AIBU to feel uneasy about this? (Not wanting to spark a BF or not BF fight)

[shudabinme]

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1393353/Hospital-restricts-free-formula-baby-milk-newborns-encourage-mothers-breastfeed.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

Bit ~ about this, all for BF but this smacks of social engineering... shall we extend it to the Mums as well, lets just feed them vegan food (no offence any vegans out there, just trying to make the point!)

Hospitals don't provide an unlimited choice of food though. They provide the food which they deem appropriate. They deem breastmilk to be appropriate (although with some exceptions) and have made that breast milk available through providing adequate nutrition to the mother.

If mothers choose to feed their child something other than that deemed appropriate by the NHS, then it is up to the mother to provide it. But they certainly shouldn't receive any negative comments from the NHS or doing so, any more than any other parent who chooses to take alternative food into hospital for an older child.

MDI, yes I think that they are doing it to save money. That is also the reason that they don't provide sanitary pads, nappies, breast pads, or cotton wool for washing the baby's bottom.

Sounds fair enough to me (what with all the cut backs going on) but I don't know if it's going to dissuade mothers from formula feeding if they want to.

Haven't opened the DM article but with both my births (2007 and 2009) I was told to bring formula and bottles and stuff if I wanted to FF, they would provide sterilising facilities and that's it.

Seemed fair enough to me, I didn't think to question it at the time. You have to take all the supplies for the newborn, but if there was an emergency they'd have stuff you could use.

So bottom line is this is not news, some PCTs have been doing it for ages.

'Not sure why the Nhs should provide formula milk free ' err because they are their patients and they have a duty to feed inpatients!
I wonder how long before this is challenged legally?

When i had my last DD, 13 years ago, they wouldn't let me leave until they formally discharged her (i could have left but not her). This was only about 15 hours after giving birth. Surely this rulling changes the status of the baby as a patient in some way.

fairydoll but this has already been happening in some PCTs for ages. It's not a new thing.

I'm surprised this is news - the hospital where I had DS1 and DS2 did this, and that was 9 years ago.

Birdsgottafly- The hospital have no right to decide to keep the baby in hospital if the mum wishes to discharge them. If they felt that the baby had to stay then the court could be approached, but the hospital on its own dont get to make that decision.

I don't see the problem. My midwife called this week to tell me our trust had started doing this. If an emergency they will provide, but why wouldn't they save money doing this?

CATS- the baby has to be discharged in its on right, if an adult discharges themselves without being checked by a doctor then the hospital will get them to sign a form or it will get two witness members of staff to say that you walk out of your own accord, so they are not liable. They don't so much as say that you cannot go but fob you off to were the doctor is so you can do the paperwork.

Each maternity ward is different, the one i was in couldn't be opened without a code. There is a procedure to go through before discharge for the baby, it is not just down to the mothers decision.

Do people honestly think that babies will be left to starve because of this?

Get a grip people.

Most mums aren't in hospital for that long. Most mums BF for a bit at the start.

Those mums who decide to FF from the start will pack formula. If they forget I'm sure their baby won't be denied.

Jeez.

When I had my dd, I took nothing. I had no intention of FF and didn't buy any bottles or anything. The midwives did end up giving her one bottle of FF, because she didn't wee for ages and ages - after 24 hours they told me that because my milk hadn't yet come in, they wanted to give her some FF to see if that would encourage her to wee. (She finally did wee after 36 hours and after a quiet little chat with me about kidney malfunction and scans...so I wasn't stressed at all, no!)
But, at no stage in the run up did anyone put on a list about taking bottles or cartons to hospital, just in case. I was really neurotic about what to take in my hospital bag and checked several versions of lists, making up my own from what I saw on them.

All the lists I saw said things like 'Bottles and milk if you do not plan to breast feed your baby'. Well, thought me to myself, I do plan to breast feed so no worries there. It honestly never occurred to me that breast feeding might present a problem - in my head, I was going to prop the baby at the right angle in my arms and away we would go.
Had I planned to FF then I would have taken my own things in. As it was, she needed it, the hospital had the stuff, and then we didn't use a bottle again until she was 5 months and I had to return to work, by which time she was convinced that they were the work of the devil and refused them.

