To think my sister is selfish for choosing not to breast feed?

[IHateWinter]

She hasn't even had her baby yet but has already decided that she doesn't want to try it and if she does she'll only do it for a month at most.

I've told her that breast milk is healthier and gives the baby antibodies etc, but she won't listen to me. I gave her a baby book that explains why breast is best but she won't read that either.

What else can I say? I worry about my future neice. I understand that she many not want to carry on doing it for a long time, but I really do feel that if you have a baby you have the responsibility to try and give it the best start in life. I really feel she is more concerned about what her breasts will look like than her babies needs.

I'm suprised by how strongly I feel. I find myself avoiding her in case I end up saying something upsetting. Am I being unreasonable?

Oh, and before anyone says, I AM NOT A TROLL I am a regular poster who has name changed.

"because they spend millions giving free formula to poor people maybe?"

Or because they spend millions treating avoidable illness in children linked to low rates of bf?

Either way - I can't find it in myself to be cynical about any public health campaign which results in better health for children enerally, especially those children who come from the poorest and most deprived sectors of society, who are the least likely to be breastfed and have the most to gain from increases in bf support.

In fairness to the OP she has said that she's listened to what's been said here, and will not be pressurising her sister.

sabire - but if you believed a lot of what some of the very anti-formula (that is really what they are rather than pro breast) people said there'd be a case for the Government to legislate against formula being available for general use at all. Instead they allow choice for all by subsidising formula for the poor.

The facts are that formula is a viable alternative to breast in this country and the effects of various types of feeding - breast, formula, solids and ways of feeding infants are not really understood. There is a variety of conflicting research, there is not only research which concludes 'breast is best'.

Curiosity - there is no research that concludes formula is better though.

I agree some pro bf groups can go too far in demonising ff. But, like it or not, it is clear that bf is the better option. In certain situations, not receiving breastmilk (the physiological norm) can cause problems for some babies. The vast majority will be "fine" on formula. As tiktok says, it's very difficult to prove causation but we can be sure from the numerous studies done that bf is a better choice - all else being equal. I don't think that can really be argued with..

bellissima - are you meaning me? You have no idea what I think about vaccination programmes! As it happens I think I'm pretty consistent in my views - I would support vaccination programmes without individuals being hectored or forced into vaccinating if they choose not to, as long as they have access to all the information needed. All my kids have had all their jabs.

I don't believe in 'controlling' people.

curiosity - all epidemiological studies with human beings looking retrospectively at health rely at least in part on questionnaires. In addition, the Millennium cohort accessed medical records (not sure about the Dundee cohort).

I think you may be somewhat unaware of what research like this can do. Their hypothesis was that infant feeding makes an impact on health - they have to have a hypothesis in order to 'ask' the numbers that result from their study. There could be another study that looks at nursery care as a confounding variable I agree. Socio-economic data is a proxy for housing conditions - if you start asking questions about 'damp' specificially you are getting more detailed than most research would be required to be.

The results of both these cohort studies are consistent with others in other parts of the Western world.

zooropa - I would conclude that breast was better from the fact that breastmilk is what human babies are meant to drink and formula milk is cow's milk and is what cow babies are meant to drink. In my mind the studies actually don't prove anything to me at all other than infant feeding is a subject of scientific interest into which research is conducted.

It frustrates me that people put so much weight on the studies. If you read a lot of them they are problematic in their methodology - like the dundee and millenium cohorts. I don't believe it is always a better option to breastfeed in this country either.

My choice was to breastfeed my two (soon to be four) children and they have never (will never have) formula. It's just my choice. It is a partly selfish choice in that I particularly value the freedom breastfeeding gives me. Breastfeeding is hard in the beginning and I would give up if I mixed fed at all and once the feeding is sorted there's no incentive at all to give formula feeds because breast is so much easier for me. I don't think my choice is what everyone in this country should do because I'm not living their lives. I don't understand their feelings.

I have never tried to make a point that formula was better. The point I made was formula is a viable alternative to breastmilk which it is, in this country. IMO it's not a choice anyone should make for anyone else even if they think the person is making a choice for a stupid reason and people pressuring other people and beating them with research studies makes me very uncomfortable.

curioisity - where is the 'conflicting' research that says promoting formula feeding would be a sensible public health measure? Or that babies are routinely better off being formula fed?

I think formula should be freely available, cheaply, and easily accessible - where has the idea come from that it should be legislated against to make it unavailable? I resent views being ascribed to 'pro breastfeeding people' which I have never seen expressed anywhere!

You suggest that because the govt spends 'millions' on free formula for poor families, they are interested in supporting bf.

You really are speaking from a position of ignorance here. 'Healthy Start' vouchers are exchangable for foods other than formula milk as well. The HS vouchers would still be in place even if all these mothers breastfed - so the net saving to the public purse in vouchers would be nil.

