It does appear that she nursed this baby out of the goodness of her heart. But... I'm not sure it was the right thing to do, as heartfelt as this gesture may have been.
As a woman who nursed her own babies, I know that one feeding isn't going to help this baby much. He's going to be hungry again in a couple of hours. Will there be another wet nurse available? Do they have baby formula to give him?
Why doesn't the mother have milk for her baby? Normally, not nursing (enough) is what leads to not enough milk. Nursing is what creates more milk. If a baby receives his nourishment elsewhere, even for one meal, that's less milk the mother will produce. I remember family members wanting to bottlefeed my baby - for their own enjoyment - and offering, "Let us give you a break." In reality, that doesn't give a mother a break; it makes matters worse because if she doesn't expel that milk, she will produce less the next day and then will have to nurse more to make up for it.
So, I'm not sure this kind gesture was the right thing to do.
I’m a man so I caveat my thoughts here by saying I can’t have experienced what you have.
I’m reminded of the old adage, “Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime.” Tremendous truth in those words. But when we prosperous Westerners come across a person in need we are usually not in a position to teach them how to fish, but only feed them at that very moment.
So I think she should have done what her heart inspired her to do. Here are some potential benefits:
The baby gets a days’ worth of nutrition.
The mother and the village are warmed, maybe convicted, by such a loving act. Far more loving than just ladling rice out of a large pot (which happens elsewhere).
The publicity from the act might bring gifts from the West to that very village. Perhaps a church in Hayek’s home town. Perhaps one of the baby formula conglomerates will donate free formula for a year. Maybe the Gates Foundation will allocate some resources to that village.
And even if none of that happens, the baby will be happy and calm for another day. There is no down side there.
If a baby had a soiled diaper, would you not change it because you weren’t sure there would be a clean one tomorrow? Our church builds houses in Mexico — modest ones, mind you — and even though we know that the poor people may not appreciate it, or trash it, should we not do it?
The Bible (yes, we’re Christian) commands us to not worry about tomorrow. While that doesn’t mean we don’t buy life insurance and save for retirement, it does mean we live today doing the right things with joy in our hearts. That means giving, giving, and giving, and not fretting about what happens after that.
Caveat: had you told me that Hayek risked her own life by breastfeeding the baby — e.g., she could get infected or even AIDS — that’s a different story.
So, sorry, I disagree with you.