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??

Live in Somerset. I have just trained to be a breastfeeding peer supporter. All the local towns have peer supporters who run groups voluntarily to support mums with breastfeeding. The peer supporters also give antenatal talks. So these are all nirmal mums.

Oh right Tiger, not there was nothing at the time when dd was born, and it was very minimal when ds was born. With ds he had severe jaundice, my milk was very slow coming in, despite me trying to express and he had to be hospitalised and fed every 3 hours with me pumping and supplementing formula. When we got home, it wasen't the same, and he would not latch properly due to nipple confusion, so I just used my electric pump, and pumped for 9 months. I figured, it was better than nothing.

Sounds like you did a great job with minimal support

nakedscientists, according to your interpretation of statistics I would have been included in the category of "women who could breastfeed" because my dd was receiving some breastmilk at 4 weeks. She was not, however, receiving enough to keep her from slipping further and further into malnutrition. By the time she was hospitalised her ribs were sticking out and she looked like a famine victim. If she had picked up a bug at that point I don't know if she would have had the strength to fight it off.

I had to wait 10 years to find out that the problem would have been caused by her Ehlers Danlos syndrome rather than my being a shit mum.

I was so committed to breastfeeding that I went on pumping and syringe feeding (with lactation expert support) and in the event breastfed until nearly a year. It took years for my own health to recover. It also meant I had to stick with medication which had serious side effects because it was the only one known to be safe with breastfeeding at that time. I was so badly affected that sometimes I was stumbling around like a zombie- whilst in sole charge of a small baby. Scares me shitless to think of it now. If I had my time again, I would make a different choice and be a better mother.

But heigh-ho, we were a success!

Penguin, you are right about social/societal factors.....these are for more than just approving/not approving of breastfeeding. These factors include the training of HCPs, the practical support available for bf mothers, the ease with which this support is accessed.

Increasinglymiddleaged - I don't see anyone disparaging or not believing the experiences of people with ill babies on this thread. When breastfeeding does not go well, babies end up sick and dehydrated, and that is scary....it's also demoralising for mothers who wanted to breastfeed, and this can last for ages, long after the baby has recovered.

Penguin - the growth trajectory of bf and ff babies is really not significantly different until after about six months. This is not an issue when we are talking about the newborn period. The same chart is used, because it represents normal growth.

Thanks very much Tiger, that is why I think a leaflet is not helpful at all, if pregnant ladies do not have real life NHS breastfeeding support to back that up, and telephone numbers of people that can help in an emergency. Than its useless. Its all very well people saying in Norway, bf rates are 95% blah blah blah, but what support is offered to mothers or pregnant mothers in countries such as Norway. How are they helped if they have difficulties in bf?

It is unfortunately propaganda. How can they say that you or your baby have an increased risk of cancer. They cannot know this. Do what is best for you and your baby. One benefit that is often missed and that I think is very important is that the babies dad and other family can really bond with a baby when they help bottle feed.

I agree Chestervase, they can say bf can decrease the incidence of disease, it will not entirely prevent it. Even bf babies or adults or children who were bf can get, cancer etc.

cory, your experience highlights the difficulty with the stats - 'not being able to produce any milk at all and therefore not able to give the baby any breastmilk at all' is vanishingly rare.....in reality we are talking about a spectrum, complicated by factors related to the baby, as well as the mother, as in your case.

It's interesting you say you felt your little girl's problems (not thriving) were due to you being a shit mum. Obviously, this was far from the truth, and equally obviously, no one said that to you....so what made you feel that? Was this an intense, internal feeling springing from your love and normal desire for your baby to thrive and your sadness/anger with the situation that meant she was not?

I'm trying to get at the reasons why bad breastfeeding experiences make women feel bad, because I feel that in some cases at least, the idea that everyone else is judging and accusing is a projection.

@Chestervase1 but baby's dad and family can also bond by bathing the baby, changing the baby, holding the baby, pushing the baby in the pram. Bonding isn't exclusive to the baby being fed.

"How can they say that you or your baby have an increased risk of cancer"

This is done fairly easily by crunching numbers and comparing groups of people where the only difference is the way the infants are fed.

It's not a precise science - 'risk' never is. It does NOT predict individual outcomes.

You can argue about whether this should be used in information campaigns.

Or you can treat people like grown ups and hope that they have the knowledge and understanding to know that 'risk' is something that can be measured, and applied, without being predictive.

I prefer to treat people like grown ups, on the whole, but if sharing statistics freaks people out and we are not yet at a point where people can be trusted not to have an attack of the vapours, then we should think again.

The bonding argument is pretty shallow.

Bonding does not come from transferring milk from one person/one bottle to a baby.

Bonding comes from a developing relationship.

It's ridiculous, frankly, to use this as a plus point for bottles. You are implying that the fathers of breastfed babies don't bond.

And that's insulting.

Tiktok do you really think it's helpful to say "have an attack of the vapours"? That's such a loaded phrase.

It may be worth mentioning that the World Health Organisation (WHO) very actively promote breastfeeding in the context of nutrition, child health, gender equality and women's rights to name but a few aspects of this health agenda. See www.who.int/topics/breastfeeding/en/

The work they are doing on this topic in the global arena takes a rather different aspect in UK for example, where it might to some people seem propagandist and curtailing personal choice. Forcing a mother to breastfeed when she doesn't want to is unsupportive to her, and at the end of the day it ought to be personal choice once the true facts are known.

Btw, I BF my DC, but that was my personal choice, and I don't have any desire to tell other what they should do. They will probably do that anyway so trying to make them feel guilty for not BF won't achieve much apart from being alienating.

Mychild you asked me for figures: I was wondering naked if anyone knew the total % of problems that lie with the child

I'm sitting here in tears wondering what I did wrong in how I worded my questions to not get flowers and sympathy and treated the same as titty in reply

Of course you are in a hard situation and have done nothing wrong at all in any way shape or form

Thank you naked.

