Tattoo a breastfeeding mother?

liliq

Hiya,

Slightly random question!

Just wondering if anyone here has either been tattooed while breastfeeding (Not at the exact same time obviously!) or tattooed someone knowing they're a breastfeeding mother? Or decided against it if the situation has come up?
I'm on a few parenting/ breastfeeding support groups online & in real life and its a question that comes up fairly regularly.
Having done my research, I know it's safe- ie there's no extra risk assuming the usual standards are held and it's not the same as if the woman was pregnant) and associations like La Leche League seem to say the same. I've got a tattoo done and nursed my son after, but a few mums have come back and said the artist they've gone to wouldn't agree to tattooing them knowing they had children currently breastfeeding.
Is it a case of erring on the side of caution (obviously understandable & the smart thing to do) or are there other reasons?

Thanks

January

I wouldn't reckon it would be a problem at all... I plan to get tattoo'd pretty soon after I give birth this time and plan to breastfeed. There's no issues with transfer of ink into the milk supply, so maybe it's just some tattoo artists ignorance for breastfeeding that is causing this.

Adiboo

To err on the side of caution in case of the very rare chance of infection. Better to take no risk, than even a very minimal one.

liliq

Adiboo wrote: »

To err on the side of caution in case of the very rare chance of infection. Better to take no risk, than even a very minimal one.

But the risk of infection isn't increased because a woman is lactating? It's the same as anyone else's risk.

Adiboo

I would assume the risk they wouldn't want to take by tattooing a breastfeeding mother is that something could be passed on to the child if infection did occur.

Every studio I have been in has a section on their consent forms asking if the client is pregnant or breastfeeding, so it is a pretty across the board thing in studios.

liliq

Adiboo wrote: »

I would assume the risk they wouldn't want to take by tattooing a breastfeeding mother is that something could be passed on to the child if infection did occur.

Every studio I have been in has a section on their consent forms asking if the client is pregnant or breastfeeding, so it is a pretty across the board thing in studios.

Ah ok, that's where the confusion is I think.
The risk of infection being passed onto the child is the same as the risk of infection being passed from any one person to another. Infections in blood aren't passed into a mothers milk. So the risk still remains the same as any other person being tattooed.
I've seen pregnancy being asked about on consent forms, but not breastfeeding.

January

I've never signed a consent form for a tattoo... and I've been to a few different studios, including one in England.

P_1

To be honest I'd say it's down to studios not really knowing what effects it'd have on breastfeeding and taking a 'better safe than sorry' approach. Nothing wrong with that in my eyes.

Consent forms are more than likely there to protect the studios legally in case something does go wrong. For example say if somebody has something go wrong with a pregnancy and during the pregnancy they got tattooed. Now the tattoo might not have caused anything but the studio having a signed consent form with the person getting the tattoo stating that they were not pregnant at the time could potentially stop them from getting sued.

bodice ripper

January wrote: »

I wouldn't reckon it would be a problem at all... I plan to get tattoo'd pretty soon after I give birth this time and plan to breastfeed. There's no issues with transfer of ink into the milk supply, so maybe it's just some tattoo artists ignorance for breastfeeding that is causing this.

Ignorance eh? I never heard a tattoo artist suggest that the ink gets in the milk. Can't wait til I have a baby so I can finally know everything.


I think generally the reason given is that it is regarded as best practice to allow your body to recover after giving birth before engaging in the risky and comparatively frivolous practice of tattooing. But hey, what would we know?

January

bodice ripper wrote: »

Ignorance eh? I never heard a tattoo artist suggest that the ink gets in the milk. Can't wait til I have a baby so I can finally know everything.


I think generally the reason given is that it is regarded as best practice to allow your body to recover after giving birth before engaging in the risky and comparatively frivolous practice of tattooing. But hey, what would we know?

