To think the 'information' the midwife gave me is almost propaganda?

[ethelfleda]

Recently had 24 week appointment. This is our first. Midwife asked if I had thought about feeding yet. I said I plan on breastfeeding. I say 'plan' because (as with everything else baby related) I am trying to keep an open mind as from what I hear, things don't always go according to plan! So I will try hard to breastfeed but I won't beat myself up if it doesn't work out for us.
She handed me a 20 odd page pamphlet thing and said it contained useful information on caring for a new born.

I started to read it today thinking it would be basic NHS info on how to feed, wind and change your baby etc. It was actually 20 odd pages of info telling me basically that if i don't breastfeed, my baby is more likely to develop cancer (as am I) as well as be admitted to hospital in their first year of life etc etc among other very scary statistics.
The language used was shocking IMO! And seemingly designed to make women who don't/can't breastfeed feel awful! Has anyone else had this information handed to them and thought it was way over the top??

Breastfeeding is so dependant on each individual circumstance. I think that the paperwork you are given is supposed to reflect the WHO guidelines and in many countries who fall under WHO it most definitely is the best option (because of widespread disease etc).

I struggled to BF first time and ended up having my DS admitted to SCBU with dehydration and a feeding tube inserted through which he was fed formula by the staff until my milk established. It took five long emotional days and when I told the nurses I wanted to formula feed I was met with "well you can't stay in with him anymore if you do." We were kept in for ten days in all after he was born and I've since found out after requesting and reading his notes that if he had been put exclusively on formula he would have been released that same day or at least the day after. This was seven years ago and I really felt way more pressured by that than any literature I was given.

I must admit it is cheaper and the main benefit for me was it stopped my periods for six months after birth too! It helped me to bond with him no end. I did opt to FF my second child (my DD) but that was because I was on blood pressure meds after having her and they were concerned about the effect of those on the baby. I had no choice effectively!

Just treat it as information - you'll be thrown a lot of that this next few weeks and dependant on how things go for you it might be a moot point anyway!

Congratulations though OP - it's an amazing time!

Can I just share the information I was given by my breast cancer surgeon? The reduction in risk of breast cancer by BF was actually based on observations from the third world where women were spending most of their reproductive years constantly BF, they had huge families and BF each one until the next was born!
In our society we tend to have two or three children a few years apart and BF for 6 or 12 months, you just can't use those studies from the third world to say BF offers protection! As a highly regarded surgeon he is well used to interpreting statistics and finding the flaws in so called "evidence ". It really upsets him when women he diagnoses feel guilty that they may have somehow brought this horrible disease on themselves because they didn't BF, when in all likelihood it wouldn't have made any difference.

missy could you suggest to your breast cancer surgeon that he urgently feeds this back to the people that produce the information on breastfeeding in the NHS? It seems crazy that they can continue to mention the reduction in risk of cancer if this isn't true and is just scaremongering.

The thing is the Department of Health have obviously made the decision that supposed benefits can be overstated in their bid to raise BF numbers, it's very hard to stop them when they are on a mission! They were forced to re write leaflets on cancer screening which were misleading, but only after years of arguments.

Missy that is interesting! Thanks for sharing. I wonder how much of the other "evidence" is flawed

That's really interesting missy.

It is, but also anecdotal.

Is this widely known publicly? Is there a campaign to get the information changed?

I had read also that the reduction in breast cancer following BF for 12 months is very small.But, you wouldn't know it from reading all the breast cancer info in women's mags etc. I breast fed both times but only a few months each time. At that time, nobody in my family had had breast cancer. My mum went on to get it and I did feel If I had known I would have tried harder to continue, I did feel bad. But to later read how small the decrease was, I felt a bit better.

Why do all the breast cancer charities mention it too? Why have they been sucked in by this dodgy research? What's their agenda here?

I'm not saying it's dodgy but they don't really know why or if but just that there appears to be less incidence of breast cancer amongst those that breast-fed long term. If it was based on people in the third world, then those women's genetics and diet would be different to women in the western world so breastfeeding is not the only difference.

It sounds like the info I was given in pregnancy two years ago about breastfeeding, I also did an NHS workshop about it. I lapped it up at the time, thinking BF sounded great and why wouldn't anyone do that for their baby.

Except none of this info mentioned any practicalities, just what turned out to be pro-BF stuff with no balance. It turned out that my medical history and birth meant my milk was highly likely to be delayed coming in. No one said anything about this even being a possibility. I did all the things I'd been told to do - BF within ten mins of birth, fed on demand, skin to skin etc. My EBF baby ended up in SCBU with hypernatraemic dehydration being fed formula thru an NG tube. My milk eventually came in at 8 weeks - still BF now at 20 months. Nowhere did it mention milk being delayed, nowhere that combination feeding was entirely possible (the info was more that any formula at all was BAD). Furthermore, the hospital was so anti formula they wouldn't provide any help or advice about sterilising etc - this sort of thing puts babies in danger!