Can you understand what I mean though? Everyone needs to get support to the same level and because of various factors (some mine, some the baby, some yours) that doesn't happen. No one should be made to feel guilty for that.

I prefer to treat people like grown ups, on the whole, but if sharing statistics freaks people out and we are not yet at a point where people can be trusted not to have an attack of the vapours, then we should think again.

Hmmm. I think that true balance isn't given. We aren't given statistics for example on the risks to babies of being admitted to hospital because they were breastfed. It is always the positives.

This 2006 BMJ article challenges the intelligence stuff, but we accept that BFing leads to higher intelligence because others show otherwise. Even though many of us have FF children who are at the top of their classes but that is only 'individual' we are constantly told:
www.bmj.com/content/333/7575/945

Presumably the study above will be rubbished immediately as it doesn't give the expected/ wanted result.

The thing is that I don't doubt that when breastfeeding goes well it has to be best for the baby - powder from a tin cannot compare. But I think grown ups need the full, unbiased picture which I'm not sure we always get actually. As the saying goes lies, lies and damn statistics.

But surely if we look at hunter gatherer societies we would see a large number of infants dying in their early weeks - and we still wouldn't know if was due to insufficient transfer of milk from the baby's end, insufficient supply from the mum, infections, problems during the birth, something else.

"Yeah everyone whose baby ended up in hospital on this thread is making it up hmm. The societal problem is judgement of women whatever they do so your attitude will help no one, however 'well meaning' you are going to claim to be"

I don't understand why people react so strongly to the idea that societal pressures might make bf more difficult or even impossible for some women. Of course unsympathetic family and friends, no culture of bf, no role models and so on is going to make it more difficult. That's not a criticism!

FWIW I believe everyone's stories and hope that things worked out in the end for all of you. Also guilt is, for sure, a rubbish way to make anyone feel.

I think that medical issues cause a lot of problems, these must exist in Norway too, at similar rates, so we can infer that our systems are not helping uphold and support those women who want to breastfeed.

In addition, if we don't have support, then fewer women will WANT to bf because of problems they have seen/heard with other women- fair enough.

What would be better would be that the systems and attitudes of everyone in the NHS and wider society were more conducive to natural feeding (bf) which would mean that more women would sensibly WANT to breastfeed.

This happens in Norway. If a woman of baby can't bf or want to mixed feed or bottle feed then fine, no guilt.

myrtle your analogy with bf-ing adults who don't make 100% best health choices for themselves eg drinking, which increases the risk of breast cancer is not relevant to the choices that parents make on behalf of their DC. They aren't increasing their DC's risk of cancer by doing something which only has an effect on their own body. Babies can't choose obviously, so it seems perfectly reasonable to think it's a shame that babies who would probably have been successfully breastfed were it not for lack of support/knowledge did not have this advantage.

cory - that's awful. My first put almost no weight on. At five weeks the midwife and GP strongly advised me to mix feed. Different situation as my DD has never had a diagnosis of anything.

No, BR, and I think tiktok's suggestion of projection deserves more investigation (by someone). As a comparison, women often cite that they attract negative attention for bf in public. I bf 4 dc (and they were all bf in public probably for 6-8 mths, after that it was mostly at home) and I'd struggle to count even a handful of times I felt anything other than indifference or support. I wonder if the low level judging women experience is projection or misinterpretation.

I don't understand why people react so strongly to the idea that societal pressures might make bf more difficult or even impossible for some women.

It's the implication that physical problems with breastfeeding are not real. For some women the problems are real and to be told it is about society is insulting in the extreme

I bf 4 dc (and they were all bf in public probably for 6-8 mths, after that it was mostly at home) and I'd struggle to count even a handful of times I felt anything other than indifference or support. I wonder if the low level judging women experience is projection or misinterpretation.

Or expectation based on what is read. Have you ever read the comments in the Daily Mail et al about breastfeeding in public it is vile. And it is reasonable to dismiss those type of people and berate me for reading such shite, but they are everywhere sadly.

"It's interesting you say you felt your little girl's problems (not thriving) were due to you being a shit mum. Obviously, this was far from the truth, and equally obviously, no one said that to you....so what made you feel that? Was this an intense, internal feeling springing from your love and normal desire for your baby to thrive and your sadness/anger with the situation that meant she was not? "

Three things:

1. I had internalised the idea that mums ought to be able to breastfeed if they only get enough support and that it's just a question of trying harder to get everything (latch, frequency of feeds etc) right. I don't think I invented that, I think it was because this debate is almost always phrased in terms of giving the mother enough support to persevere and get breastfeeding right. If you think about, this is pretty well the only response discussions of bf problems gets on here: if we only had enough trained support, there shouldn't be a problem. I really believed that. And I had shitloads of kindly and highly trained support. And a positive dh, and a family who took breast-feeding for granted, and friends who breast-fed. My supply was abundant, my latch had been checked again and again, I was doing everything I should, I couldn't see how I could try any harder. I was killing myself and dd was still falling asleep at the breast.

2. Also I am Scandinavian and was enormously proud of our breastfeeding statistics so it felt like I was letting the side down, as if I of all people had no business to fail because, you know, Scandinavians.

3. Afterwards, I had to live with the opposite guilt: that I had put my child at risk (both from malnutrition and from the medication issue), because of my vanity, because it was so important to me to be one of those well informed mothers who showed the right level of commitment. I couldn't bear to step out of that category of "women who get it right".

Four years later, when my son started showing the same symptoms, I topped him up with a bottle. When my GP pointed out that I really wasn't safe with the medication I was on, I listened and gave up breastfeeding. He had a better start in life.