. Photo shows topless woman at Dyke March, New York, 2013. Right: Many states in US do not allow public exposure of female nipples. Photo shows a woman at a U.S. beach with her nipples covered with pasties.

 

The laws governing indecent exposure in the United States vary according to location. In most states public nudity is illegal. However, in some states it is only illegal if it is accompanied by an intent to shock, arouse or offend other persons. Some states permit local governments to set local standards. Most states exempt breastfeeding mothers from prosecution.

Canada

In Canada, s.173 of the Criminal Code prohibits "indecent acts". There is no statutory definition in the Code of what constitutes an indecent act, other than the exposure of the genitals and/or female nipples for a sexual purpose to anyone under 16 years of age. Thus, the decision of what states of undress are "indecent", and thereby unlawful, is left to judges. Judges have held, for example, that nude sunbathing is not indecent. Also, streaking is similarly not regarded as indecent. Section 174 prohibits nudity if it offends "against public decency or order" and in view of the public. The courts have found that nude swimming is not offensive under this definition.

Toplessness is also not an indecent act under s.173. In 1991, Gwen Jacob was arrested for walking in a street in Guelph, Ontario while topless. She was acquitted in 1996 by the Ontario Court of Appeal on the basis that the act of being topless is not in itself a sexual act or indecent. The case has been referred to in subsequent cases for the proposition that the mere act of public nudity is not sexual or indecent or an offense. Since then it is legal for a female to walk topless in public anywhere in Ontario, Canada.

Australia

Protesters gathered outside a courthouse to protest against the arrest of Simon Oosterman (second from left), Auckland's 13 February 2005 WNBR organizer.

 

In Australia, it is a summary or criminal offence in some States and Territories to expose one's genitals (also referred to as – 'his or her person') in a public place or in view of a public place. In some jurisdictions exposure of the genitals alone does not constitute an offence unless accompanied by an indecent act, indecent behaviour, grossly indecent behaviour, obscenity, intention to cause offence or deliberate intention. The applicable law is different in each jurisdiction and in several jurisdictions the offence of indecent exposure does not apply.^{[citation needed]}

Penalties vary between jurisdictions and are summarised below. Specific state Acts, are as follows:

• Australian Capital Territory – Crimes Act 1900, section 393 – 'indecent exposure' – penalty 12 months. Under the Nudity Act 1976, the responsible minister may declare a public area where public nudity is permitted.
• New South Wales – Summary Offences Act 1988, section 5 – 'wilful and obscene exposure' – penalty six months.
• Northern Territory – Summary Offences Act, section 50 – 'indecent exposure' – penalty 6 months.
• South Australia – Summary Offences Act 1953, section 23 – 'Indecent behaviour and gross indecency' – penalty three months and six months respectively.
• Queensland – Summary Offences Act 2005 No. 4, section 9 – 'wilful exposure' – penalty 12 months.
• Tasmania – Police Offences Act 1935, section 21 – 'Prohibited behaviour' – penalty 12 months. Police Offences Act 1935, section 14 – 'Public decency' – one penalty unit.
• Victoria – Summary Offences Act 1966, section 19 – 'wilful and obscene exposure' – penalty two years. Under the Nudity (Prescribed Areas) Act 1983 the responsible minister may declare a public area where public nudity is permitted.
• Western Australia – Criminal Code, section 203 – 'Indecent acts in public' – criminal penalty two years. Summary conviction penalty: 9 months and fine of $9,000.

Definition of person

The laws of New South Wales, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory use the term "person", while in the other States the exposure refers to the genital area. It has been noted that a term such as "exposing one's person" relates back to the United Kingdom Vagrancy Act 1824 and Evans v Ewels (1972) where it was said that the word "person" was a genteel synonym for "penis" or "vulva". However, it has been held that the word "person" in s5 of the (NSW) Summary Offences Act is not limited to "penis" or "vulva". For example, in R v Eyles (1997) the offender was seen masturbating in his front garden and charged with obscene exposure under the NSW Act.