The difference between the info I was given and the reality ended up with me having PND and struggling to bond with my baby. I felt like a total failure as all the info in advance said it was straightforward and natural, whereas it was anything but.

What I wish I'd been told - what to do about milk being delayed, what can cause it to happen, how to deal with tongue-tie. How combi-feeding is entirely possible. To research formula and bottles in advance just in case. I had my choice removed - I ended up using the formula they had in the hospital when we were discharged instead of looking at the different options.

For gods sake I'm sick and tired of this debate. You were given the information because of cause they want you to breastfeed because it's better full stop. However, that's not saying that mums that can't breastfeed should be thrown to the lions. It's not propaganda it's facts designed to help you. Those that question those facts are deluded. How can a synthetic milk be better than a natural one designed for the baby. They are just trying to help you. Take it for what it is-information. Do your best then move on.

www.fitpregnancy.com/baby/breastfeeding/does-breastfeeding-really-reduce-your-risk-breast-cancer

Well if it's not relevant and can't be applied to UK women then it's dodgy to provide the information as a fact in these kinds of leaflets. And it's obviously wrong enough for your breast cancer surgeon to be bothered by it and mention it to you, and for you to want the information removed from NHS information.

Also, I do consider it propaganda. What we were told turned out to be not entirely true. Studies based on observation. Studies based on populations in developing countries instead of my own. Lots of assumptions.

Some of the stuff we were told that turned out not to be totally true:

• it's free/formula is expensive. In my experience formula cost £5 a week, extra food for me to produce the breast milk and maintain my weight cost more than £5 extra a week. Breast pump hire or purchase is expensive. So is the purchase of nursing bras/tops etc. Over a year 50/50 formula and BF worked out about the same cost.
• BF is convenient. It is in the sense that you don't have to make bottles in the middle of the night. But it isn't convenient having to take a baby with you everywhere you go once they're bigger or express milk for them in advance.
• Giving formula will stop your milk coming in. Nope, it still comes in and stops your baby suffering brain damage/death whilst you wait for it to come in.
• it's an amazing bonding experience. Nope - I loathed having the baby sucking away at my boob. I much preferred looking into her eyes whilst I gave her a bottle. BF really mucked up our relationship initially.

I also remain convinced that more people would start and still be BF for longer if the info they were given in advance was more realistic so they were prepared for what to expect.

There's no two ways about it, breastfeeding is better for your baby - end of discussion.

However, if you can't or choose not too that's fine too as a fed baby is best but why are people trying to argue that the NHS shouldn't promote breastfeeding as best?! The benefits are very clear!

But what would the NHS be gaining by lying if it is propaganda?
Cynically, the NHS promotes lifestyle choices that reduce the (financial) burden on them, so I am inclined to believe that if they are promoting breastfeeding then it must have long term positive (relative to formula) health benefits for baby and/or mother.
Realistically, yes, formula may be nutritionally adequate, but what about immunologically? If there's some 'bug' going round, baby can be protected by mum's antibodies.

It's a difficult issue because scientific evidence informs that breastfeeding is optimum... But, here's the rub.. Try telling that to people who just don't want to... They go nuts, screaming and kicking off about "shaming". So what are we as a society, supposed to do exactly - not inform people of the truth and therefore allow the myth of formula being "just as good" to continue?
Yes there absolutely needs to be a great deal more support for mothers struggling to feed there babies - but careful, if you press for more breastfeeding support then the "formula is just as good" crowd, start shouting about "pressure" and "discrimination". It's bullocks, if you don't want to breastfeed then don't... but then kindly, don't then bash those who are pro scientific evidence based information or shock horror dare I say it... WHISPERS pro breastfeeding?

What made me feel better about my 'failure' to EBF: I found out via my work that a hundred years before my DD was born 15% of babies died before their first birthday. People were trying to start milk banks in all cities to provide milk for babies whose mothers were struggling to feed them (or who had died during birth). So BF never always worked out. Formula was originally invented to reduce infant mortality.

Some research I took part in about stigmatisation of FF mothers:
www.swansea.ac.uk/media-centre/latest-news/mothersaremadetofeelguiltywhethertheybreastfeedorformulafeedtheirbaby.php

Older lady talking - It is much more important that you stay sane and functioning, and generally care for your child 'well enough'. So stick with your attitude - if breastfeeding works out - great. If not, well do the other thing. We can all get a bit too 'child centred' - they are tougher than we think.

They might have been even more intelligent and even healthier if they had been breast fed.

Lol what utter nonsense.

Breast when it goes well is the best way of feeding. There are risks involved with formula feeding as it is not optimal, but most people who are FF are not damaged by it. And for those who had mums who couldn't breastfed they would quite possibly be dead.