Aloysha - I don't understand why you cannot see that excl bf does not cause dehydration. Effective exclusive BF means the baby is well-hydrated, well-fed, normal blood sugars, gaining weight. If the BF is not effective (because the baby is not transferring sufficient milk), then the baby may be dehydrated/hypoglycaemic/failing to thrive. It is as daft to blame excl BF as a cause as it would be to say 'shoes cause bunions' when we know it is ill-fitting shoes that cause bunions :). Shoes themselves are fine :)
You point to the NHS blunders that left babies affected by hypoglycaemia - quite right they should be compensated, because it is poor care that allowed this to happen, not excl bf. Clearly those babies needed intervention, and it was not available...that's why the parents were compensated. If it was just 'excl bf' to 'blame', then that would be parents' choice and NHS not blameworthy.
Start thinking outside the box a bit more. I don't think women put themselves under pressure because they have heard/read about benefits which are overblown. They want to breastfeed, sometimes putting themselves under pressure to do so, 'cos they feel strongly it is lovely and beneficial experience they want to share with their babies - the actual idea that they might 'poison' their babies if they give formula comes from their heart, not their head.
BTW, the one paper I know of which estimates 15 per cent of mothers unable to excl bf (the Neifert paper?) is very badly done....they defined 'unable to excl bf' by babies who did not put on an ounce a day between 2 weeks and 3 weeks. Not a good, or accurate, or evidence-based definition.
itsmine - I agree that the term 'virgin gut' is unhelpful and off putting. But I don't worry about it - it's not something that's caught on, and I don't often come across anyone who has even heard of the term. People here who say it is a 'common myth' are referring to their own circle - I really do have a wider experience and I can tell you it is not.
However, it's a perfectly respectable, descriptive concept though - that the baby comes into the world with his digestive system 'primed' to receive breastmilk only and that physiologically-speaking, other foods come as a 'surprise' to the newborn gut :) . No one needs use this as a stick to beat mothers with, or a threat, or a judgment. It's just a description of how things are.
Greyelephant - not sure I follow your figures, or how you calculate the percentage reason for readmission. Whatever, reasons for readmission differ across the neonatal period - and you have to separate out healthy term babies from the pre-term or sick babies who come back in, probably later in the first month. The first week is the time when a (small) number of babies are readmitted for feeding problems - and it is not 'pedantic' to say it's not the method of feeding but the way it's done that causes the problems, it is crucial to make the distinction. Effective breastfeeding does not cause feeding problems; babies who are not breastfeeding effectively are the ones at risk, and they should be spotted by the people whose job it is to spot them!
itsmine, Norway is not a homogenous country. Its immigrant population is somewhat higher than the UK's and it is ethnically very mixed. There are historical and cultural differences between Norway and the UK, for sure, but the idea that Norwegian women are less likely to 'do as they are told' than we are and so blindly 'obey' by breastfeeding is bizarre.
bigmamapeach, yes, delayed onset of lactation is real (though it can be iatrogenic - separation of mothers and babies after birth eg in the US and elsewhere, lack of ad lib feeding) and should be watched for. These babies are at risk. Institutional changes might address the iatrogenic causes, and beyond that mothers can be helped and supported to express....but in the absence of donor milk, yes, judiciuous supplementation with formula may well be needed. BTW, you are well behind the times if you think bf support is still banging on about bf being wonderful and healthy etc and harms of formula etc.....areas of it maybe, but the best and newer thinking is more about advocacy and understanding what women want.
The 'excl breastfeed at all costs' message (cited by one poster) is a misunderstanding of campaigns like Baby Friendly which aim to remove insutitiuonal barriers to mothers' choice to bf.
Bertrand you are right - the sadness of not being able to breastfeed (sometimes because of a crappy reason like happened to your poor MIL) can stay with some women for decades. I have had the experience of talking to many women about this - young and old.