In the case of both males and females, the parts of the body which are capable of being employed for the purpose of obscene exposure are limited. The concepts of obscenity and exposure in a practical sense restrict the potential operation of the provision. There is a question as to whether there is any further restriction to be found in the word "person". The Crown Advocate has submitted that there may be circumstances in which the exposure of the breasts of a woman is capable of being regarded as obscene, and that it is not difficult to imagine circumstances in which the exposure of a person's buttocks could be obscene.

However –

It is unnecessary and inappropriate to decide in the present case whether her submissions in that regard are correct. The jurisdiction which this Court is exercising is a jurisdiction confined to determining questions of law which arise in the case before the District Court. No question arises in the present case as to whether there are any circumstances in which the exposure by a female of breasts, or by a female or male of buttocks, could involve a contravention of s5. The prosecution case against the appellant was that he obscenely exposed his penis and other genitals. It is sufficient for resolution of the present case to say that this was capable of constituting exposure of "his person" for the purposes of the proceedings against him.

New Zealand

In New Zealand, Indecent exposure is considered to be where a person "intentionally and obscenely exposes any part of his or her genitals". Otherwise there is no specific law prohibiting nudity in public places, although lesser charges may apply depending on the behaviour of the individual in question. 

The High Court of New Zealand has upheld a conviction of disorderly conduct for nudity in the street, because it was not a place where nudity was known to occur or commonplace. Being nude in the street is likely to incur a small fine if a complaint is made against the person, or if the person ignores a police request to cover themselves. Being prosecuted for nudity on a public beach, or any place where nudity might be expected, is very unlikely.

Saudi Arabia

Women in Saudi Arabia were required to wear robes and a headscarf when in public although Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has said that it is not required. In September 2019, Saudi Arabia issued the public decency law identifying the rules related to the public decency that citizens and tourists should follow in compliance with Saudi law.

Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative (BFHI), also known as Baby Friendly Initiative (BFI), is a worldwide programme of the World Health Organization and UNICEF, launched in 1991 following the adoption of the Innocenti Declaration on breastfeeding promotion in 1990. The initiative is a global effort for improving the role of maternity services to enable mothers to breastfeed babies for the best start in life. It aims at improving the care of pregnant women, mothers and newborns at health facilities that provide maternity services for protecting, promoting and supporting breastfeeding, in accordance with the International Code of Marketing of Breastmilk Substitutes.

UNICEF, the World Health Organization, and many national government health agencies recommend that babies are breastfed exclusively for their first six months of life. Studies have shown that breastfed babies are less likely to suffer from serious illnesses, including gastroenteritis, asthma, eczema, and respiratory and ear infections. Adults who were breastfed as babies may be less likely to develop risk factors for heart disease such as obesity and high blood pressure. There are benefits for mothers too: women who don't breastfeed have increased risk of developing heart disease, hypertension, diabetes, high cholesterol, breast cancer, ovarian cancer and hip fractures in later life. The BFHI aims to increase the numbers of babies who are exclusively breastfed worldwide, a goal which the WHO estimates could contribute to avoiding over a million child deaths each year, and potentially many premature maternal deaths as well.

Criteria

The criteria for a hospital's Baby Friendly accreditation (2018) include: 

Critical management procedures

1a. Comply fully with the International Code of Marketing of Breast-milk Substitutes and relevant World Health Assembly resolutions.

1b. Have a written infant feeding policy that is routinely communicated to staff and parents.

1c. Establish ongoing monitoring and data-management systems.

2. Ensure that staff have sufficient knowledge, competence and skills to support breastfeeding. 

Key clinical practices

3. Discuss the importance and management of breastfeeding with pregnant women and their families.

4. Facilitate immediate and uninterrupted skin-to-skin contact and support mothers to initiate breastfeeding as soon as possible after birth.