"There is a variety of conflicting research, there is not only research which concludes 'breast is best'"

The weight of good quality research overwhelmingly comes down on the side of breastfeeding making an important contribution to improved health in children, according to a wide range of measures, which is why every single large health organisation (the NHS, the WHO, The RCOG, the RCM, the AAP etc etc) supports its continuing promotion. It's important that new parents are aware that there is no serious dispute about this.

"but if you believed a lot of what some of the very anti-formula (that is really what they are rather than pro breast) people"

This is nonsense. The 'polite' debate on this subject idealises breastfeeding to spare the feelings of those who can't bf or have chosen not to. Why should formula be the only commercial product which can't be criticised or questioned? Why shouldn't we compare it to its main competitor (breastmilk) by way of flagging up its deficiencies? Or do we all have to tow the same line - that formula is 'fine'? Isn't it a matter of individual judgement? We read the research and come to our own conclusions.

tiktok - ROFL that doesn't make it more reliable! Is that the argument then? Most research uses questionnaires... "but mum, everyone else has NIKE trainers!"

Just because the research is not required to take these things into account does not make it more reliable in it's conclusion.

I am very sceptical of these kinds of pieces of research into infant feeding in developed countries because really I feel it is impossible, by the very nature of the subject, to reach a truly reliable conclusion. Any research that feels it has reached a reliable conclusion, I believe, would have to have condensed the investigation too much so it was not applicable to a real-life situation.

I'm very aware of how research works. I'm very aware that it is necessary to have the hypothesis, this isn't what I was criticising. Before you conduct the research you make the hypothesis. I also know that it is necessary to conduct the research impartially so as to avoid influencing the results. I feel much of this research is not being conducted truly impartially.

Socio-economic class of children is not necessarily defined entirely by maternal occupation (as in these studies) in terms of impacts on health, and socio-economic status most certainly says much less about general living conditions (damp e.t.c.) in the UK today than it used to.

How can you actually conduct a piece of research into the various effects of various types of feeding which would produce a reliable conclusion? I would argue that you cannot, the variables are too great.

The fact that studies which were conducted in similar ways formed similar conclusions is not 'further proof', it shouldn't be surprising really.

YAB(a bit)U - I remember breastfeeding my dd when my sister was pregnant. She had had her first child years previously, hadn't bf'd and told me that she thought it was a bit gross and "wanted her body back to herself" when the baby was born. I was a bit annoyed at her, mainly because she was more or less implying that what I was doing for my dd was disgusting but basically thought that was up to her and she was entitled to her own opinion. Lo and behold, when her new dd was born six months later she was breast feeding like a trouper and continued to do so till her dd was 1.6yrs. You never can tell what people will do in the end. Also, I wasn't breastfed and I am perfectly healthy so I'm sure your niece will not suffer from being on the bottle.

"it's not a choice anyone should make for anyone else"

Is there anyone here who believes that women don't have a right to make an informed choice?

As for it being a 'valid choice' - well yes, it's a strongly entrenched social practice that became the norm long before good scientific research was in place to examine its impact on infant health.

In India it's an entrenched practice in rural communities to give prelacteal feeds to newborns - clarified butter, unprocessed cows milk, or sugar water. In this country it used to be normal practice to introduce solids at 6 weeks.......

Because these practices are or were socially normal, does that make them 'valid'? Isn't it a matter of individual judgement?

And what else can we rely on if not for
research, to guide us in how to optimise our children's chances of good health?

"beating them with research studies makes me very uncomfortable"

Nobody is 'beating' anyone with research - only using the evidence - such as it is - to justify their position. Why shouldn't the evidence be referred to in these discussions? Would you discuss any other social issue with signficant health implications for children without referring to the medical research?

I think people should read the research and form their own conclusions. I don't think people should tell other people what to do on MN based on their own personal interpretations of research.

tiktok - I think that including the opportunity to buy formula with the healthy start vouchers and not banning formula milk means that the Government doesn't believe babies are damaged by being formula fed which is what some anti-formula people would like other people to believe.

I never said there was any research saying formula was better just that there was conflicting research into the effects of breastfeeding. Those two things are really not the same things!

Large advice giving institutions normally err on the better safe than sorry side of things when providing blanket advice. I'm not sure you could take the pro breastfeeding stance of our NHS as evidence that the research is reliable.

AFAIC anyone is welcome to criticise formula I just don't like formula-feeders being pushed around and criticised or beaten with research.

Yes but research studies are not evidence. They are not fact... they are research... This seems to be a very important distinction which is not understood.

"How can you actually conduct a piece of research into the various effects of various types of feeding which would produce a reliable conclusion? I would argue that you cannot, the variables are too great."

in which case I assume you'd be very unhappy about the idea of formula companies introducing novel ingredients such as omega-3 fatty acids, produced in laboratories and extracted from algae and fungus into infant milks, on the strength of studies which involve a few dozen babies?