I don't see a problem with asking a parent to bring in the things that they plan to use for their baby - if you plan to FF you'll have the stuff anyway so why not bring it along?

If the baby's discharge is the same as that of an adult with legal responsibilities on both sides then they are an inpatient, so meals should be provided. What is the cut off age for feeding a child in hospital going to be. Having a legal brain, i am just thinking about it in terms of regulation and procedure. If a 5 month old goes into hospital, will formula be provided and if so then why not to newborn. If not then how can they justify feeding a 3 year old?

For a policy to be valid it will have to be on paper, so you have then differenciated between in patients.

A 5 month old is not the same as a newborn in hospital with a mother who is capable of breast feeding. If a mother is there who can breastfeed, then the hospital has provided food. If the mother is not resident in the hospital, or cannot breastfeed, then the hospital should provide alternative milk. Ideally, the milk the hospital provides should be somebody else's breast milk.

Milly-from a legal point of view they are differenciating between in patients. The baby is a patient in it's own right, i am just thinking about it from a policy point of view, having to have to work to extensive policies it is something that i naturally do.

Many patients are differentiated between in the food made available to them in a hospital. What is appropriate to make available to a newborn baby is not the same as what is appropriate to make available to a 5 month old.

They aren't in terms of treatment and nurishment under offical policies.

I'm sure the DM only prints articles like this to stir. I decided not to breast feed, at no point did a mid-wife or any healthcare professional try to dissuade me, which I thought was an excellent reaction. It was a decision that was right for us and that's that. I would have happily taken my own supplies, because that alone would not have made me change my mind, but I think that right after the birth and maybe a couple of feeds after if you've had a CS or an epidural it's not unreasonable to receive the little bottles of formula.

BGF, I don't understand your point. Patients have different diets - the diet offered to an obese patient, a patient with anorexia, a diabetic patient, a newborn baby and a 4 year old child will all be different from each other.

The hospital has made food available to the baby - breast milk. Part of the care of a newborn bay in hospital is making sure that the mother is capable of looking after the baby. The hospital cares for the baby directly only if the mother does not do so. So the mother is expected (unless there are medical reasons why not) to bath her baby, to change her baby's nappy, to pick her baby up when it cries. The hospital does not directly meet a baby's needs in the way it does other patients, unless there is a medical reason to do so (i.e. mother in theatre, mother too weak, baby has additional needs).

The hospital has provided the mother with food it considers appropriate for the baby - the mother's breast milk which has been produced as a consequence of food they give her to consume. If she chooses not to pass this food on the baby she is caring for, it is not up to the hospital to provide an alternative. If she cannot feed the baby, then the hospital has an obligation.

But they are all fed by the hospital as an in patient.

The baby under the law is a patient in its own right, not an add on to the mother, MW are being trained in this at present to up 'safeguarding'.

How easy is it going to be for staff to access 'emergency supplies' and will there be alot of form filling to get a bottle to a baby? What if a mother is being a bit difficult, will it involve 'safeguarding procedures' to click in? These need answering. Will the milk be in locked cupboards and have to be signed for? Sometimes what seems like a simple change in policy, isn't.

Is this Birmingham? There's already a loooooooong thread about it.

Milk isn't provided in the hospitals here.

There was a thread recently that covered babies being left in hospital and nurses having to do the caring. We then have to decide at what age it is the responsibility of the hospital if a policy change happens.

As a CP SW i deal with what is considered 'neglect' whilst a child is in hospital, will we now be recieving referals for newborns? It doesn't come under abandonment, the child will have to become a 'child in need' is one hospital going to stock formula but another isn't asnd the same across wards? I know that it happens in some hospitals now but it is not 'offical' as such so these problems are not occuring yet.