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??

@NotMyPenguin (excellent name by the way)
Yes, I'd heard the percentage BF rates in Norway too but wondered if they have a similar demographic giving birth. They have much greater social security etc so women can presumably afford to have babies earlier and have more support available. Their c section rate is 6.6% compared to about 25% here - it seems that women with more complicated births and/or blood loss are more likely to have BF problems.

The other really annoying thing about the NHS BF workshop I did - a chunk of it was devoted to how we could donate our 'excess' milk to the hospital's NICU and how wonderful it was that they'd never had to buy in milk because so much had been donated for the prem babies.

I went away from that imagining I'd be donating my milk and wondering whether to get in some storage bags in advance ready for it. It seemed like the only problem to be encountered was too much milk and here was the solution!

The advice/support from midwives when my daughter was a baby (nine years ago) was pretty abysmal (telling me to just feed on one side for each feed was one such gem I remember!). It was the help of mumsnetters (like tiktok actually) who actually gave me useful practical advice to carry on. I hope the training that midwives get has improved in the last nine years but I very much doubt it. That I reckon is the crux of this debate: it's not women wanting to stop so much, but more the lack of practical help and support for women wanting to make a success of it.

The biggest difference between Norway (and other Scandi countries) and the UK related to infant feeding is the use and entrenchment of formula milk. In the years after ww2, and through the 50s, formula was heavily marketed both to individual consumers and to public health agencies i.e. NHS. In the UK, increasing numbers of hospital delivered babies meant that institutional rules made happy breastfeeding less and less likely. We also had free formula milk (national dried milk) given to all babies in the newly ubiquitous and free baby clinics.

None of this happened in Norway etc. The countries were missed off the marketing push. Small population, many tiny rural or isolated places, poorly organised socialised health care meant these were not fruitful areas for making money.

Result was that formula was not much used at all until the late seventies and this was the same time that breastmilk was found increasingly by research to be worth protecting.

Obviously formula is used in scandinavia, but good parental leave policies and a much healthier attitude to feeding in public plus restrictions on formula marketing have helped maintain breastfeeding as the main way to feed babies.

I don't think it has much to do with birth practices.

Nice to be remembered, soly:)

Yes I agree - the best 'advert' for bf is being able to do it happily and comfortably with good information and support and problem solving when needed. That influences friends, sisters and anyone else around. Crazy to encourage women and then leave them to struggle.

@RidingMyBike very interesting point! Yes, Norway does definitely have much better breastfeeding support (not just at 'point of birth' but in societal ways too).

You are definitely right to pick up on c-section rates as another possible complicating factor; I suspect you are right that this gives Norway an advantage. But both Canada and the US have higher c-section rates than the UK, and still manage better rates of breastfeeding, so there should be other ways of encouraging it too (although in the US I have a terrible feeling it could be due to poor employment protection for pregnant women, meaning some don't go back to work! But Canada is more enlightened in that respect...)

These statistics from 2015 actually seem to show that Norway has a slightly older median age of first birth (28.6 vs 28.3 in the UK) though: ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/6829228/3-13052015-CP-EN.pdf/7e9007fb-3ca9-445f-96eb-fd75d6792965

Wow! How does Norway have such a low c section rate? Very curious

@tiktok There is actually quite a bit of research on the influence of delivery mode on breastfeeding initiation, btw -- it does seem to have some effect.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4847344/

@TheGrumpySquirrel Don't get me started on the unnecessary medicalisation of childbirth! Essentially -- c-sections aren't always necessary, but can come about either through a 'cascade of interventions', or a risk-based approach that prioritises very very small risks of infant mortality over much larger risks of other types of poor outcomes for mother and baby.

I'm not familiar with the situation in Norway, but I know more about birth in the Netherlands, which has a similarly low rate -- in this case it is largely due to low risk births being midwife led as the norm, and home birth is much more common (like, 13-30% vs 2% here!).

"Wow! How does Norway have such a low c section rate? Very curious"

Or is the question why is the rate so high in the U.K.?

It's also worth pointing out that the stillbirth / infant mortality rate in Norway is also half that in the UK (c. 2 in 1,000 births vs 3.5-4 in 1,000 births).

