Refusal to discuss formula feeding at parentcraft class

[obeliaboo]

AIBU? Ready for the fire!
I've been told that in order for me to have a tour of my chosen hospital's delivery suite, that i need to attend 'parentcraft' classes.
Yesterday was exclusively about breastfeeding, fair enough, didnt know that of course until we got there.
So, as the midwife goes on about breastfeeding and support, I enquire what is the support for those who fall into small percentage of mums who cannot breastfeed. Simple question.
"What do you mean?".
I had to ask again, and put it across that i intend to breastfeed, but what if i cant, what if my milk doesn't come in. It happens, it happened to my eldest sister, its nothing to be ashamed of so whats the harm in asking and what is the support in that situation.
"We don't discuss artificial feeding".
Seriously?? I understand the necessity to promote breastfeeding is a priority for the NHS, because it seriously needs normalising, but to just object to even touching on the subject of formula feeding really riled me. I felt like i was at a propaganda session! She instead continued to address breastfeeding and a specific brand of electric breast bump at a specifc well known retailer.
Is this what the NHS supports? Big business's and there overpriced products (the specific one mentioned was over £100, I am not in a position to be able to afford something like that for a start), under the guise that 'breast is best', its the best start for baby - and insinuating that formula is the devil when for some poor souls, it is the only option?
AIBU for finding this absolutely snotty and condescending? There are mums out there who are underconfident, or genuinely don't lactate, mums who have gone through breastcancer and mastectomies etc, so why are these midwives refusing to even consider discussing both options.
Why make it militant and harder for those who simply can't, to speak up without feeling ashamed?
FYI this is the 3rd midwife i've had ranting at me over this.

"Formula used properly is not significantly "worse" than breast milk and in some ways better eg there a vitamins in formula but not in breast milk. Yet hospital staff are not allowed to advise it is crazeeeeeeeeeeeee."

Now I've heard everything.

Formula - even used properly, doesn't contain antibodies, which are in breastmilk to compensate for the immature immune systems of newborns. That's one of the reasons why newborn babies (as a group) who aren't breastfed get more infections than babies who are breastfed, are more likely to need to see a GP, are more likely to be admitted to hospital for treatment, and are more likely to have respiratory or ear infections.

And before you jump in - nobody is saying it's a 'golden bullet' which protects all babies from all infections, so can we not trot down that silly road? It just helps some babies avoid some infections, and this results in fewer GP visits for breastfed babies.

Kitty, another Saturday delivery here! Babies are very inconvenient, aren't they, deciding to turn up on a weekend.

For some breast fed babies and not necessarily for some ff babies.My 3 ff babies never caught anything however their bf cousins were in and out and even hospitalised with various bugs.

I'm not sure you can really can't attribute any definite hard and fast benefits as the poster below explained why.

i felt like I was battling against healthcare professionals who simply plotted his weight on a chart, told me it wasn't good enough and the only solution they offered was formula top ups.

The charts in the UK are made by WHO who use all the data from all UK babies. As only 7% of women are still exclusively breastfeeding at 4 months and formula fed babies gain weight at a different rate, it means the figures and centiles are heavily weighed to reflect formula or mix fed babies.

If you then look at the data for Norway - again charts made by WHO who take in all the data from Norwegian babies the centiles are different. The exclusive breastfeeding rate in Norway is close to 50% at 4months.

Does this mean that Norwegian babies are lighter or indeed 'underweight' by or that genetics of Norwegians is that significantly different? Or is the method of feeding and the lack of ability to understand the differences this causes in statistics that is affecting the advice HV are giving.

FWIW, DS's curve on the British chart drops centiles slowly. On the Norwegian chart he goes on a centile curve and sticks to it. He is exclusively BF.

I'll leave it up to you to decide what's actually going on here...

I applaud your success - I trust you recognise that NHS intractable approach is the reason for mine and others failure.

Red, please check your info sources. The charts used in the uk ( for many years now) are the exact same as used in Norway. They are called uk charts because the formatting is slightly different. But the centile lines are identical and come from international data collected on bf or predominantly bf babies over a period of a year. You can check this for yourself by googling RCPCH infant weight charts. The charts are used for all babies whatever their feeding regime, and all over the world. Not sure what conspiracy theory you were hinting at

I honestly think that the NHS needs a rocket up its arse because its clearly failing everyone with regard to feeding. The amount of utter bollocks being spouted because they are either pro-breastfeeding or pro-formula feeding is dreadful.

How about pro-women and babies (whose wellbeing is also dependant on the well being of their mothers).

Just to clarify: the babies whose data was collected were bf or predominantly bf for four to six months. Their weights were collected for a year (iirc). They came from several centres in the developed and developing world.

Yes its my imagination and the imagination of my husband that the curve moved.

Very interesting about the growth chart RedToothBrush. At my antenatal check ups in Ireland the public health nurse explained she had two charts, one for FF babies and one for BF but I'm not sure where the data for BF babies was from eg Irish babies or another EU country where BF is more common. Ireland has a very low rate of BF so I imagine data gathering would be harder for BF here.

Cross posted, thanks for the info tictok.

Sparky was it yourself that mention MS relapse despite bfing/6 month "grace period because of hormones"?

I ask because the advice I've been given by my consultant is to go back on med after 2/3 weeks whilst my MS nurse is saying 3months after baby here (to get mwds back in system)

I was going to bf for first few days for the colostrum, see how I get on re making it to 3 months but then go onto ff. However I may need to reconsider and follow consultant advice. Hmm decisions decisions

I'm not even listening to the breast is best chat. It will not best for me and my baby if I have a relapse.

