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.

oi, i resent that! my beliefs are as valid as you roundies

"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"

Try googling 'artificial feeding' and 'infants' and you will see how wrong you are.

And out of interest - would you be happy to say to the mother of a new baby that it's fine if she wants to put her baby to sleep on its front, put it to bed in a very hot room and smoke around it? After all, there's only a statistical link between doing these things and an increased risk of cot death, isn't there? Not direct proof? Would you seriously encourage women to doubt advice given by the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal College of Paediatrics (among others) on the basis that the risks of these behaviour are not 'proven' in your eyes? (By the way - the FSID has also recently published advice that bf is believed to reduce the risk of SIDS. I take it if you disregard this as being 'unproven' you will also dismiss all the other links between lifestyle behaviours like smoking in pregnancy and SIDS...)

Seriously - I find it staggering that a responsible adult thinks it's ok to deny the validity of information that contributes to parents understanding of how to keep their babies safe and healthy, which is published in good faith by these organisations.

Bellisima - what's your problem? Today I've got my children up and out to school and then picked them up at the end of the school day, prepared for my work tonight, dealt at length with the three builders who are in my house at the moment, been shopping, taken my mum out to lunch, bought my dd some study books and photocopied the tests she'll be sitting when she gets back from choir in a minute. I've also cooked some pakoras, hung the wash out, cleaned the kitchen, read some letters, answered e-mails and...... engaged in a barny with you and various others on this thread. You really need to stop worrying about me - I can chew gum and walk at the same time!

But I do appreciate your concern.

Well said Sabire - how babies are fed is important.

Can't quite understand how people can insist that there aren't any risks from feeding a human baby modified cow's milk (which, historically, was only developed to make further profits from surplus milk - NOT because it had been thoroughly researched as a healthy alternative).

Breast milk is the norm, therefore anything else must, by definition, be suboptimal.

Flatearthers?? It'll be witch burning soon!

"Breast milk is the norm, therefore anything else must, by definition, be suboptimal."

LOL @ awesome logic.

LOL @ unswerving disregard of evolution/physiology/biology/research

What's amusing to me is your conflation of "the norm" with "the optimum." They're not the same thing, and it's just sloppy to imply that they are.

At no point did you refer in any way to "evolution/physiology/biology/research," so, er, I didn't disregard them, nor have I disregraded them at any point anywhere in this thread. I like evidence. I like high-quality research. Breastfeeding is a very difficult topic to research effectively because there are a lot of variables involved, and it is difficult to control for all of them, so solid evidence and high-quality research on the topic are hard to come by. That is all I have ever said in this thread.

No one really believes in the sincerity of people who think bf really matters though, or hardly anyone does. It seems so much more likely to them that we're motivated by 'wanting to preach' or whatever, even though it's got nothing to do with preaching really. It's a vicious circle:

• Most of us start of thinking ffing is pretty much as good as bfing, OK bfing is a bit better, but it's definitely NO BIG DEAL.

• So, it's NO BIG DEAL. That means that anyone insisting that bfing really matters can't be motivated by wanting to help babies (because it's NO BIG DEAL).

• So, anyone saying supporting bfing really matters must really be motivated by just wanting to preach and control and make everyone like them. Because really it's NO BIG DEAL. (And also because a lot of us get primed to watch out for 'nasty bfers' long before we find out many facts about bfing - that's what happened to me anyway!)

• So, because they're only motivated by wanting to preach and control, they're probably twisting all the facts, so anything they say about bfing being better in some way or another can't really be trusted.

• So, the only trustworthy view is the one that says bfing is a bit better perhaps but it's NO BIG DEAL.

And back to the start...

OK, point taken, but what I was trying to get at is that we don't really need high-quality research to prove (or indicate/suggest etc) that human milk is the best thing for human babies. Says it all in the name really. Oh, and the fact that it's what babies have been eating since humans existed.