Penguin I am not saying birth has no effect - it's well documented as you say. I am saying that in Scandinavia the history is more - much more - important.

I think you have just the right attitude. The more relaxed you are the better.

"I wonder if part of it is all the class and lifestyle connotations of it.

Because you can't choose to breastfeed. It's not entirely within your control. Some people can't do this thing that the NHS keeps telling you is the 'best."

And that's very difficult, if you have all your other ducks lined up. Which is probably why people keep saying that it is worse to live by a busy road, or in a damp house or whatever."

I have always thought this.

BF is easy for some, others struggle. Sadly social conventions certainly don't support BF in general (tits are seen as sexual rather than food source), feeding on demand, EBF, extended bf etc.

Everyone wants what's 'best' for their child. I'd imagine that people who struggle with bf have a lot to process as they are not able to do what is understood to be the 'best' for their child in that particular instance.

Early parenthood especially with PFB is such a sensitive time anyway and one of the first experiences as a new parent is feeding the child, of course a lot of negative emotions will be attached to this if a mother does not bf or not for the suggested minimum of 6 months.

It all squares out at the end though, some of us are able to afford private schooling, some are able to EBF, others have long happy marriages with supportive extended family, few have it all.

I like "give a tit for a bit" more than breast is best. Taking BF one day at a time is so much better than having the prescribed 6 months which can seem like an eternity. Any BM is great especially collostrum, feeding your baby just one week will have given them an incredible boost to their immunity. Longer is better but only if you manage psychologically and or practically. You don't even need to BF expressing and bottle feeding is fine too.

How does one know whether the bottle contains ff or bm anyway, none would know.

You don't even need to BF expressing and bottle feeding is fine too.

How does one know whether the bottle contains ff or bm anyway, none would know.

I exclusively expressed for the best part of a year. However, it's worth noting that expressed milk is not the same as BF milk, because you don't get the signals from baby's saliva about what they need so the milk is more "generic". And people will always assume that bottles contain formula, until they can smell that it isn't.

You know- if anyone asked me about expressing and bottle feeding I would probably advise against- all the hassle of both types of feeding! But I do think that one of the main advantages of bf once established is the convenience. Expressing then bottles must be so exhausting and time consuming....

'if anyone asked me about expressing and bottle feeding I would probably advise against- all the hassle of both types of feeding'

Who cares as long as a mother actually wanted to actually do it? maybe they want to let their dhs do a bit and guess what, men are very able at sterilising bottles etc

If anyone asked me about it I wouldn't advise them against it all, I'd point out how to do it and you know, let them decide. That's just me though, all for respecting other people's choices.

"Who cares as long as a mother actually wanted to actually do it? "

Well of course. I meant if someone asked me whether I thought it was a good idea.........

Is it really the place of anyone who is not an hcp caring for a mother and baby to "advise against" any form of feeding?

I forgot- nobody is allowed to have an opinion on this thread! My mistake. Makes having a discussion a bit tricky......

My DH worked away at the time so I got no benefit there. When he was home and able to give DD a bottle I would invariably be pumping at the same time anyway. It was incredibly hard work but conventional BF didn't work for lots and lots of reasons and I felt I was doing the best for my baby by expressing, which was motivating even when she was sleeping through and I needed to wake up every 4 hours to pump anyway.

It was the best option for me and my scientific decision making preferences.

There's a difference between having an opinion and advising against something. In my opinion.

I don't think it's my place to advise another mother how to feed her baby. That is very definitely not my business.

Any other mother has total bodily autonomy and can feed her baby however she chooses.

And yes, if niece of mine, for example, asked me what I thought about expressing then bottle feeding, I would give my opinion. And my opinion, having watched a couple of friends doing it, that it's exhausting, and combines the particular difficulties of both types of feeding in one. Obviously it's an individual choice.

But you didn't say give your opinion. You said you would advise against it.

That's a totally different thing

Oh come on. If a friend or relative asked me about choosing to exclusively express I would say how much work it is and suggest that they try and avoid it if at all possible. Would that be advising and wrong?