5. Support mothers to initiate and maintain breastfeeding and manage common difficulties.

6. Do not provide breastfed newborns any food or fluids other than breast milk, unless medically indicated.

7. Enable mothers and their infants to remain together and to practise rooming-in 24 hours a day.

8. Support mothers to recognize and respond to their infants’ cues for feeding.

9. Counsel mothers on the use and risks of feeding bottles, teats and pacifiers.

10. Coordinate discharge so that parents and their infants have timely access to ongoing support and care. 

The program also restricts use by the hospital of free formula or other infant care aids provided by formula companies and recommends that when formula is medically needed, it should be given in a small cup or spoon, rather than a bottle and should only be used to supplement breastfeeding.

Since the program's inception, approximately 15,000 facilities in more than 152 countries have been inspected and accredited as "Baby-Friendly."

Recommended alternatives

The World Health Organization recommends that if a mother is unable to breastfeed, chooses not to breastfeed, or if her baby (often premature) shows signs that it isn't getting enough breast-milk, a healthy wet nurse or milk from a donor is a healthy alternative to formula. A special formula is manufactured for premature babies, although the World Health Organization recommends it only if breast-milk is medically not an option such as if a premature baby has to be fed formula through a tube to maintain a healthy weight. The World Health Organization advocates the importance of a baby being close to its mother whenever possible even if the mother does not breastfeed.

Regional schemes

Canada

In Canada, the provinces of Quebec and New Brunswick have mandated the implementation of the BFHI. All public health units in Ontario have been required to work towards having BFI designation since 2011. In 2012, the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care in Ontario added BFI status to their progress indicators for Public Health Units thus requiring all Public Health Units in Ontario to begin implementation of BFI. Other provinces and territories are implementing strategies at regional and local levels. As of 2008, 18 health care facilities (9 hospitals & birthing centres and 9 community health services) had been designated "Baby-Friendly" across the country. The B.C. Women's Hospital and Health Centre has been recognized as a breast-feeding and “baby-friendly” hospital by the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF since 2008. It is the largest hospital in Canada to receive the designation.

China

China, now has more than 6,000 Baby-Friendly Hospitals, exclusive breastfeeding in rural areas rose from 29 per cent in 1992 to 68 per cent in 1994; in urban areas, the increase was from 10 per cent to 48 per cent.

Cuba

In Cuba, 49 of the country's 56 hospitals and maternity facilities have been designated as "baby-friendly". In the six years following the initiation of the BFHI program, the rate of exclusive breastfeeding at four months almost tripled - from 25 per cent in 1990 to 72 per cent in 1996.

Hong Kong

In Hong Kong several hospitals have shown interest in being designated Baby Friendly. However, only Queen Elizabeth Hospital has advanced past the Award of Level 2 Participation stage and is well on its way to receiving BFHI accreditation.

Ireland

The BFHI started in Ireland in 1998 under the auspices of the Irish Health Promoting Hospitals Network (a WHO programme). The BFHI in Ireland became an independent registered charity in mid-2016 and changed their name to Baby Friendly Health Initiative. They offer two levels - a participation or membership level in which maternity facilities are encouraged to implement the standards and network with other maternity facilities but with no external assessment process, and the designation level where there is external assessment and on-going monitoring to ensure the standards are met and sustained.

Sweden

Sweden is considered the global leader in terms of BFHI implementation: four years after the programme was introduced in 1993, all of the then 65 maternity centres in the country had been designated "baby-friendly".

Taiwan

In 2014 78.60% of babies were born in BFHI hospitals. Between 2001 and 2013, the increase in certified hospitals was from 38 to 176.

United Kingdom

The UNICEF UK Baby Friendly Initiative was launched in the United Kingdom in 1995. The Initiative works with the National Health Service (NHS) to ensure a high standard of care for pregnant women and breastfeeding mothers and babies in hospitals and community health settings. The Baby Friendly Initiative accredits health-care facilities that adopt internationally recognised best practice standards for breastfeeding. During each stage of accreditation, the Initiative provides support as facilities implement standards relating to policies and procedures, staff education, effective auditing, educating pregnant women and mothers, and other relevant areas.

