to be glad I can't remember being breastfed?

[retrocutie]

I just read this article in the, erm, Daily Mail. In it, a woman who is breastfeeding her 5 year-old and 2 year-old talks of her wish to still be breastfeeding when her kids are 10 years old. This makes me feel a bit uneasy. A child of 10 will remember being breastfed and I just think it is a bit yucky. Sorry. I am glad I wasn't still breastfed at that age. Some children are going through puberty at 10… I dunno, it just seems a bit, well, wrong somehow. At some point it becomes inappropriate, surely?

Not only that, but as is often the case in these families, the poor husband has been banished to the spare room so that the mother can co-sleep with the DC. Just seems a bit unfair. I feel more than a bit sorry for him.

AIBU?

Just because breast feeding MAY reduce the risk of these things does not in any way mean that formula feeding increases the risk of them. It's not poison fgs.

Ridiculously offensive.

NICE guidance refers to a link between bed sharing and SIDS even where none of the other risk factors (smoking etc) are present

www.nice.org.uk/news/press-and-media/draft-recommendations-to-tackle-sudden-infant-death-syndrome-published-for-consultation

NICE is updating its guidance after the Department of Health asked it to review its recommendations last year. This request followed new research which suggested sharing a bed with a baby could increase the risk of SIDS, even among non-smokers.

Admittedly this is only from page 1 of a Google search but all the info I've had from the NHS says co-sleeping is a risk factor for SIDS.

But we all make parenting choices that are best for our individual situation and saying that doing something that has slightly increased risk factors is harmful is just wildly unhelpful (at best) and actively harmful (see what I did there) at best as these choices are not made in a vacuum and this kind of emotive language is likely to cause additional distress to the mother which does NO babies any good.

"Just because breast feeding MAY reduce the risk of these things does not in any way mean that formula feeding increases the risk of them. It's not poison fgs.

Ridiculously offensive."

From the Lullaby Trust (the UK's main SIDS charity) here

"As long ago as 1965 it was shown that babies under 3 months who died of SIDS were less likely to be breastfed than infants who did not die. Since then, numerous studies have supported the protective effects of breastfeeding, with one overview report concluding that breastfeeding reduces the incidence of SIDS by approximately half.

Even a brief period of breastfeeding can be protective for your baby. It has been shown that both partial and exclusive breastfeeding have been associated with a lower SIDS rate, but that exclusive breastfeeding was associated with the lowest risk."

It's absolutely illogical to allow that breastfeeding reduces the risk of SIDS (or diabetes or whatever) but insist that not breastfeeding doesn't increase it. You must see that? And not breastfeeding = formula feeding. There are only two choices when it comes to feeding babies. Formula feeding increases the likelihood that a baby will die from SIDS.

That doesn't mean you can't or shouldn't do it, or that it might not be the best choice or only choice for you and your baby, because SIDS is rare - but how on earth can you make an informed choice if you won't see things for what they are?

"at best as these choices are not made in a vacuum and this kind of emotive language"

Saying something increases or decreases risk is not in any way emotive language. Putting a baby to sleep on their back decreases the risk of cot death. Putting them to sleep on their front increases the risk of SIDS. Neither of those statements is emotive - they are simply factual. In which case, why is 'breastfeeding reduces the risk of SIDS' not emotive, but 'not breastfeeding/formula feeding increases the risk of SIDS' offensive and unacceptable?

You may have strong emotions about your feeding choices, but it's not the facts that are the problem. They are what they are. It's up to you how you feel about them and what you choose to do about it.

"but all the info I've had from the NHS says co-sleeping is a risk factor for SIDS"

I think it's a very complex issue. So many factors to 'control' for - feeding method, gestation of baby, smoking and alcohol consumption, well being of baby, parents' BMI, condition of sleeping surface and use of covers. My understanding is that if feeding method is controlled for(bed sharing is more hazardous for non-breastfed babies) along with smoking, alcohol, and gestation of baby (preterm babies are at greater risk) then there is not clear evidence of risk, and bed sharing may even confer some reduction in risk (because it supports and protects exclusive breastfeeding, which in itself reduces risk of SIDS).