Not much really... people are still breastfeeding children when they're 2/3/4 years old, your body is well recovered from having a baby after the 6 week period post partum (12 weeks for a c section). What we do know is the ink doesn't get into the millk supply so there are no risks associated between breastfeeding and getting tattoo'd or even pierced (it was recommended to me here by a few posters to go ahead and get my ears pierced while in early pregnancy, obviously not any 'qualified' piercers, because we do know there are no courses that can be done to become qualified and no accreditation in this country for same, just like tattoo artists).

If a woman is feeling up to it and wants to get tattoo'd and has done her research and is confident that there are no risks associated with it, then there's no problem. Maybe it is ignorance, maybe not, maybe they know something we don't, but if they do, why aren't they publicising it.

bodice ripper

January wrote: »

Not much really... people are still breastfeeding children when they're 2/3/4 years old, your body is well recovered from having a baby after the 6 week period post partum (12 weeks for a c section). What we do know is the ink doesn't get into the millk supply so there are no risks associated between breastfeeding and getting tattoo'd or even pierced (it was recommended to me here by a few posters to go ahead and get my ears pierced while in early pregnancy, obviously not any 'qualified' piercers, because we do know there are no courses that can be done to become qualified and no accreditation in this country for same, just like tattoo artists).

If a woman is feeling up to it and wants to get tattoo'd and has done her research and is confident that there are no risks associated with it, then there's no problem. Maybe it is ignorance, maybe not, maybe they know something we don't, but if they do, why aren't they publicising it.

You have some chip on your shoulder there. Maybe they are just trying to look out for people, the pricks. You do realise we lose money when we turn someone away, right?

January

bodice ripper wrote: »

You have some chip on your shoulder there. Maybe they are just trying to look out for people, the pricks. You do realise we lose money when we turn someone away, right?

Sorry, where did I state that tattoo artists were intentionally turning people away because they just wanted to lose money? All I said is it might be a bit of ignorance on their part. You're a tattoo artist and you seem to feel strongly about this, so do you turn breastfeeding mothers away? Why? Maybe it'll help people understand a bit more. There's no chip on my shoulder, I've never actually breastfed before, so have never run into this problem, but may do in May/June!

Of course I realise you lose money when you turn people away, but maybe you don't actually need to turn these people away?

I don't mean to cause offence, I'm sorry if I did, but there seems to be a bit of conflicting evidence about.

bodice ripper

January wrote: »

I don't mean to cause offence, I'm sorry if I did, but there seems to be a bit of conflicting evidence about.

In the face of conflicting evidence, when the health of consenting and non-consenting (baby) people is involved, best to err on the side of caution.

liliq

bodice ripper wrote: »

Ignorance eh? I never heard a tattoo artist suggest that the ink gets in the milk. Can't wait til I have a baby so I can finally know everything.


I think generally the reason given is that it is regarded as best practice to allow your body to recover after giving birth before engaging in the risky and comparatively frivolous practice of tattooing. But hey, what would we know?

I think ignorance was meant in the context of lack if knowledge, rather than the insulting way you have perceived it.

Most of the mothers I know looking to get tattooed would be at least 12 months post birth, would it be an issue then? (I mean generally, rather than would you specifically regard it as an issue).

liliq

bodice ripper wrote: »

In the face of conflicting evidence, when the health of consenting and non-consenting (baby) people is involved, best to err on the side of caution.

But there is no conflicting evidence, as far as I can find.
Maybe this is what my question should have been- is there a source of evidence that I have missed that shows any risk?
Any information I can find says there is no extra risk.

(Sorry for all the edits, I keep pressing 'post' on my phone by mistake... All thumbs!)

January

liliq wrote: »

I think ignorance was meant in the context of lack if knowledge, rather than the insulting way you have perceived it.

Most

Oh goodness yes... I didn't mean that they were being deliberately ignorant, just lack of knowledge on some tattoo artists part.

bodice ripper, if a breastfeeding mother came to you and asked for a tattoo and brought with her evidence (from research she has done on-line and/or from gleaning this evidence from the La Leche League/Cuidi or her lactation consultant at the hospital) that tattooing a breastfeeding mother was safe, would you do it or still turn them away?

Star Lord

January wrote: »

evidence ... that tattooing a breastfeeding mother was safe, would you do it or still turn them away?

