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.

Ali - women make decisions to use formula for all sorts of reasons. Practicality is only one of them!

The woman whose breastfeeding has gone really badly, who is anxious for the health and growth of her baby, who may be in pain....she may use formula but I don't think the reason is entirely practical.

The woman who's told 'no one in our family breastfeeds - it's disgusting' is not ff out of practicality.

The woman who's told 'you can't have good enough milk - your baby would be sleeping through by now' is not ff out of practicality, either.

geraldine - if you post a message in the breast and bottle feeding folder, you'll get a lot of support and understanding, and no hassle, honestly!

This is the AIBU folder, and we are 'allowed' to vent a bit

geraldine - totally agree with tiktok. over and out.

fairycake - the IBJ is a peer-reviewed, specialist journal. It looks at lactation as a medical speciality. If you are sceptical of it, then you need to be sceptical of The Lancet, and the British Medical Journal, both of which tend to think the practice of medicine is a good thing It's absolutely not a campaigning journal.

Ditto the Journal of Public Health. The Journal of Child Protection. I could go on.

Read the paper and judge for yourself.

tiktok - sabire has said 'artificial feeding' a few times and that post was not addressed directly to you. It does not mean formula feeding, even in this country. It is often used in papers to describe 'early weaning' (weaning before 16 weeks) as well. It means artificial feeding.

When you (or others) have failed to reference things you have said as the findings of research or as taken from guidelines or when you fail to say 'I believe' or 'my opinion' you are effectively portraying something as proven when it is not. You have done this. I remember objecting to both you and sabire having done this in the past.

tiktok - you are a breastfeeding counsellor, that hardly aids impartiality anyway. I don't know why you don't just say you are not impartial. That you believe breastfeeding is better that you believe the conclusions of the papers are correct. I don't find anything wrong with that, what I object to is when you and sabire have portrayed things as proven or factual when they are thinking or advice which has influenced your own personal choices or opinions.

tiktok: from the "About" page of the International Breasfeeding Journal:

"Infants who do not receive breast milk are likely to experience poorer health outcomes than breastfed infants; mothers who do not breastfeed increase their own health risks."

It is a campaigning journal.

tiktok - how do you know fairycake is not? Generally a sceptic is sceptical. Rather strange to assume her scepticism is limited to one publication.

bellissima, lol, is that your not so subtle way of telling me to disappear?

Also part of IBJ's journal description:

"The journal seeks to address... interventions to increase breastfeeding initiation and duration..."

I'm sorry, but it absolutely, explicitly is a campaigning journal.

curiosity - as it happens, I am not automatically sceptical of studies published in the Lancet etc, largely because it has no agenda apart from the very obvious one of improving all areas of medical practice, and because it places a great deal of emphasis on the value of evidence-based medicine. Articles are therefore accepted or rejected on the strength of the quality of the research involved, as opposed to their utility in promoting a particular practice.

geraldine - was simply agreeing with tiktok that you would get much better and supportive info elsewhere rather than in this particular bunfight. And concluding with a standard RAF phrase because I too need to exit and get on with some other things! (much as I love it etc!).

Why do you ask me and not tiktok?

Oh sorry the 'over and out' bit - that's coz I've made several posts on here within a short space of time and need to get out and do something (like, ahem, work). Nothing directed at you - eek no - not being nasty to a new MNer!

fairycake - Sorry, I was just making a point, I'm not trying to second guess what you really are and aren't sceptical about.

yes it was the over and out thing but i get it now!

curiosity - what can I say? I know this field and the technical terms it uses. When we are talking about infants, 'artificial feeding' means feeding formula by bottle. I expect you will find citations where it means early solids, or non-milk feeding, but this would not be the case usually, especially not in the UK. Does this really matter?

fairycake: the journal is not campaigning, and the quotes you use don't indicate overt campaigning, IMO. Any more than the 'Child and Social Work Journal' is campaigning when it says "the Journal is dedicated to advancing the wellbeing and welfare of children and their families throughout the world." To say a journal wants to discuss/publish details of initiatives that promote breastfeeding initiation and duration is to say what sort of papers it is interested in. Makes it clear for potential contribs, no? Yes, of course it has an agenda, just as all journals do...inc the BMJ and Lancet.

curiosity - if I have failed to reference something, or failed to say 'this is my opinion' and presented something as fact when all it is is my opinion or experience, I apologise. I am usually pretty scrupulous about this - any omissions would be a rare oversight.

I think my experience does add to this discussion as it shows more of the range of reasons for people being averse to the possibility of BFing

curiosity - I know! I wasn't offended at all - sorry if I came across as being a bit snotty. I am actually terminally sceptical in some respects, probably as a result of having really good, very thorough tutors at university, who wouldn't let me get away with anything woolly!

tiktok - you are not correct. Formula feeding is a type of artificial feeding. It is the most popular one in this country. The term artificial feeding is not limited to formula feeding in this country.

It does matter to me. I might be a pedant but I really think language is very important, especially in discussions like this where language can be used to criticise or promote superiority of parenting choices.

fairycake - you didn't seem snotty. lol

Well, as this has now gone on for a day since my last post, I won't expect a response to this, but sabire you say:
"I don't feel like prosletysing about the benefits of bfing, it's not my decision to make for another mother. Why can't everyone just mind their own b*leeding business? Honestly, that it is something worthy of debate to this extent in this da and age seems ridiculous to me"

Maybe because you see the status quo in the uk - where the vast majority of babies over 4 weeks are not breastfed, as a 'normal' and ok situation.