In 1998, its principles were extended to cover the work of community health-care services with the Seven Point Plan for the Promotion, Protection and Support of Breastfeeding in Community Health Care Settings. In 2005, it introduced an accreditation programme for university departments responsible for midwifery, health visitor and public health nurse education. This ensures that newly qualified midwives and health visitors are equipped with the basic knowledge and skills they need to support breastfeeding effectively. The program's emphasis on applying the standards in post-natal and education settings makes it unique amongst the various Baby Friendly programmes in other countries.

There are now 52 Baby Friendly-accredited maternity hospitals in the UK and ten accredited community health-care providers.^{[citation needed]} It has been estimated that if all babies were breastfed, over £35m would be saved by the NHS in England and Wales each year in treating gastroenteritis alone. Despite this, breastfeeding rates in the UK are amongst the lowest in Europe: 78 per cent of babies born in the UK are breastfed at birth, falling to 63 per cent at one week. Only one in five babies still receives breastmilk at six months. In 2009, the Department of Health awarded a total of £4 million to 40 Primary Care Trusts in areas with low rates of breastfeeding to support them in seeking Baby Friendly accreditation.

By the end of 2013 the success of the initiative in Scotland meant that 90% of Scottish mothers now give birth in a UNICEF-accredited Baby Friendly hospital. This compares with 30% of mothers in England, 58% for Wales and 57% in Northern Ireland.

United States

The first hospitals verified as Baby-Friendly in the USA were on the Pacific Coast. The first US hospital to receive this designation was Evergreen Hospital Medical Center, in Kirkland, Washington, which was certified in September 1996. All of these early adopters were able to achieve 100% breastfeeding initiation rates. In New York City, the Harlem Hospital Center was the first hospital to receive the "Baby Friendly" certification granted by Baby-Friendly USA for the city in 2008. In 2011, New York University Langone Medical Center became the second hospital to receive the Baby-Friendly Hospital designation in New York City.

As of May 2, 2018, the United States only had 512 hospitals that hold the Baby-Friendly designation. This translates to 24.57% of annual births occurring in a Baby-Friendly hospital. Mothers in the United States face prejudice regarding breastfeeding their children. The US Surgeon General reported in 2001 that 57% of U.S. adults believe that a woman should not be allowed to breastfeed in public places and not all states protect women from being charged with public indecency for breastfeeding in public. A study conducted by Bartick and Reinhold, determined that $10.5 billion US dollars could be saved if 80% of families in the United States were able to meet current recommendations for exclusive breastfeeding for the first 6 months of life, that cost-savings jumps to $13 billion saved if 90% of families comply. Lower income households are often eligible for Medicaid and WIC, by breastfeeding, these agencies have been estimated to save $478 during the first six months of the infant's life for each infant.

Studies have also shown a positive correlation of breastfeeding with increased professional education of care providers. 86% of Americans rely on professional healthcare providers like doctors, midwives, and nurses for medical advice and recommendations. Classes are then offered in group and individual settings as "low-intensity intervention" directed by trained medical professionals. Research conducted at large healthcare institutions in Massachusetts has demonstrated a statistically significant increase in breastfeeding rates for mothers who participate in breastfeeding and lactation training.

Criticism

One group of authors expressed concerns in a paper published in October 2016. It questioned whether full compliance with the ten steps of the initiative might inadvertently lead to the promotion of potentially hazardous practices and/or counterproductive outcomes. Specific concerns described in this paper included increased risk of Sudden Unexpected Postnatal Collapse, rigidly-enforced rooming-in practices leading to exhausted or heavily medicated mothers caring for newborns, and an unnecessary ban on pacifier use.

Wet nurse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Louis XIV as an infant with his nurse Longuet de la Giraudière

 

Statuette of a parclose representing a woman who presses her breast to collect milk in a bowl. – Stalls (16th century) of the Basilica of Saint Materne [fr] (11th century) – Walcourt (Belgium).