"Yes but research studies are not evidence. They are not fact.....they are research"

They're all we've got frankly, apart from anecdotal evidence.

And if we relied on that we'd still be smoking and drinking and hoovering down raw eggs and liver during pregancy, and putting our babies to sleep on their fronts when they're born.

Honestly - I'd love to know if you'd be encouraging women to think that they can't rely on safe sleeping or anti-smoking advice on the basis that it's just based on 'research' not 'facts'.

sabire - Your point does not relate to my point in any way. People don't have to buy formula, people might want to buy formula with cocaine in. It's not really anything to do with me. I'm not supporting any kind of research and I didn't formula feed so I'm not sure what you are getting at.

Questionnaires are not a sign of research being reliable, and not a sign of it not being reliable. No need to ROFL at my naivety here...

I am saying that it is inevitable that when you are dealing with human beings in a retrospective study, finding out what they did (in regard to infant feeding) and what has happened to them since, you have to use questionnaires. Yes, these may not be as reliable as placing a hidden camera in everyone's house and sending the data to the researchers - just that if you are going to use research in any way that links human behaviour to human health, you will end up using a questionnaire. There are good, and bad, and indifferent questionnaires. I don't see that the use of them in this context means we cannot draw any useful conclusion from their results.

Virtually all research that tries to explore the links between behaviour and health - smoking, drinking, cot death, vegetable eating, place of residence, income, whatever - will require a questionnaire. It's a perfectly respectable way of getting data.

sabire - they are not all we've got. They are merely what you believe is most important to consider when making your own decision for your family.

I believe it is education and considering your own decision which protects you best from harm not blindly following research. I would always consider a educated and informed parent making their own decision and taking responsibility for their own baby as preferable to blindly following advice, research, books or guidelines.

It's rather strange to assume that everybody would be doing anything if they hadn't been told not to by research or the Government.

People used to be told smoking was good for them, not everybody agreed. I'd tend to believe it would be the same people who took up smoking then as would never consider it now because they are people who are doing what they are told without thinking about it. I'm not saying you are one but my general stance is that too much advice is not a good thing.

I think we need more support for everyone no matter their choices and less advice/book/guideline following.

Curiosity- I agree that nobody should "beat people over the head with research" or "tell people what to do on MN" or whatever you said. Nobody's doing that, though!

You even said in your last post - "people should read the research" - well quite, but people won't, will they - they don't know where to look probably! People rely on leaflets from the dept of health and other sources for their information. I don't really understand what you're arguing here - as Sabire said, no-one's saying that women aren't entitled to make informed choice. There are always critiques that can be made of research studies but that doesn't mean they're not valid, otherwise we'd never get anywhere, would we? And it's pretty conclusive as far as I can see, not really that contradictory.

tiktok - I understand that. That is one of the points which influences my belief that it is not possible to produce research which forms a reliable conclusion on infant feeding. That however is not the only value of research. All research studies are useful whether they reach reliable conclusions or not. Asking questions is generally a good idea.

In my experience not that many people are interested in following govt guidelines anyway. they'd rather do what their best friend's cousin recommends!

zooropa - it might be conclusive to you but it in terms of research it is believed rather than conclusive.

I believe people should receive more support rather than less support and more guidance which is the current trend.

When people state research as though it is evidence or fact and over play it's reliability that is effectively beating people over the head and telling them what to do.

I have just read bits of this thread, but I'm thinking it's such a shame that people are beating each other up so much about this issue!

Becoming a mother is in itself a very unselfish act, most of us I think want to strike a balance between giving our children the absolute best we can and not losing our own selves and sanity in the process. Some mums feel they can cope with breastfeeding and they should feel great about it for giving their child what they consider to be the best. Others feel they can't cope with it for whatever reason and choose to bottle feed rather than force themselves into doing something that is going to make them very unhappy (which may have more of a negative effect on their babies than giving them formula would...)

I do feel that if you think there is even a remote chance you can cope with it bfing should be given a try as personally after the first few weeks I think it's the easier and more enjoyable option... but if someone is completely sure that it's not for them it really is not the end of the world!

Ihatewinter I do understand where you are coming from, but I think you do need to be very careful. I'm sure you can remember yourself how scary it is becoming a mother for the first time, and the most important thing you can do for your sister is try to make her feel more confident about becoming a mother. If she decided that she does want to give it a go for the first month, perhaps offer to do her housework or something similar for the first few weeks while she gets bfing established so it is a more pleasant experience for her and doesn't constantly feel 'I don't have time for this!!' (which I remember is how I felt when bfing my first!) and buy her some good books or dvds to watch

I know no single study is conclusive. I mean that from looking at several studies, so so many come down in favour of breastfeeding that this is pretty conclusive for me. I know in theory each study could be flawed, but I find it highly unlikely that this would be the case given the sheer number of them.

More support - absolutely.
I don't agree with your last statement at all.