Judge bans mother from breastfeeding 11-month-old son because she got a tattoo - Polidicks

[quote]A judge has banned a mother from breastfeeding because she got a tattoo, ruling the woman's decision to get it four weeks earlier exposed her 11-month-old baby to an unacceptable risk of harm. Federal Circuit Court Judge Matthew Myers' decision to grant an injunction to stop the woman from breastfeeding her son comes despite the [B]mother recording negative results on hepatitis and HIV tests[/B] Judge Myers said there was still an unacceptable risk to the baby because the tests were not conclusive. The case came before the court because the baby's father raised concerns about the mother's tattoo during a bitter parenting dispute.[/quote] [url]http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-18/judge-bars-woman-with-tattoo-from-breastfeeding/6556086[/url] So, at what point now are we going to say that a mother can't breastfeed a child because they got a tattoo. 6 months prior? A year? Two years? Fucking ridiculous.

Ten bucks says she just buys a breast pump.

I'm a little confused as to the jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit Court to rule on such matters, but hey, the matter is being appealed and heard today.

The story is a bit weird, how can they say " the tests were not conclusive." and "despite the mother recording negative results on hepatitis and HIV tests". Were or were they not conclusive?

[QUOTE=bunguer;47996761]The story is a bit weird, how can they say " the tests were not conclusive." and "despite the mother recording negative results on hepatitis and HIV tests". Were or were they not conclusive?[/QUOTE] As far as I know, HIV can't be reliably detected in the blood for quite a long time after exposure. Maybe that's what was meant.

Well, I mean I suppose there [I]could[/I] be some legitimate concern about heavy metals from the tattoo ink becoming present in the breast milk for a recent tattoo, but this isn't what that sounds like it's about,it's also fucking ridiculous given she's shown negative on tests.

How are they going to stop her?

[QUOTE=RayvenQ;47996813]Well, I mean I suppose there [I]could[/I] be some legitimate concern about heavy metals from the tattoo ink becoming present in the breast milk for a recent tattoo, but this isn't what that sounds like it's about,it's also fucking ridiculous given she's shown negative on tests.[/QUOTE] No, HIV and Hepatitis are far bigger concerns than whatever heavy metals you might think that are being introduced to the body through tattoos. Not only most tattoo inks do not contain heavy metals, but your exposure to them through everything else (namely eating seafood or even drinking water from certain areas) is much much much much higher. Even if you get your whole body covered in tattoos you will not get enough of anything introduced to your system. This is not to say I agree with the ruling in any shape or form though.

I guess I can understand the judge on this one, because although there are drugs at the moment that can give positive people a somemwhat normal life, it still fucks up a lot of things. I have a pilot friend and if he ever got hiv, it would be a death sentence because you can't be a pilot AND receive the current drugs because of their effects.

[QUOTE=Mitsudigi;47996806]As far as I know, HIV can't be reliably detected in the blood for quite a long time after exposure. Maybe that's what was meant.[/QUOTE] HIV isn't easily detected symptom wise, due to it's incubation stage, which can last up to around 12 years, after which AIDS kicks in. It's reliably detectable by specific tests, after usually a few months tops - although I suppose this is the window period you are referring to.

[QUOTE=James xX;47997124]I guess I can understand the judge on this one, because although there are drugs at the moment that can give positive people a somemwhat normal life, it still fucks up a lot of things. I have a pilot friend and if he ever got hiv, it would be a death sentence because you can't be a pilot AND receive the current drugs because of their effects.[/QUOTE] The judge doesn't give a shit about HIV drugs, it's not the issue. The issue is a concern for the child receiving a parenteral HIV or hepatitis infection. Tbh it's pretty dumb to get a tattoo if you're breastfeeding regardless of how safe you think the shop is. Just wait until the kid is done breastfeeding or is bottle fed.

might as well ban women who have had blood transfusions from breast-feeding, you're probably just as likely to get HIV from a bad transfusion than a [I]licensed, regulated[/I] tatoo parlor