But sudden infant death is unexplained, so factors like smothering etc don't come into it. On a practically anecdotal level countries that predominantly co sleep have some of the lowest rates of sids, assumed to be because of the heightened awareness of parents,their proximity and easier BF meaning people bf for longer.

www.lullabytrust.org.uk/document.doc?id=297

Does not include formula feeding as one of the risk factors for sids.

Just because breastfeeding may decrease the risk does not therefore mean the risk increases if you use formula.Surely it would just mean that the risk of sids remains unchanged?

Anyway as said below sids is still unexplained.

Minifingers I'm astounded at your hypocrisy and I honestly can't believe you're not aware of it.

You quote one study saying 'breast feeding reduces risk of SIDS' and then you go on to another and say breastfeeding is better for your babies brain. But you completely ignore the fact there are other variables that could have come into play which are not breastfeeding itself like the location a baby is likely to sleep in or the class or intelligence of it's kind of parents which may tend to be different for breastfed babies.

But then when a study comes up that you don't like (cosleeping and SIDS) suddenly you're completely aware of all the other variables which might affect it. Hmmm.

Incidentally, women who can't or just aren't lucky enough to have children. Would you like to give them your little lecture on how it's their fault they've got breast cancer because they didn't lactate?

Um - if breastfeeding decreases the incidence of SIDS, then not breastfeeding increases it. Logic surely?

I take the health and wellbeing of fully breastfed babies as the standard against which to measure the advantages and disadvantages of formula feeding, because breastfeeding is the biologically normal way to feed babies. Most health comparisons use the biological norm as the standard against which to measure the impact of an intervention. FF is an intervention in the normal biology of maternity and early infancy.

It is interesting though, that as a society we've chosen to discuss this issue, the pros on cons, in such a way as to present formula feeding as the standard, with breastfeeding as a sort of 'optional extra' - like taking vitamins on top of an already balanced diet. It's probably got a lot to do with the fact that ff is such a culturally entrenched thing in the UK. It's a bit like the whole obesity debate. The more obesity there is, the more self-conscious we get about our language when we're discussing it.

Formula feeding doesn't increase the statistical likelihood of an individual baby being a victim of SIDS, it just means that formula fed babies are more at risk than breast feeding.

A mother who FF is not putting her baby at harm in any way, it just means the baby doesn't have the protective factors that BF babies have.

It doesn't mean harm is being deliberately caused.

No...the risk is x. Breastfeeding makes it x-1 say. Ff makes it x. Therefore not increasing it, just not decreasing it. It doesn't make it x+1, which would be increasing it above the base level.

Um - maybe in your warped version of logic but if it isn't a risk factor it obviously does nothing to affect the risk.

I like how you've ignored aermingers response highlighting your hypocrisy. I find as a society breast feeding is rammed down mothers throats from the outset and people like you just make many feel guilty if it's not successful for them.

Well explained ninky

Thank you ninky !

" it just means that formula fed babies are more at risk than breast feeding"

Sorry this is illogical.

"A mother who FF is not putting her baby at harm in any way, it just means the baby doesn't have the protective factors that BF babies have."

Babies are born with immature immune systems and breastmilk has evolved to compensate for this vulnerability. In other words, a breastfed baby doesn't have 'extra' immunity, it has the immunity that nature intended it to have. Formula fed babies are left more vulnerable to infections as newborns because they are deprived of this compensatory factor, hence higher rates of illness, gp appointments and hospital admissions in small babies who are not breastfed.

minifingers you can't say that increased risk is the same as harm. You just can't. What if the harm you are risking never occurs? Where is the harm then? In taking the risk at all? But we all take risks with our babies and children, every day (crossing the road, say). Are you seriously suggesting every single parent in the world is causing their child harm every day by making decisions that carry risks?! Nonsense. Your 'logic' makes no sense.