 

A wet nurse is a woman who breast feeds and cares for another's child. Wet nurses are employed if the mother dies, or if she is unable or elects not to nurse the child herself. Wet-nursed children may be known as "milk-siblings", and in some cultures the families are linked by a special relationship of milk kinship. Mothers who nurse each other's babies are engaging in a reciprocal act known as cross-nursing or co-nursing. Wetnursing existed in cultures around the world until the invention of reliable formula milk in the 20th century.

Reasons

A wet nurse can help when a mother is unable or unwilling to feed her baby. Before the development of infant formula in the 20th century, when a mother was unable to breastfeed, a wetnurse was the only way to save the baby's life.

There are many reasons why a mother is unable to produce sufficient breast milk, or in some cases to lactate at all. Reasons include the serious or chronic illness of the mother and her treatment which creates a temporary difficulty to nursing. Additionally, a mother's taking drugs (prescription or recreational) may necessitate a wet nurse if a drug in any way changes the content of the mother's milk.

There was also an increased need for wetnurses when the rates of infant abandonment by mothers, and maternal death during childbirth, were high.

Some women choose not to breastfeed for social reasons. Many of these women were found to be of the upper class. For them, breastfeeding was considered unfashionable, in the sense that it not only prevented these women from being able to wear the fashionable clothing of their time but it was also thought to ruin their figures. Mothers also lacked the support of their husbands to breastfeed their children, since hiring a wet nurse was less expensive than having to hire someone else to help run the family business and/or take care of the family household duties in their place. Some women chose to hire wet nurses purely to escape from the confining and time-consuming chore of breastfeeding. Wet nurses have also been used when a mother cannot produce sufficient breast milk, i.e., the mother feels incapable of adequately nursing her child, especially following multiple births.

Eliciting milk

A woman can only act as a wet-nurse if she is lactating (producing milk). It was once believed that a wet-nurse must have recently undergone childbirth. This is not necessarily the case, as regular breast suckling can elicit lactation via a neural reflex of prolactin production and secretion. Some adoptive mothers have been able to establish lactation using a breast pump so that they could feed an adopted infant.

Dr Gabrielle Palmer states:

There is no medical reason why women should not lactate indefinitely or feed more than one child simultaneously (known as 'tandem feeding')... some women could theoretically be able to feed up to five babies.

Historical and cultural practices

Wet nursing is an ancient practice, common to many cultures. It has been linked to social class, where monarchies, the aristocracy, nobility or upper classes had their children wet-nursed for the benefit of the child's health, and sometimes in the hope of becoming pregnant again quickly. Exclusive breastfeeding inhibits ovulation in some women (Lactational amenorrhea). Poor women, especially those who suffered the stigma of giving birth to an illegitimate child, sometimes had to give their baby up temporarily to a wet nurse, or permanently to another family. The woman herself might in turn become wet nurse to a wealthier family, while using part of her wages to pay her own child's wet nurse. From Roman times and into the present day, philosophers and thinkers alike have held the view that the important emotional bond between mother and child is threatened by the presence of a wet nurse.

Mythology

Many cultures feature stories, historical or mythological, involving superhuman, supernatural, human and in some instances animal wet-nurses.

The Bible refers to Deborah, a nurse to Rebekah wife of Isaac and mother of Jacob (Israel) and Esau, who appears to have lived as a member of the household all her days. (Genesis 35:8.) Midrashic commentaries on the Torah hold that the Egyptian princess Bithiah (Pharaoh's wife Asiya in the Islamic Hadith and Qur'an) attempted to wet-nurse Moses, but he would take only his biological mother's milk. (Exodus 2:6–9) 

In Greek mythology, Eurycleia is the wet-nurse of Odysseus. In Roman mythology, Caieta was the wet-nurse of Aeneas. In Burmese mythology, Myaukhpet Shinma is the nat (spirit) representation of the wet nurse of King Tabinshwehti. In Hawaiian mythology, Nuakea is a beneficent goddess of lactation; her name became the title for a royal wetnurse, according to David Malo.