[QUOTE=Fetret;47997046]No, HIV and Hepatitis are far bigger concerns than whatever heavy metals you might think that are being introduced to the body through tattoos. Not only most tattoo inks do not contain heavy metals, but your exposure to them through everything else (namely eating seafood or even drinking water from certain areas) is much much much much higher. Even if you get your whole body covered in tattoos you will not get enough of anything introduced to your system. This is not to say I agree with the ruling in any shape or form though.[/QUOTE] A lot of Tattoo inks do use heavy metals as their pigment base. Others use oxides or metal salts as their pigment base. Hell, being tattooed at a decent, professional tattoo parlour, you may pick up a bacterial infection before you've healed if you don't do the aftercare properly, but unless the tattoist decided to fuck all the rules that day, you aren't going to get infected by HIV or Hepatitis, as any decent, professional tattoist, will always use new needles, new gloves, will have sterilised their equipment that doesn't get replaced, and put ink from the bottle, into a new, clean container for the duration of the tattooing, and any ink left from other people getting tattoed gets thrown away.

[QUOTE=Sableye;47997508]might as well ban women who have had blood transfusions from breast-feeding, you're probably just as likely to get HIV from a bad transfusion than a [I]licensed, regulated[/I] tatoo parlor[/QUOTE] You're dumb dude, why do you think you're not allowed to give blood if you've had a tattoo recently? Transfusions are risky too but at least the blood is coming from a highly regulated and monitored blood facility, tattoo shops are not always 'regulated'. Tattoo artists get a few hours of training from some government agency and then use that certification of proof that they're good to go. All in all though It's a risk a Mother shouldn't be taking, you can get a tattoo when you're done breastfeeding.

[QUOTE=InvaderNouga;47997571]You're dumb dude, why do you think you're not allowed to give blood if you've had a tattoo recently? Transfusions are risky too but at least the blood is coming from a highly regulated and monitored blood facility, tattoo shops are not always 'regulated'. Tattoo artists get a few hours of training from some government agency and then use that certification of proof that they're good to go. All in all though It's a risk a Mother shouldn't be taking, you can get a tattoo when you're done breastfeeding.[/QUOTE] And thats why you ask the tattoist about how they clean their equipment, if they don't use an autoclave to clean the non replaceable parts and/or if you see them get out a tattoo needle that is not brand new from a pack, you get the fuck out of there.

[QUOTE=RayvenQ;47997561]A lot of Tattoo inks do use heavy metals as their pigment base. Others use oxides or metal salts as their pigment base. Hell, being tattooed at a decent, professional tattoo parlour, you may pick up a bacterial infection before you've healed if you don't do the aftercare properly, but unless the tattoist decided to fuck all the rules that day, you aren't going to get infected by HIV or Hepatitis, as any decent, professional tattoist, will always use new needles, new gloves, will have sterilised their equipment that doesn't get replaced, and put ink from the bottle, into a new, clean container for the duration of the tattooing, and any ink left from other people getting tattoed gets thrown away.[/QUOTE] Dude I know (both from personal experience and tattoo artist friends), but my point still stands. The risk of HIV/Hepatitis being transmitted to the baby is much greater than any potential heavy metal toxicity risk. Even if your tattoo artist decides to give you lovely shades using mercury or lead the amount you would be exposed to is much much greater when you enjoy some tuna. Even walking by a highway would potentially expose you to much more. And HIV doesn't even survive that long outside the body, so even if your artist is an absolute idiot with no sense who uses a single needle for all his IVDA customers and you your risk would be (relatively) small. Catching Hep C is a much bigger risk. [editline]18th June 2015[/editline] My point was heavy metals are not a more reasonable excuse for this ruling than infection risk. They are both pretty ridiculous to begin with.

I merely postulated a possible reason for concern considering she came up clear on the tests, but I agree that it's rather ridiculous.

Hopefully the baby will be fine just using a bottle. A tattoo isn't really a reason to disallow breast feeding.

Decision was reversed unanimously by a 3 judge panel on appeal.