I am a co-sleeping breastfeeder. You can pretend I am just getting upset about 'my choices' all you like but that's not it at all. I think the attitude you're peddling that formula causes harm is disgraceful, that's all.

And yes to the previous poster saying you confidently ignore the guidelines when it comes to co-sleeping, something you approve of. Has it ever occurred to you that co-sleeping involves sharing a mattress? Often a softer one that the ones sold specifically for babies? So some of the risk comes from the mattress (secondhand or used by others mattresses being a SIDS risk). I have made the decision that the small increase of risk doesn't outweigh the massive benefit to my family of co-sleeping.

I imagine formula feeders have either made a similar choice, or had no choice to formula feed.

I said 'harmful' is emotive language because it IS and it shouldn't enter a bf/ff debate. Increased vs decreased risk isn't the same in terms of how it makes people feel. We do the issues bf mothers face - like feeling comfortable publically bf - no good AT ALL if we set up such a ridiculous mud-slinging match between ff and bf.

I am well aware of babies immune systems mini but it still doesn't mean that FF mothers are causing harm.

There is a huge difference between not providing protective factors and causing harm.

I FF dd and mix fed ds, never had to visit a GPwhen they were babies. They had tge odd stomach bug, but nothing to warrent a GP visit, all children can get these bf or not.

minifingers you're misunderstanding the meaning of 'caused'.

It may well be that the reduction of SIDS associated with breastfeeding is due to other factors like where the baby is likely to sleep when breastfed or socioeconomic factors like the parents of breastfed children being better educated and more knowledgable about prevention or being able to afford a better standard of baby gear (eg not second hand mattresses).

It's not scientific to say that it's 'caused' by breastfeeding. And to some extent downright irresponsible. For example if a mother can't breastfeed (which is the case for adoptees anyone has to accept) then you shouldn't just rule out the other factors such as having a baby sleep close to you, being aware of things such as hygiene and back sleeping and not reusing old mattresses. Nor should mothers who breastfeed be told that it's a magic pill against SIDS when it's not and they may need to factor in other things such as having the baby sleep close to you and being aware of other SIDS prevention methods.

And it is hypocrisy. You are in favour of co-sleeping and you appear to be perfectly able to understand this principle when it supports something you like and you can reel off a list of other factors which affect the likelihood of SIDS when co-sleeping such as smoking, alcohol, bedding.

Yet when it comes to SIDS and breastfeeding you suddenly become unable to understand exactly the same principle.

So basically you are choosing to cherry pick what you understand to support your own favoured parenting methods right?

Pomeral claps. Excellent post.

Totally agree pomeral, fanrastic post.

But some babies ARE harmed by not being breastfed.

The medical literature shows that this is so.

And I say this as someone who has ff one of her babies.

If someone came along with a brand new food for babies tomorrow, maybe something made completely in the lab from synthetic ingredients, I'd want to know whether it was safer, as safe, or less safe than both formula and breast milk. So would you.

You would expect the research into this product to compare it to standard formula. If it consistently showed that it was associated with higher rates of illness, including SIDS and diabetes, when compared to the formula you are already using, surely you wouldn't be shouting anyone down who chose to discuss that fact, on the basis that it made people who wanted to use it (perhaps because it was cheaper or easier to prepare than standard formula) or people who had to use it (because their babies couldn't have breast milk or standard formula) emotionally uncomfortable.

Or maybe you would.

Maybe you have a different set of priorities. In my life as a parent I've come across a lot of information which has made me uncomfortable about some of my parenting choices. I feel uncomfortable and guilty about things I've done as a parent that I can't change - things like going back to work five weeks after giving birth, and having my children late in life (one of my children has ASD which I know may be linked to higher maternal age). You won't find me on these forums asking people not to talk about these things because they make me feel bad - my choices and my feelings about them are my responsibility not yours. Information is not a personal attack.

