RoryQ

Judge rule on breastfeeding after women gets tattooed

Recommended Posts

Such a weird grey area here. Don't really agree with a court ruling against breastfeeding, really don't agree with the lady getting tattooed while she is breastfeeding. Definitely think it's irresponsible as fuck for the lady to be getting stoned while breastfeeding. Even Hepatitis and HIV aside, possibility of allergic reactions to the pigment and infection can make breastmilk unfit for consumption by an infant, so there's that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Such a weird grey area here. Don't really agree with a court ruling against breastfeeding, really don't agree with the lady getting tattooed while she is breastfeeding. Definitely think it's irresponsible as fuck for the lady to be getting stoned while breastfeeding. Even Hepatitis and HIV aside, possibility of allergic reactions to the pigment and infection can make breastmilk unfit for consumption by an infant, so there's that.

I've never heard of an allergic reaction or infection arising from out of tattooing making breast milk unsafe to consume... I know my wife would be interested - are there many cases you're aware of or are there any resources / articles on this out there?

Fascinated as to how the judge will enforce his no breastfeeding ban though!

Given his concerns you'd think he would have banned her from risky sexual practices too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've never heard of an allergic reaction or infection arising from out of tattooing making breast milk unsafe to consume... I know my wife would be interested - are there many cases you're aware of or are there any resources / articles on this out there?

Fascinated as to how the judge will enforce his no breastfeeding ban though!

Given his concerns you'd think he would have banned her from risky sexual practices too.

As far as infection and allergic reactions go, I only know what I've researched online and what I've been warned of, so I can't say that I have indisputable facts to lay down here. I'll try to get more info from a doctor friend tomorrow, although I've been doing some digging online and it is remarkably difficult to find any information on the transference of biological or chemical pathogens between the mother and breast milk contents. I have understood that everything that can be found in a mother's blood can also be found in breastmilk, which is why allergic reaction and infection is a liability.

Some info on the composition of tattoo pigments and common reactions:

Tattoo-associated skin reactions. DermNet NZ

Medscape: Medscape Access

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
although I've been doing some digging online and it is remarkably difficult to find any information on the transference of biological or chemical pathogens between the mother and breast milk contents. I have understood that everything that can be found in a mother's blood can also be found in breastmilk, which is why allergic reaction and infection is a liability.

Boy you aren't kidding. We just had a baby and my wife was reading up on when it's okay to drink. It basically isn't. Everything sits in the milk, you essentially have to "pump and dump" if you get too drunk, or take something you shouldn't have (I'm talking something as simple as Peptol Bismol being a no-no). Infection could certainly pose a risk, but I don't think it's the court's decision. It is certainly something the mother should take in to account.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@cltattooing - thanks for much for your insight on this. I have been trying to understand the restrictions against getting tattooed while breastfeeding, and I wasn't finding much clear info. So I appreciate your thoughts!

This story is still insane, though - I am very uneasy with judges legislating how a woman can feed her child, especially with such black and white bans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pugilist no problem!

Also just for the record, I am not a doctor, have absolutely no medical training, and there is little to no research on the subject published at all. With that being said, I still maintain that the entire situation is a giant cloud of grey area with a lot of suggestion for appropriate action and nothing conclusive to rightfully take a stance one way or another as to whether it is child endangerment to get tattooed while breastfeeding. As a tattooer, to me, it's not worth the risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I nursed my daughter until she was a year, b/c people said that was long enough, then my son until he was almost 3 b/c *I* said that was long enough. One year isn't that long. What I ate/drank went into my milk. You can drink when you are nursing up to a certain point, then you have to pump and dump, and it depends how long ago you drank. It's been over 5 years now so I don't remember-and I only did a pump/dump from drinking once, b/c it wasn't worth it to me. I had to pump/dump b/c of pain medication when I had my hernia fixed, a couple times, and that also wasn't worth it to me, so I just took Tylenol. I can't imagine wanting to be tattooed when I was nursing-and as a mother, I wouldn't want to take any chances. I don't recall dying my hair when nursing either. I thought there was a little blurb on the consent form about "I am not pg, breastfeeding, under the influence of alcohol or drugs" type thing? Maybe I am remembering wrong. And maybe it's different in other countries?

- - - Updated - - -

ETA: It really shouldn't be that big of a deal to refrain from getting a tattoo while nursing your child. That kinda goes part and parcel w/having a baby and needing to be adult enough to put someone else's needs in front of your own wants "just in case".

Or are they trying to say that if'n you *have* tattoos you shouldn't breastfeed?? Is that where it's heading?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My reading of the story is that the judge made the order on the basis that she could contract HIV or Hepatitis or similar as a result of getting tattooed. There's also mention of her having been tested, window periods etc.

To me, if that is the primary concern of the court, it seems like the judge shouldn't stop there ... Why not ban her from drinking alcohol in excess, having unprotected sex etc. also? The odds of her getting HIV from a tattoo are vanishingly small in comparison with other risky life activities. I think that's the main silliness of the story.

For what it's worth my wife is still breastfeeding our son and just started a big side piece. He's over a year old and there have been no bumps in the road so far. I think where any kind of illness could pose a problem is in the early stages of nursing, the first few weeks or months, moreso than down the road when the baby is eating solids and whatnot as well. Maybe we're cavalier about these things in our house but we haven't worried about it overly.

Breastfeeding seems to result in such positive health outcomes for babies (and arguably mothers too) that I would venture to say a judge should have no business making this kind of order without pretty pressing grounds for doing so, in my opinion, not just because of the effect it will have on the family in question but for the broader signal it sends out potentially. It's kind of depressing here in Ireland to see how many mothers who might want to try breastfeeding have formula pushed upon them almost immediately, even though ostensibly we're supposed to be trying to improve the rate at which women breastfeed.

The main reason I posted the story, though, is that it illustrates a judge with a pretty skewed perception of the health risks associated with getting tattooed are. We'd have more than a few HIV cases on this board at the rate we get tattooed here, if his fears were well-founded. I suspect he's not the only one out there of that generation in positions like that who holds those sorts of ideas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Posts

    • well I wouldn't worry about it then, and maybe don't use that same gel on fresh tattoos.
    • Thanks Dan,i used a normal fragranced shower gel,the previous 2 days i used a different one,and was fine....i only got inked in black The rash wasnt on the tatt but in the areas around it..i put some camphor cream on,and it started to fade away.its fine now..just stressed to get another one,and is 3 weeks too soon to get another one done?
    • I only use a anti-microbial soap on my fresh tattoo,  any drug store has it over the counter, https://www.buyemp.com/product/dial-gold-liquid-antimicrobial-soap what color was the ink that got the rash ? and IMO it was the shower gel that cause it, since it was 3 days after
  • Last Sparrow Tattoo Sponsors

  • Topics

  • Blog Entries