I just think there's enormous arrogance on our part to think that we could ever manufacture something equal to breastmilk (and naive blind-faith in milk producing companies that clearly are biased towards profit margins).

Exactly impfty

I am with poster here. I think women should try to breastfeed. Why pretend otherwise if you feel this way?

yes BB - you don't really need evidence to prove something that is designed to emulate breastmilk isn't as good as breastmilk
same for feeding method

I don't care for the norm = the optimum, either, but I knew what BB meant

The norm is just the norm - in the case of the biological functioning of an otherwise normal healthy human being, I can't think of any substitute functioning that comes without a drawback or downside of some sort, even if in many circumstances it's necessary and thankfully keeps someone moving and alive.

That doesn't stop the norm being a pretty damn wonderful thing - like conception and pregnancy and birth, or the way the digestive system works, or how the brain processes information, or a baby learns to walk and talk.

All terrific - but still the norm

www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8BjnGCNahU

This says it much better than I ever could.

Boob, that's an interesting post. Up until now, I've been thinking of it along the lines of the specific, individual claims made about the benefits of breastfeeding, and the issue of the supporting evidence for each individual assertion (eg prevention of SIDS, prevention of allergies, prevention of ear infections, etc) - and the fact is that it IS difficult to provide hard evidence for some of the claims made about breastfeeding.

I'm sure that in many instances, breastfeeding is superior to formula feeding in one respect or another; however, I think the point that a lot of formula-feeding defenders would make is that formula is good enough - that the difference between bf and ff in terms of benefits conferred upon the infant is so small as to be irrelevant.

And I will have to tactfully disagree with your assertion that we don't need evidence for our beliefs on this matter - or any belief, for that matter!

Just out of curiosity is there a record for the longest running thread on MN?

Thanks tiktok, glad you understood.

tiktok - "I can't think of any substitute functioning that comes without a drawback or downside of some sort, even if in many circumstances it's necessary and thankfully keeps someone moving and alive."

There's an exception to every rule...

[I'm jesting, of course.]

This is the longest thread, and I keep meaning to join and then am worried that I'm repeating what someone else has said so apologies in advance for any repitition (I really haven't got time to read 27 pages!).

The main problem with bfing is everyone sets us up for failure before we even begin.

'Are you going to TRY bfing?'
'Don't worry if you can't, it can be very HARD.'
'Even if you can just do it for a few days, give it a go.......'

No wonder people feel like they don't want to bother.
Until we start being a bit more positive about bfing, and stop setting people up for failure with our pessimism, then there are always going to be people like OPs sister who don't want to try.

(And this is coming from someone who LOVED bfing DC1, and persisted to mix-feed (bf/ff) DC2 despite numerous bfing/other issues!).

yes, completely agree, I was amazed as id assumed some bf problems were inevitable

Been away for a while so just have to respond to a couple of Sabire's points from ages ago!

"joanneg - makes it sound as though you have always seen normal breastfeeding as somehow pathological, and ff as intrinsically emotionally healthier for mums."

I said nothing of the sort. I think normal breastfeeding is great for those who want to do it. Personally it would have been a psychological disaster for me, for reasons too complicated and, guess what, personal to go into here. If you have read research which states that fewer breastfeeding mums get postnatal depression then I believe you, but that doesn't square with my own experience, or with that of my friends and acquaintances.

My only point was that the words 'risks' and 'benefits' are being bandied around quite freely and thoughtlessly here. 'Formula feeding has risks' several people have said. Well of course it does! Everything has risks... including stepping out of your front door in the morning, getting in the car, going to work, etc etc.

My point was that breastfeeding has risks too - not for everyone, but for some people, and these have to be weighed up. But a lot of people are talking here about breastfeeding as though it is risk free - and that's false logic.

I find my substitute husband far preferable but that's another story

Anyway, to be serious, I agree Joanne and I think with ff it can be a case of mothers accepting that there are risks, and choosing to accept them. Just like we might not drive the statistically safest car.

