Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

for flouting hospital 'no sibling' rule for ebf baby?

659 replies

StarlightMcKenzie · 05/02/2013 14:57

DS had an operation yesterday. He needed me to be there. Breastfed baby also needed me.

I took my Aunt to look after my ds and we were sent initially to a waiting room. The plan was for her to keep him there and for me to pop out of the ward to feed him.

However, we were there for half an hour and my ds started to ask for a feed, so I started to bf. Literally 2 sucks in, we were called. I pulled him off and he screamed so I jigged him about (which quietens him as a distraction) and moved towards the ward with him in tow.

The nurse told me he wasn't allowed. I told her that I needed to finish his feed and then I would take him back to my aunt. I offered to vrubg ds ub 10 mins but she got arsey saying that ds would have to have his operation cancelled if he missed his slpt. Nurse started tutting about him disturbing the other patients and that there was a strict no-sibling rule that I knew about as it was in the letter (it was).

so WIBU?

OP posts:
BigSilky · 05/02/2013 18:19

I see. Thank you for answering.

CrapBag · 05/02/2013 18:19

You have got your answers.

Clearly you are right as you are having a comeback to every answer. Hmm

Accept you are wrong and be done with it. If you are so convinced you are right then why ask in the first place.

Ahhh, I get it, you thought that because you are BF, then it automatically gives you some godgiven right to do what you want to do.

crashdoll · 05/02/2013 18:19

I agree with TSC - you don't want a debate, you want to be told you're right.

Boutdesouffle · 05/02/2013 18:20

I didn't mean you can't express because he gets comfort from breastfeeding, but you have confirmed that the reason you need to feed him is the comfort factor, which is of course fair enough, however it does look like you implied (by initially refusing to state baby's age) that this was an EBF newborn, which is a very different matter than a 7 month old that is currently being weaned. I think YABU.

Original poster
StarlightMcKenzie · 05/02/2013 18:21

'Why is it when people know the rules, they alway think there should be a slight exception for them!'

I don't much know about 'people', but I didn't read 'no siblings' to mean starve a totally dependent breastfed baby. I considered that a baby friendly hospital did not consider ebf babies in the no sibling rule any more than they did babies inside pregnant women.

OP posts:
Original poster
StarlightMcKenzie · 05/02/2013 18:22

'this was an EBF newborn, which is a very different matter than a 7 month old that is currently being weaned.'

Why is it different? Is it more humane to starve a 7 month old than a 7 week old? Confused

OP posts:
FutTheShuckUp · 05/02/2013 18:22

Starlight you are boring now. Why start such a one sided thread when you are not prepared to listen to anyone elses point of view?

BigSilky · 05/02/2013 18:22

'Starve' is a bit over dramatic.

FutTheShuckUp · 05/02/2013 18:23

A 7 month old whos weaning age is far less likely to starve than a seven week old so quit with the amdram please

FlorriesDragons · 05/02/2013 18:24

Ohhhh, your baby is breastfed. In that case Madam, come right through... Hmm

Original poster
StarlightMcKenzie · 05/02/2013 18:24

I'm listening, but the arguments against aren't very good.

OP posts:
Original poster
StarlightMcKenzie · 05/02/2013 18:24

exlusively breastfed

OP posts:
Boutdesouffle · 05/02/2013 18:25

Newborns blood sugar levels can drop rapidly. 7 month olds that eat other food and are not EXCLUSIVELY breast fed do not generally starve. You have said yourself (twice) that it is more about comfort for your baby, than the fact that he will starve if you delay the feed slightly.

FlorriesDragons · 05/02/2013 18:26

When your medal arrives, let me know as I'm still yet to receive mine. Grin

FutTheShuckUp · 05/02/2013 18:26

I think the arguments offered have been great. Yours on the other hand smacks of 'im right and thats that' with precious little else to back up your point.

ChestyNut · 05/02/2013 18:28

When I received the letter stating no siblings, I'd have rang the ward and asked if they could offer a solution rather than reading the rule and ignoring them.

You may have got a better reception from the nurse if you'd had the courtesy to phone ahead.

GeorginaWorsley · 05/02/2013 18:28

My argument is that you should have informed the hospital beforehand.
If you had,I suspect all would be different.
So it was in actual fact a situation of your own making,and I think you should accept that and move on.

TheSecondComing · 05/02/2013 18:28

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

GeorginaWorsley · 05/02/2013 18:29

cross posts Chesty but exactly my point.

Original poster
StarlightMcKenzie · 05/02/2013 18:29

I have said once that he is comforted by the breast. I have never suggested that he should be breastfed in hospital for that reason, though it contributes to why.

He is totally reliant on breastmilk for his nutrition and hunger needs, - as well as his comfort needs.

OP posts:
AnnieLobeseder · 05/02/2013 18:31

I was going to go against the grain and say YANBU. No siblings is one thing. No ebf babies is quite another. Mothers and newborn babies should not be separated when there is no need. Baby could have been snuggled into a sling and wouldn't have been in the way, taken up space, been at any risk of contracting viruses or made any noise.

But then I saw that your baby is 7 months old. That's quite old enough to have water/juice/a snack instead. Sorry, YABU.

AreYouADurtBirdOrALadyBird · 05/02/2013 18:32

I used to work in the medical field. Despite what you were told it is not about space,its about infection control. That's why hospitals have to be extremely strict with the rules but some parents don't like being told that their cute baby could kill someone,like immune compromised patients or premature babies.
YABU.

Boutdesouffle · 05/02/2013 18:32

He is 7 months, not a newborn and he is not exclusively breasted. You cannot expect the hospital to change their rules to accomodate you.

sittinginthesun · 05/02/2013 18:33

I have a friend who had her 3 year old in hospital for two weeks, sedated and touch and go for around five days. She also had a 4 week old, exclusively BF, who was not allowed on the ward.

Now imagine that. She managed - taking it in turns with her DH to sleep beside DC1, and then popping out to BF the baby. Two weeks of it! I have no idea how she managed, but she did. DC1 pulled though, and the baby was fine.

Original poster
StarlightMcKenzie · 05/02/2013 18:35

TSC, I had an unusual set of circumstances that included being pregnant with no address, no GP in the area that I was sleeping, let alone hospital, 2 young children, one with SN, in the middle of a tribunal that caused SS to want me to justify why the children were not up to date with their vaccinations and MWs want a medicalised birth due to my late registration, that I was resisting on the basis of research and, well, good practice.

That part of my life is over thank god. And it was bloody exhausting. Kids all now in schools, settled tribunal, bought a house, had home birth, been offered a job and am class rep for one of the kids.

Hope you're pleased for me........

OP posts: