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.

Oh super

shriek - They don't at all. A risk is a harm or a loss, a benefit is an enhancement or advantage. One is Subnormal one is supernormal. If breastfeeding is shown to have benefits in a study then that is all the study shows, it is not showing that ff has risks.

but if bf is the normal way for mammals to feed, then it doesnt have benefits, substitutes may not measure up

stealth - Substitutes may not measure up. That's effectively the reason behind my choice to breastfeed - I think research into various methods of feeding infants cannot form a reliable conclusion because of the enormous amount of factors you would have to control for and the methodology it is necessary to use when conducting studies which in my mind reduces the applicability of the conclusion to real-life.

My personal choice is made on the only fact I have which is that breastmilk is what human babies are meant to feed on and that it is meant to be delivered through the breasts which have grown in the shape they have in order to deliver the milk effectively to the infant.

This actually doesn't say anything at all about formula. There is a variety of published research into formula and breastmilk. I believe it is perfectly possible for people, if they choose, to use this research to help them reach a conclusion about which feeding method they prefer. I don't think it is right to assume that formula feeders have not made an informed choice (not you that I've seen but some others) as it is possible to make an informed choice which has an opposite outcome.

It is at the end of the day her choice whether to BF or not - I did not have the choice as my DS would not latch on and due to his kidney condition I was worried that he would become ill as he was already getting jaundiced after trying for the first week to get him to latch on and cup feeding etc.

It is everyones own choice and you should not say anything for fear of sounding like a BF'ing radical.

As for the opinion that FF babies are any worse off - what a load of tripe! I was FF and am in very good health as is my DS who is thriving!

i think we're saying the same thing curiositykilled - if bm is the standard way then surely anything else will only have deficiencies, although they may be minor
so do you disagree with research methods in general, or only for infantr feeding? how do you feel about the research done on smoking?

The thread keeps going because it is highlighted in 'discussions of the day' with a link.

So people come on, read the OP, and respond without reading the interim discussion.

Of course formula feeding has risks. The formula powder itself is not sterile and can pass on a number of pathogens (I could list the ones that have been found to cause disease in infants but it's a scary list and some of the direct ill-effects are rare, and reduced if proper hygiene is carried out at home). Formula feeding means the baby is not being breastfed, and this has risks.

This does not mean that people should not be 'allowed' to buy formula freely and cheaply - I am in favour of them having the right to make that decision. It does not mean that anyone should feel individually pressured or hectored, either to bf or to ff.

It does mean we should be adult about the discussion, and accept that if breastfeeding is the physiological norm, then anything other than the physiological norm is likely to have an impact on physiology.

It's quite simple, really, and does not imply a judgement on any inidvidual or mean that babies who are formula fed are 'doomed for life' (as one poster said someone was predicting!).

but agree it's an informed choice. My fights are with situations/policies that prevent that

sorry before tiktok corrects me as she should "although they may be minor" was't referring to this situation, all I'm saying is that if we assume one is 100% the other can't be more iyswim!

doomed for life was me - she seems to have misquoted me a lot which makes me

doomed for life was me - she seems to have misquoted me a lot which makes me

I crossed the road without looking properly the other day.

I didn't get run over.

All that stuff about looking right and left and listening for the traffic - it's all rubbish.

I never wore a seat belt in the back of my parents' car, either. I'm fine! Proves all the ads about keeping kids safe in cars is tripe!

Sheesh.

Oh.....and my mum smoked all the way through pregnancy with me....and I'm fine.

Yadda yadda yadda.

Personal experiences cannot lead us to any sensible conclusions about general applicability...geddit???

tiktok, i know someone who crossed when the green man was on and got squished too

proving the green man is just the governments way of making us feel guilty for wanting to cross the road as and when we want

SPB....yes, well that totally proves it.

well i think that stupidness has killed the thread, sorry

stealth - not necessarily. I think we are saying similar things. I quite enjoy reading research on infant feeding. I think doing research is a valuable thing I'm just suspicious of conclusions. I choose what I choose because of an ability to breastfeed and a doubt over the substitutes. It doesn't follow that my doubt is correct about formula feeding. If I had not been able to breastfeed I might have investigated the safety and adequacy of various substitutes but I have been fortunate enough not to have to.

Infant feeding research is rather different to smoking although similar. There are more possibilities in terms of methodology for research into smoking there are opportunities for better controls. There is more understanding of the processes of smoking and it's thought effects. I think I would like to read each study into each thing before I commented on it's reliability.

Tiktok -

'Of course formula feeding has risks. The formula powder itself is not sterile and can pass on a number of pathogens (I could list the ones that have been found to cause disease in infants but it's a scary list and some of the direct ill-effects are rare, and reduced if proper hygiene is carried out at home). Formula feeding means the baby is not being breastfed, and this has risks.'

By this rule anything in life has risks. Breastfeeding has risks. Nipples are not sterile and there is some thinking amongst medical professionals that over-sterilisation of bottle-feeding equipment is a contributing factor in immunology and allergy. One of the ideas in this way of thinking is that breastfeeding (fed through the breasts) infants are exposed to more bacteria than infants fed using a bottle filled with ebm or formula. It is another modern theory about feeding. There may be an issue with the particular kinds of pathogens found in formula but still sterility is not necessarily desirable.