And tbh all the midwifes/consultants I spoke to so far haven't challenged me on it. But I've yet to have my parent craft classes. So that will be fun

Red are you being shirty?? Maybe your baby was born before the charts came into uk use (from 2009 I think but some areas took a year or so to use up old stocks of the outdated charts). If this is not the case then you are seeing things I promise you. But check it out as I say. I will still be here when you post an apology

I think everyone is shirty on this thread. I can read one point, then read the total opposite point, and get shirty over both. I think that its something breast feeding and / or bottle feeding does to us all. Let's all just try and be supportive to all new mums who universally need some reassurance at some point. all.

[Legs it before getting called patronising]

Hi Come Again. I wasnâ??t diagnosed until dd was 3. I tried some mental reverse engineering "What if I'd known about the Ms while pregnant/What if my horrid health problems after a postnatal infection had been correctly diagnosed ". During this fairly pointless exercise, I read the 6 month figure in MS TRUST document - it also said "bf/ff entirely up to you - speak to your ms nurse and consultant". It made me feel like a hero for managing 2 weeks. But I hugely digress from your question. As with all things MS, I guess it depends on your circs/your meds etc. If you are getting conflicting messages I'd speak to your MS nurse ( I hope you have one ) and insist on bespoke advice. My 6 month figure may well be out of date now - dd is well into primary school.
Keep well, don't let them bullshit you or fob you off with irrelevant nonsense.

BTW, Come Again, if I had known about the ms , I would've tried for the colostrum, then taken it from there. Possibly not much after. But I would've given myself a pat on the back for doing that much instead of tormenting myself with failure. And if it really hadnâ??t suited me I would still have praised myself for doing the right thing for us both.

You'll have a long wait.

Back on my hobby horse, I'm yet to see a good reason why only exclusive BF-ing is promoted and why mix-feeding can't be at least mentioned. Yes I'm sure there are some benefits to exclusive BFing but I'm equally sure that they are far outweighed by the benefits to the baby of being breastfed for longer, even if not exclusively.

If the "parentcraft" (vom, hate that term) classes talked about breastfeeding but then did a quick 5 minute ^"Look breastfeeding is the best way to feed yor baby, but it can be tough, persevere with it especially in the early weeks as it does get a lot easier round the (6? 12?) week mark (DS is 17 weeks and I've already forgotten!!) but if you really need a break from BFing, giving the occasional bottle of formula so that you can have a rest isn't the end of the world, but we do caution against topping up with bottle/formula too frequently as it can affect your supply/cause nipple confusion... Remember every BF you can give will benefit your child, so the longer you can keep going with it the better, even if you mix in a formula bottle occasionally... So he'res the right way to make up a bottle, hygiene is important, read the directions carefully and make sure you put the water in first..."

I mean is that really going to put people off BFing? Seems to me it might encourage more people to give it a shot or to perservere.

I hate the patronising bullshit of maternity services.

Applauds Gennz.

I am still bf DS at almost 15 weeks. He has a bottle a night (except tonight when he'll have more as I'm out drinking cocktails ). I felt a lot of pressure (from myself) when I was solely responsible for feeding him. I might have thrown in the towel comepletely without mixed feeding.

Red, it's ok, I shan't mind waiting :)

I reckon I know why you are a bit confused, and I have checked my info and found I was, too, a bit :).

While WHO charts do exist in Norway, the Norwegian charts in general use are indeed based on data from the Bergen Growth Study which goes from birth to age 19. The subjects are solely Norwegian, with no attempt at ensuring they were all bf, with no early solids or formula. The centiles which come from this study for babies under six months are more or less identical to the centiles shown on the WHO charts, but after six months, the centiles for height and weight are gradually higher than the WHO charts. This means that, say, 'Bergen' babies aged one year on the 50th centile are heavier than babies elsewhere also on the 50th centile.

There is no conspiracy in Norway, or in the UK, to skew the data (I think this is what you were suggesting???) or mis-represent anything.

WHO (and UK-WHO) charts show the physiological growth of babies wholly or predominantly breastfed - how 'nature' expects babies to grow, from a full range of ethnicities. The 'Bergen' data shows how babies actually grow, and also reflects the larger-at-birth size of Norwegian babies, who 'nature' would also expect to be bigger at age 1 year.

I think this resolves the issue - if BabyRed's growth curve seemed to change, it was because on one chart he was being plotted with Norwegian babies not necessarily breastfed (though most would have had a lot of breastmilk) and in the UK he was being plotted alongside babies all over the world, if you get me.

However, there is no significant difference below six months, which interestingly is also the case comparing the current charts in the UK with the charts in use in the UK before 2009, which came from a dataset called UK90, which did not differentiate between bf/ff/mixed. It's only after six months or so that babies on the current charts start to 'drift' away from the UK90 centiles.

I hate the patronising bullshit of maternity services.

Ditto.

The message from the HCPs on this thread is that "research" shows that women can't be trusted to receive balanced information around infant feeding. It's deeply, deeply patronising. Not that I'm criticising the individuals themselves, but rather a culture within the NHS that distrusts women so much it believes that educating them about formula will only encourage its use.

Well, people will use formula anyway, so how about a culture change that moves away from withholding information and towards more realistic outcomes re. how babies are going to end up being fed.

As for the "Baby Friendly" initiatives, well they a big part of the problem. It's paying lip service to improving BF rates and not much more.

Basically, I feel that the very fabric of breastfeeding promotion within the NHS is set up with such unrealistic and unachievable aims it's not fit for purpose.

Thanks sparky.

I reckon every mum deserves a pat on the back regardless of their choice of feeding baby.

Cocktails all round (or a mocktail for me and bump)

How can you not afford £100 for a breastpump ??? its right up there with pram cot etc you know the stuff your supposed to make sure you can afford before having a child