Ancient Rome

A funerary stele (akin to a gravestone) erected by Roman citizen Lucius Nutrius Gallus in the 2nd half of 1st century AD for himself, his wetnurse, and other members of his family and household

 

In ancient Rome, well-to-do households would have had wet-nurses (Latin nutrices, singular nutrix) among their slaves and freedwomen, but some Roman women were wet-nurses by profession, and the Digest of Roman law even refers to a wage dispute for wet-nursing services (nutricia). The landmark known as the Columna Lactaria ("Milk Column") may have been a place where wet-nurses could be hired. It was considered admirable for upperclass women to breastfeed their own children, but unusual and old-fashioned in the Imperial era. Even women of the working classes or slaves might have their babies nursed, and the Roman-era Greek gynecologist Soranus offers detailed advice on how to choose a wet-nurse. Inscriptions such as religious dedications and epitaphs indicate that a nutrix would be proud of her profession. One even records a nutritor lactaneus, a male "milk nurse" who presumably used a bottle. Greek nurses were preferred, and the Romans believed that a baby who had a Greek nutrix could imbibe the language and grow up speaking Greek as fluently as Latin.

The importance of the wet nurse to ancient Roman culture is indicated by the founding myth of Romulus and Remus, who were abandoned as infants but nursed by the she-wolf, as portrayed in the famous Capitoline Wolf bronze sculpture. The goddess Rumina was invoked among other birth and child development deities to promote the flow of breast milk.

England

Catherine Willoughby, formerly Duchess of Suffolk, and her later husband Richard Bertie, are forced into exile, taking their baby and wetnurse. Wet nursing was commonplace in England.

Wet-nursing was a well-paid, respectable and popular job for many lower class women in England. In 17th- and 18th-century England, a woman would earn more money as a wet nurse than her husband could as a labourer. Up until the 19th century, most wet-nursed infants were sent far from their families to live with their wet nurse for up to the first three years of their life. As many as 80% of wet-nursed babies who lived with their wet nurses died during infancy, which led to a change in living conditions.

Women took in babies for money in Victorian Britain, and nursed them themselves or fed them with whatever was cheapest. This was known as baby-farming; poor care sometimes resulted in high infant death rates. The wet nurse at this period was most likely a single woman who previously had given birth to an illegitimate child. There were two types of wet nurses in Victorian England. There were those on poor relief, who struggled to provide sufficiently for themselves or their charges, and there were professional wet nurses who were well paid and respected.

It was common for upper-class women to hire wet nurses to breastfeed their children. English women tended to work within their employers' homes to take care of their charge, as well as working at foundling hospitals for abandoned children. The wet nurse's own child would likely be sent out to nurse, normally brought up by the bottle rather than being breastfed. Valerie Fildes, author of Breasts, Bottle and Babies: A History of Infant Feeding, argues that "In effect, wealthy parents frequently 'bought' the life of their infant for the life of another."

Wet nursing in England decreased in popularity during the mid-19th century due to the writings of medical journalists concerning the undocumented dangers of wet nursing. Valerie Fildes argued that "Britain has been lumped together with the rest of Europe in any discussion of the qualities, terms of employment and conditions of the wet nurse, and particularly the abuses of which she was supposedly guilty." C. H. F. Routh, a medical journalist writing in the late 1850s in England, argued that there were many evils of wet-nursing, such as that wet-nurses were more likely to abandon their own children, there was increased mortality for children under the charge of a wet-nurse, and an increased physical and moral risk to a nursed child. While this argument was not founded in any sort of proof, the emotional arguments of medical researchers, coupled with the protests of critics of the practice slowly increased public knowledge and brought wet-nursing into obscurity, replaced by maternal breastfeeding and bottle-feeding.