'It does mean we should be adult about the discussion, and accept that if breastfeeding is the physiological norm, then anything other than the physiological norm is likely to have an impact on physiology.'

This is a perfectly logical statement but quite different to some of the other things you have said which imply ff is proven to be risky and bf proven to be superior. which are things which do imply you believe ffers are 'doomed'.

curiosity - you are a bit confused. Yes, there is some thinking that bottle feeding equipment does not need to be 'sterile'. It may even be that common practice is to 'over sterilise' and that careful cleanliness is sufficient.

The risk I was referring to is not with the equipment (though obv dirty equip. is to be avoided).

I was talking about the formula powder and the need for proper hygiene with the powder, to overcome the lack of sterility in the powder.

If you have ideas about the need for formula powder not to be as clean and pathogen-free as possible (sterility is probably not achievable) then I'm afraid this is very odd thinking indeed. I don't think any of the 'modern theories' would agree this is worth exploring.

Breastmilk and nipples are not sterile, and this is prob a good thing; this does not apply to formula feeding and formula milk - with bf, the baby gets the protection at the same time as ingesting any pathogens with the milk and from the skin. This doesn't happen with ff.

It's fair to say that the evidence that ff has risks is overwhelming and actually logical. I have never implied - ever - that I think ff babies are 'doomed'.

"No but you suggest that they are affected forever by whether they are breast/bottlefed. I agree that it DOES have an impact but there are so many variables in what produces long term health if the only factor was infant feeding there would be no point whatsoever in any adult making any attempt to eat healthily and follow a healthy lifestyle"

Errrr - who here is saying that infant feeding is the only signficant factor when it comes to optimising a child's health?

What I find deeply fascinating about these discussions is the way you will never see someone who ff admitting that their child has ever been ill in any way whatsoever. In fact, if you were gathering evidence of the safely and efficacy of bf and ff from these boards you'd have to arrive at the conclusion that all ff babies are a) hugely clever and b) completely immune to all types of illness.

But then you look at really big surveys like the DOH Infant Feeding Survey and it seems that mums of ff babies are much more likely to report that their baby has been constipated, ill and vomiting, than the mums of bf babies. We also know that ff babies have signficantly more gp appointments in the first 6 months of life than exclusively bf babies.

What's going on? Maybe it's got something to do with our different perceptions of what constitutes normal behaviour and normal good health in babies and children. I was looking at a Cow and Gate leaflet the other day which was entitled something like 'Common problems' - aimed at parents of new babies. The leaflet referred to both breast and formula fed babies and had a section on colic, crying and constipation, among other things. I was sitting there reading it and thinking - constipation is extremely unusual in babies - except in fully ff babies. So for mums of ff babies, constipation isn't considered very signficant. For mums of bf babies it's something to worry about. Personally I've always associated constipation with physiological problems with the digestive system more often seen in adults and poor diet. And yet in ff babies it's just seen as 'normal' and nothing to worry about. How come?

curiosity - you are so desperate to appear to be even handed on this subect that you're completely distorting the issue!

How can you be arguing that there are similar risks associated with bf as with ff, because 'nipples are not sterile'?

Seriously?

Good grief - babies get sick from poorly cleaned bottles because remnants of milk harbour germs and because they sometimes find themselves drinking milk which has been hanging around in a warm environment for too long. For goodness sake - even adults get sick if they eat and drink from dirty crockery or from food that's been left out of the fridge! It's something that's a million miles away from frantic sterilisation of kitchen surfaces and bleaching toys.......

"the other things you have said which imply ff is proven to be risky"

Look - according to NHS Direct, "Babies who are bottle fed using formula milk are more likely to develop illnesses, such as diarrhoea, or a chest, ear, or urine, infection. There is also an increased risk of premature babies who are bottle fed developing a rare, but serious condition called necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC), where the intestines are damaged due to infection and a poor blood supply."

Why can't you accept that the idea of increased risk of illness being associated with ff is COMMON CURRENCY among the vast majority of health professionals who work with mothers and babies.

For goodness sake - every current standard midwifery textbook on breastfeeding will have a chapter on 'the risks of artificial feeding'.

I don't see why you find this concept so difficult to acknowledge, why you've been tieing yourself up in semantic knots on this thread in your attempts to refute it!

I find it interesting that, in this discussion, all talk of 'risks' and 'benefits' is purely medical.

Personally, I mixed fed my baby from day one (and I continued to breastfeed for 3 months, so all the NCT doom-mongering about how my supply would dry up proved unfounded. And I gave up because I wanted to, could have continued... but I digress). The reason I mix fed was because of the very real risk that if I breast fed exclusively, I would not have had more than 2 hours unbroken sleep for the first 8 weeks of my baby's life and I honestly think I would have got post-natal depression. This was a risk I took seriously, and I am very glad I did.

I also was able to resume something approaching normal life much sooner than my exclusively breast-feeding friends and this made me much happier.

There may be some who would consider this a selfish choice on my part, but if you think about it, it's no more selfish than, say, choosing to live in London. Presumably all us city mums are exposing our children to higher levels of pollution than mums who live in the countryside? I find it interesting that many of those who wheel out the 'selfish' argument in relation to bottle-feeding don't apply to any other aspects of their lifestyle, or choices they make for their babies.