If you'd read what I wrote, because I grew up in a breastfeeding family I feel and always have felt that breastfeeding is normal and was surprised to find out others didn't.. however, I don't see that it's my business to preach to other women about how they choose to feed their children. I can understand the 'sadness' where it comes down to life/death e.g. in developing countries where ff with dirty water is potentially life-threatening, the reality is that formula feeding - though not my choice, and one I don't totally understand - is not as evil or deletrious as you make out. I work with a community clinic caseload (over-5's) in a health context and there is far greater fall out in terms of the health of the nation from other 'lifestyle choices' e.g. drug and alcohol abuse. Formula is just formula - it's not for me, but why people get so wound up about it is beyond me. For women who can't breastfeed (for example, a cousin of mine, 41, who is a LACTATION CONSULTANT and whose milk never came in) I think it's bl*oody well brilliant that her baby has access to an alternative food (at least some of these babies would have died in the days before formula).

tiktok - I think you're being disingenuous about the status of the IBJ and I don't really understand why. The editors themselves are open and unashamed about their stance: they regard breast feeding as better than formula feeding. If it was utterly impartial on the issue there would not be a clear statement about the merits of bf and the disadvantages of ff on the home page of the journal.

And comparing the IBJ to the Lancet or the BMJ is, again, disingenuous. Neither the Lancet nor the BMJ is a single-issue publication; and the "bias" that they both show (in favour of evidence-based medicine) is not comparable to the bias inherent in the IBJ. The criterion for getting your research published in the Lancet or the BMJ is the quailty of your research. They do not choose material for publication based on the nature of the results, they choose it based on the quality of the methodology and execution.

If the IBJ was simply interested in an utterly impartial, strictly scientific way in infant nutrition, then it would say so; and it would be a far more powerful tool in a debate such as this one. But it isn't: it is - openly - in favour of breastfeeding and opposed to formula feeding. In my opinion, that immediately makes things tricky, and it certainly makes me instantly wary of any research published in it. It makes me wonder why the research was accepted in the first place - because of the quality of the research? Or because it advances the agenda of the publication? It also makes me want to know who the "peers" are and what their affiliations are. I want to know that about all peer-reviewed journals, of course.

It is very clear that you do not limit your reading to the IBJ; and it is obviously not the case that research about the merits of bf is published exclusively in specialist pro-bf journals. There have got to be better sources out there - which you know about - which support your position.

bellissima, why are you so worried about sabire's time??
it's reading threads like this when i was pg that convinced me to try bf, normalised bf and extended bf for me - im not the only one as we can see.

as sabire has said, I'll trust people who are good at this stuff (WHO, NHS) to do the research and use it to guide me. If it's been widely accepted for years and isn't disputed by anyone in the field, i might even present it as 'fact' - i dont know as fact the earth is round, but hey i'd bet my life savings on it.

I'm not going to convince you that artificial feeding means (in this country) formula feeding, am I, curiosity? I agree that words are important to make sure meaning is understood. If you use 'artificial feeding' (about infants) and you really, really only mean 'anything that's not breastmilk' then you are going to confuse people....take it from me

Yes, fairycake, the editors of the IBJ declare breastfeeding has merits over formula feeding. This is not remotely unscientific, or controversial, and to demand a lack of bias in this respect is the same as giving a platform to the Moon is Made of Green Cheese Society in 'Astronomy Today' or declaring yourself open-minded on the topic of whether the earth is flat or not - after all, I expect you've only seen pictures of the earth as a globe, which you take on trust. I expect the editors of the Lancet and the BMJ would agree with the IBJ stance on this. This does not make the IBJ a 'campaigning' journal.

The point of me linking to that paper in the IBJ is because it references other literature which you can also follow up. It's a review.

Any paper has to be checked for 'confirmation bias' - the tendency to look only at (or even look for) papers which support our existing bias and to ignore others. This is why we have reviews, to take an overview of the whole research area of a topic. I am not aware of a really full systematic review looking at breastfeeding and maternal mental health - we could do with one.

think I'm going to on this one now

"however, I don't see that it's my business to preach to other women about how they choose to feed their children. "

Sorry - does engaging in an argument about bf and ff on this thread constitute 'preaching to other women about how they choose to feed their children'?

I think not!

And who is suggesting that women should be preached to? I'm not. Just think they should be given access to up to date, evidence based information on the pros and cons of bf and ff. Do you have any objection to that?

"Formula is just formula - it's not for me, but why people get so wound up about it is beyond me."

Well, I did explain why I and many others see this as a serious issue, didn't I? Pointed out that there are preterm babies dieing from a lack of breastmilk in the UK, and other dd babies and children being hospitalised from common childhood illnesses that might have been prevented by breastfeeding (at least according to every reputable medical authority in the UK)? And lets not forget the additional numbers of mothers losing their lives to breast and ovarian cancers. If you don't think these things are worth worrying about - fine. But don't sneer at those of us who do.

And yes - I do worry about other lifestyle choices people make, when they've been shown to impact on the quality of life of children and babies. But in the end we concentrate on those areas in which we have the most knowledge, and in which we can make a difference - hence my involvement in supporting breastfeeding mums in RL, and my lobbying for better access to good quality, evidence based information on infant feeding for all parents, regardless of how they choose to feed their baby.

Have to say though - this thread is getting increasingly bizarre. There are a lot of 'flat earthers' gathering here.....

i