From the minute of conception, in my area, the breastfeeding message was shoved down my throat be every type of HP I encountered. I am therefore sure it is the same for most people.

TBH is it really selfish to want your baby to sleep through the night? If you have a baby that wakes up every two hours for 3 months it must be exhausting both physically and mentally. Giving it one bottle in this situation is not the end of the world.

Anyway, I would also like to point out that I don't disagree with either of you on the benefits (which is why I am still partially bf'ing Baby Grylls) - my point is merely about the psychological impact of ff. I can only speak of my own experience (I am sure plenty of other mothers on here also have their story to tell) when I say that for me it made a huge difference to how happy it made me feel when I could give him a bottle and also knowing that he was getting a certain amount of milk was a huge comfort for a baby that was very skinny.

"Everything has risks... including stepping out of your front door in the morning, getting in the car, going to work, etc etc."

Yes - but the difference is that these risks are pretty much unavoidable if you want to live a normal life. Not so the additional risks to you and your baby which accompany formula feeding. The vast majority of women have bf since the dawn of time - most very successfully (as attested to by the survival of the species ). BF is free and almost everyone can do it (and almost everyone does do it in cultures which are more bf friendly than ours). Furthermore infancy is a short time in the context of a full life span - we don't have to make massive adjustments to the way we live our lives. BF or ff, most babies spend the first few months of their lives with their mothers anyway.

Would also like to point out that we are making these choices not only for ourselves, but on behalf of an individual at a uniquely vulnerable time in their life, and that they have to live with the consequences of our choices, harmful or positive, for the rest of their lives. Surely those things have to play some sort of role when we are weighing up what to do about feeding?

"TBH is it really selfish to want your baby to sleep through the night? "

Well - no! Goddamn - I would have very much appreciated it if my babies had slept through earlier than they did. That said - I accepted that night feeding is physiologically normal (and usually very important) behaviour for most healthy babies. I also knew it wouldn't go on forever. Most mothers I know cope absolutely fine with this sort of waking, if breastfeeding is going well and they are well supported, including mothers I know who have twins, large families and who work. I'm not saying they don't experience tiredness - only that most of them get by and are happy enough. Obviously some people can't cope and become postnatally depressed from lack of sleep, but I suspect many of these people aren't being supported in a particularly helpful way by those around them, and this makes things worse than they need be.

"Giving it one bottle in this situation is not the end of the world."

If you want to give a baby a bottle do! I would never tell anyone that they 'should' or 'shouldn't' supplement - only that there are risks and benefits to them and their baby in doing so and they need to work out what's best for everyone in the short, medium and long term.

impfty - meant to say: well said, to your post of 16:40!

(friendly wave at StealthPolarBear)

"my point is merely about the psychological impact of ff. I can only speak of my own experience (I am sure plenty of other mothers on here also have their story to tell) when I say that for me it made a huge difference to how happy it made me feel when I could give him a bottle and also knowing that he was getting a certain amount of milk was a huge comfort for a baby that was very skinny"

Did you know that only a very tiny fraction of women are really physiologically incapable of making enough milk to keep their baby healthy? And yet the vast majority of women in the UK with a baby over 4 weeks give up because they think they have insufficient milk? Are you in the UK? I just wonder if you would have had the same lack of confidence in your breastfeeding if you lived somewhere else - a lack of confidence that made using formula a 'comfort'? Personally I would have been very unhappy if I'd thought my milk was insufficient to feed my baby. I've had absolutely massive babies - being able to get them to thrive on nothing but my own milk has been a really big confidence booster for me. I suppose if I'd been unconfident about my ability to feed my babies then I might have seen formula as a 'comfort' too. Luckily for me I had first rate support (at least with my second and third babies) which made me feel that I could do without formula.

Basically the point I'm trying to make is that formula is a comfort in a society where bf is very poorly supported, and poorly understood. But it's not intrinsically necessary for most mums or most babies!