France

The bureau of wet nurses in Paris

 

Wet nursing was reported in France in the time of Louis XIV, the mid 17th century. In 18th century France, approximately 90% of infants were wet nursed, mostly sent away to live with their wet nurses. In Paris in 1780, only 1000 of the 21,000 babies born that year were nursed by their own mother. The high demand for wet nurses coincided with the low wages and high rent prices of this era, which forced many women to have to work soon after childbirth. This meant that many mothers had to send their infants away to be breastfed and cared for by wet nurses even poorer than themselves. With the high demand for wet nurses, the price to hire one increased as the standard of care decreased. This led to many infant deaths. In response, rather than nursing their own children, upper class women turned to hiring wet nurses to come live with them instead. In entering into their employers home to care for their charges, these wet nurses had to leave their own infants to be nursed and cared for by women far worse off than themselves, and who likely lived at a relatively far distance away. 

The Bureau of Wet Nurses was created in Paris, 1769, to serve two main purposes; it supplied parents with wet nurses, as well as helped lessen the neglect of charges by controlling monthly salary payments to wet nurses. In order to become a wet nurse, women had to meet a few qualifications including a good physical body with a good moral character, they were often judged on their age, their health, the number of children they had, as well as their breast shape, breast size, breast texture, nipple shape and nipple size, since all these aspects were believed to affect the quality of a woman's milk. In 1874, the French government introduced the Roussel Law, which "mandated that every infant placed with a paid guardian outside the parents' home be registered with the state so that the French government is able to monitor how many children are placed with wet nurses and how many wet nursed children have died".

Wet nurses were often hired to work in hospitals so that they could nurse premature babies, babies who were ill, or babies who had been abandoned. During the 18th and 19th centuries, congenital syphilis was a common cause of infant mortality in France. The Vaugirard hospital in Paris began to use mercury as a treatment for syphilis; however, it could not be safely administered to infants. In 1780, began the process of giving mercury to wet nurses who could then transmit the treatment to the infants with syphilis through their milk in the act of breastfeeding.

The practice of wetnursing was still widespread during World War I, according to the American Red Cross. Working class women would leave their babies with wetnurses so they could get jobs in factories.

United States

Enslaved Black woman wet-nursing White infant

 

English colonists brought the practice of wet nursing with them to North America. Since the arrangement of sending infants away to live with wet nurses was the cause of so many infant deaths, by the 19th century, Americans adopted the practice of having wet nurses live with the employers in order to nurse and care for their charges. This practice had the effect of increasing the death rate for wet nurses' own babies. Many employers would have only kept a wet nurse for a few months at a time since it was believed that the quality of a woman's breast milk would lessen over time.

Since there were no official records kept pertaining to wet nurses or wet nursed children in the United States, historians lack the knowledge of precisely how many infants were wet-nursed, for how long they were wet-nursed, whether they lived at home or else where while they wet-nursed, as well as how many wet-nursed babies lived or died. The only evidence which exists pertaining to wet-nursing in the United States is found in the help wanted ads of newspapers, through complaints about wet nurses in magazines, and through medical journals which acted as employment agencies for wet-nurses.

In the Southern United States, it was common practice for enslaved black women to be forced to be wet nurses to their owner's children. In some instances, the enslaved child and the white child would be raised together in their younger years. Visual representations of wet-nursing practices in enslaved communities are most prevalent in representations of the Mammy archetype caricature. Images such as the one in this section represent both a historically accurate practice of enslaved Black women wet-nursing their owner's white children as well as sometimes an exaggerated racist caricaturization of a stereotype of enslaved Black women as "Mammy" characters.

Relationships

"Visite Chez la Nourrice" ("Visit to the Wetnurse") by Victor Adam

 

An infant who has been living with a wet-nurse being taken away from its foster-parents by its natural mother. By Étienne Aubry

 

Sometimes the infant is placed in the home of the wetnurse for several months, as was the case for Jane Austen and her siblings. The Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 91, a receipt from 187 AD, attests to the ancient nature of this practice. Sometimes the wetnurse came to live with the infant's family, filling a position between the monthly nurse (for the immediate post-partum period) and the nanny. 

In some cultures the wetnurse is simply hired as any other employee. In others, however, she has a special relationship with the family, which may incur kinship rights. In Vietnamese family structure, for example, the wetnurse is known as Nhũ mẫu, mẫu meaning "mother". Islam has a highly codified system of milk kinship known as rada. George III of the United Kingdom, born two months premature, had a wet nurse whom he so valued all his life that her daughter was appointed laundress to the Royal Household, "a sinecure place of great emolument".