Any evidence provided would be pretty anecdotal really. I don't think anyone believes the ink gets into the milk, but of course anything that impacts on the mothers health can cause issues, and why take that chance?
Is getting a tattoo important enough that you'd want to take the chance and assume that there can be no negative effect from getting the tattoo? The majority of cases of infection with both tattoos and piercings seems to be related to the aftercare, so no matter how careful/clean the tattoo artist is, why would they leave themselves open to being blamed for something going wrong post tattoo?

bodice ripper

January wrote: »

Oh goodness yes... I didn't mean that they were being deliberately ignorant, just lack of knowledge on some tattoo artists part.

bodice ripper, if a breastfeeding mother came to you and asked for a tattoo and brought with her evidence (from research she has done on-line and/or from gleaning this evidence from the La Leche League/Cuidi or her lactation consultant at the hospital) that tattooing a breastfeeding mother was safe, would you do it or still turn them away?

I would turn them away. I also turn away anyone that I have reason to think their healing resources are being better spent than on a tattoo. Online research means squat - colored by the answer the researcher wants. If I were to assume the customer knows best, there would be an arseload of bad tattoos and infections with my name on them.

bodice ripper

January wrote: »

I've never signed a consent form for a tattoo... and I've been to a few different studios, including one in England.

Thank god you weren't diabetic, a haemophiliac, on warfarin for kidney dialysis, immunocomprimised, pregnant, underage, and were fully aware of all the risks involved.

Not the best sign that the studios in question didn't care to know either.

P_1

bodice ripper wrote: »

Thank god you weren't diabetic, a haemophiliac, on warfarin for kidney dialysis, immunocomprimised, pregnant, underage, and were fully aware of all the risks involved.

Not the best sign that the studios in question didn't care to know either.

Hang on a sec? You don't tattoo diabetics? My diabetes has never caused me any issues getting tattooed, I just make sure the artist knows and make sure to have a bottle of Lucazade handy when I'm getting work done.

January

DamoElDiablo wrote: »

Any evidence provided would be pretty anecdotal really. I don't think anyone believes the ink gets into the milk, but of course anything that impacts on the mothers health can cause issues, and why take that chance?
Is getting a tattoo important enough that you'd want to take the chance and assume that there can be no negative effect from getting the tattoo? The majority of cases of infection with both tattoos and piercings seems to be related to the aftercare, so no matter how careful/clean the tattoo artist is, why would they leave themselves open to being blamed for something going wrong post tattoo?

So it's ok to tattoo a new mother who doesn't breast feed even though she's recovering in the same way that a non breast feeding mother is?

The greatest concern is infection and statistically infections occur more from improper after care than from getting tattoo'd in a reputable, clean studio as you said. Tattoo artists leave themselves open to being blamed for something going wrong post tattoo when they tattoo anyone so?

liliq

DamoElDiablo wrote: »

Any evidence provided would be pretty anecdotal really. I don't think anyone believes the ink gets into the milk, but of course anything that impacts on the mothers health can cause issues, and why take that chance?

I can only find one half decent direct study on it, but organisations such as la Leche league and paediatricians such as dr. Jack Newman, who specialise in breastfeeding would suggest that there is no extra risk once, as you say, the mother has recovered from the birth.

I agree that (hopefully!) nobody thinks that the ink gets into the milk, but my argument would be that blood infections don't either, and even if the mother was careless with aftercare and got a bad infection, it can be treated with antibiotics without risk also.

bodice ripper

P_1 wrote: »

Hang on a sec? You don't tattoo diabetics? My diabetes has never caused me any issues getting tattooed, I just make sure the artist knows and make sure to have a bottle of Lucazade handy when I'm getting work done.

I do tattoo diabetics, but I would rather know that they are. Also, there are those diabetics with a history of infection in minor cuts. Best to ask.

P_1

bodice ripper wrote: »

I do tattoo diabetics, but I would rather know that they are. Also, there are those diabetics with a history of infection in minor cuts. Best to ask.

Ah that's fair enough. Reasonable precaution to take