As for breastfeeding being 'shoved down people's throats - I'd respectfully suggest that context is everything. Engage in a debate about how a baby is fed on an internet debate board and you really need to just suck it up. If you find the discussion emotionally difficult then don't engage in it - nobody is forcing you to.

I agree with minifingers...

I was obviously not referring to it being rammed down my throat on an Internet forum about breastfeeding. That was my real life experience

And some are harmed by being breastfed, especially if for whatever reason the baby is not able to breastfeed effectively, and is dehydrated and hungry. For a lot if mothers, formula is not a choice but a necessity, either their baby is fed or its not.

"It may well be that the reduction of SIDS associated with breastfeeding is due to other factors like where the baby is likely to sleep when breastfed or socioeconomic factors like the parents of breastfed children being better educated and more knowledgable about prevention or being able to afford a better standard of baby gear (eg not second hand mattresses)."

Yes - but the research controls for all the factors, such as socio economic status, smoking (smoking is also associated with lower rates of breastfeeding, and higher rates of SIDS), and more likely to bedshare, which (as you say) is currently believed to possibly contribute to higher rates of SIDS because of the issue of overheating. That's what decent quality research does - it tries to control for as many variables as possible in order to isolate the effect of particular behaviours. I respect the information given by the Lullaby Trust and by the NHS - they have waited many years to include advice to breastfeed as a SIDS prevention strategy in order to allow for a body of decent evidence to accumulate - one which properly controls for the multitude of factors which may impact on susceptibility to SIDS.

"It's not scientific to say that it's 'caused' by breastfeeding. And to some extent downright irresponsible. For example if a mother can't breastfeed (which is the case for adoptees anyone has to accept) then you shouldn't just rule out the other factors such as having a baby sleep close to you, being aware of things such as hygiene and back sleeping and not reusing old mattresses."

But nobody is doing this are they? alert - straw man argument!

Parents should be given information about all the things which are associated with SIDS reduction. ALL the things. It is up to them how many of the recommendations they follow

"Nor should mothers who breastfeed be told that it's a magic pill against SIDS when it's not"

Again, nobody is doing this. Nobody thinks breastfeeding is a magic pill. It appears to reduce the incidence of SIDS by about a half, but there are other things that are important to consider - smoking in pregnancy, prone sleeping etc.

Have to ask you - why are you implying that I or anyone is presenting breastfeeding as a magic bullet which confers 100% protection against all illness? Nobody here has said this or implied it, least of all me. It's what they call a 'straw man argument' (see above). Ie, you take a point which has not been made, but which is easy to refute. You argue against it in your response as though the poster you are answering HAS said it. Other lazy readers see it and latch onto it. Perhaps they have only skim read or not read at all the post you're referring to, but they now have in their head that someone is arguing that breastfeeding is a magic bullet which prevents all illness. NOTE: nobody has said or implied it, so there is no need for you to address it in your response.

"And it is hypocrisy. You are in favour of co-sleeping and you appear to be perfectly able to understand this principle when it supports something you like and you can reel off a list of other factors which affect the likelihood of SIDS when co-sleeping such as smoking, alcohol, bedding."

"Yet when it comes to SIDS and breastfeeding you suddenly become unable to understand exactly the same principle. confused"

Not sure what you're saying here? I'm not saying that people should or shouldn't breastfeed. I'm not passing judgement on your parenting choices. I'm saying that breastfed babies as a group get less sick, less often than formula fed babies as a group, and that some babies will get sick from not being breastfed. I'd also argue that whether you can perceive it or not as an individual, how we feed our babies does affect them - their development and their health. You know - you are what you eat. It's not a particularly radical idea. I don't think expressing that view should open you up to a slapping down on the boards. It's a perfectly reasonable stance.

In the end, all parenting choices have risks and benefits for us and for our babies. I have no problem with people making different choices, and I'm not making a case for having made perfect choices myself.

And TBH - it's sad that these discussions always come down to someone making a playground accusation along the lines of 'you think you're better than me'! We're adults. We shouldn't engage in that sort of personal crap.