Current attitudes in Western countries

In contemporary affluent Western societies such as the United States, the act of nursing a baby other than one's own often provokes cultural discomfort. When a mother is unable to nurse her own infant, an acceptable mediated substitute is expressed milk (or especially colostrum) which is donated to milk banks, analogous to blood banks, and processed there by being screened, pasteurized, and usually frozen. Infant formula is also widely available, which its makers claim can be a reliable source of infant nutrition when prepared properly. Dr Rhonda Shaw notes that Western objections to wet-nurses are cultural:

The exchange of body fluids between different women and children, and the exposure of intimate bodily parts make some people uncomfortable. The hidden subtext of these debates has to do with perceptions of moral decency. Cultures with breast fetishes tend to conflate the sexual and erotic breast with the functional and lactating breast.

In addition, the legacy of wet-nursing for African-American women is inherently linked to slavery, and the physical, emotional, and mental abuse that enslaved African-American women endured. While other populations in the United States may be more open to wet-nursing, the cultural attitude within African-American communities towards wet-nursing remains one deeply affected by the generational trauma of wet-nursing during slavery.

For some Americans, the subject of wet-nursing is becoming increasingly open for discussion. During a UNICEF goodwill trip to Sierra Leone in 2008, Mexican actress Salma Hayek decided to breast-feed a local infant in front of the accompanying film crew. The sick one-week-old baby had been born the same day but a year later than her daughter, who had not yet been weaned. Hayek later discussed on camera an anecdote of her Mexican great-grandmother spontaneously breast-feeding a hungry baby in a village.

Current situation elsewhere

Wet nurses are still common in many developing countries, although the practice poses a risk of infections such as HIV. In China, Indonesia, and the Philippines, a wet-nurse may be employed in addition to a nanny as a mark of aristocracy, wealth, and high status. Following the 2008 Chinese milk scandal, in which contaminated infant formula poisoned thousands of babies, the salaries of wet-nurses there increased dramatically. The use of a wet-nurse is seen as a status symbol in some parts of modern China.

Additionally, a woman who is difficult to get pregnant may wet-nurse and rear a relative (especially a poorer one's) new-born as a mancing (Javanese language for "lure").

Notable wetnurses

Royal wetnurses are more likely than most to reach the historical record.

In Ancient Egypt, Maia was the wetnurse of King Tutankhamun. Sitre In, the nurse of Hatshepsut, was not a member of the royal family, but received the honour of a burial in the royal necropolis in the Valley of the Kings in tomb KV60. Her coffin has the inscription sdt nfrw nsw in m3‘t ḥrw, meaning Royal Wet Nurse. Lady Kasuga was the wet nurse of the third Tokugawa shōgun Iemitsu. Lu Lingxuan was a lady in waiting who served as wetnurse to the emperor Gao Wei; she became exceedingly powerful during his reign, and was often criticized by historians for her corruption and treachery. Chinese emperors honoured the Nurse Empress Dowager. Dai Anga was the wetnurse of the Mughal Emperor, Shah Jahan. Shin Myo Myat was the mother of King Bayinnaung of Toungoo Dynasty of Burma (Myanmar), and the wetnurse of King Tabinshwehti. In England, Hodierna of St Albans was the mother of Alexander Neckam and wet nurse of Richard I of England, and Mrs. Pack was a wet nurse to William, Duke of Gloucester (1689–1700).

Some non-royal wetnurses have been written about. Halimah bint Abi Dhuayb was the foster-mother and wetnurse of the Islamic prophet Muhammad. Petronella Muns was, with her employer, the first Western woman to visit Japan. Naomi Baumslag, author of Milk, Money and Madness, described the legendary capacity of Judith Waterford: "In 1831, on her 81st birthday, she could still produce breast milk. In her prime she unfailingly produced two quarts (four pints or 1.9 litres) of breast milk a day."