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.

Sabire

Your comment about 'flatearthers' is ignorant and rude. It also made no sense to me in the context of what I said.

I am intrinsically pro-bf. I have no intention of doing anything BUT breastfeeding.. I have no intention of supplementing my milk.. I didn't say you personally were preaching about bf, nor anyone on here. However, I don't agree with people preaching about formula as if it were the devil's own invention. There is a wealth of information on breastfeeding and the reasons that people formula-feed are diverse. Some of these are cultural and again, if you had read what I wrote originally, I have major issues with the 'sexualisation' issue that contributes to reduced breastfeeding rates.

I note that you did not truly respond to my comment that some people are physiologically unable of bf'ing.. apparently, the numbers are so small that they are irrelevant. That contrasts nicely, of course, with the vast numbers of babies dying and growing up developmentally, socially and academically deprived because they were formula fed.

You have deliberately twisted what I wrote to your own ends because you just want to rail against the big baddies who are anti-breastfeeding (e.g. anyone who doesn't see it as the most pressing issue in the world today, as far I can see?) regardless of whether they are anti-breastfeeding or not.

Flatearther - indeed. Your own opinions seem somewhat blinkered to me.

Thanks tiktok, you're quite right about the mental heath/bf thing - I had totally lost the thread!

I do still feel that the IBJ is less than ideal as a source in a context such as this one; although I imagine that research into very specific issues such as the effects of bf on maternal mental health is quite unusual and highly specialised, and so the authors might therefore automatically choose to submit it to a publication such as the IBJ. With respect, if the IBJ only publishes research that shows breastfeeding in a positive light (I am making a big assumption - I don't have time to review all the articles in the archives), then they are cherry-picking - that's just the definiton of the term.

Personally, I don't think the comparison of the IBJ to other generic specialist journals stands, because other generic specialist journals typically do not have an openly declared bias towards one type of treatment and a policy of only accepting articles that support that particular treatment. A decent brain surgery journal would publish ANY research into brain surgery techniques, provided it was of a sufficiently high calibre, even if it called into question long-standing beliefs about best practice. I don't think the IBJ would do something similar, although I may be totally wrong.

I get the impression that it is fairly difficult to find factual information about the merits of breastfeeding - not only because it is clearly something that many people feel very strongly about, and the issue does seem to be quite polarised, and a lot of the literature I have seen seems to be strongly pro, but also because it is difficult to design an ethical study into the issue and to gather accurate factual information from women about their experience.

Anyway. I feel that I've dragged the discussion away from the central issues for long enough now!

The other problem is that research becomes superseded, and new studies might reinforce earlier findings, retract them or simply ignore them. And it is quite some time before more mainstream textbooks are revised to take account of more recent developments.

When I had DD1 I was definitely told by health professionals, and it was in at least one BF leaflet, that there was an effect on allergies and asthma. Now these particular claims are regarded as a bit 'controversial' (to quote Prof Kramer) but I'm quite sure some textbooks still note them, or at least make reference to 'respiratory diseases' without qualifying those that they mean.

Indeed, if you look at on-going research into the actual causes of asthma I've seen anything from over hygenic living environments to use of calpol rather than baby aspirin (latter implicated in Reyes) to - only this week - taking folic acid supplements in late pregnancy. Only in the fullness of time do experts working in the field evaluate all the latest work and say which factor they now think is more important.

Bfing does indeed have benefits in reducing breast cancer in women - most studies show that and for me it was certainly a plus factor. But probably not nearly as much as having your first child at fifteen. Just being pregnant and reducing overall monthly cycles reduces your chances of breast cancer. And it's certainly having children at all that reduces your chances of ovarian cancer much more than feeding methods. What I'm saying is that I think some of the remarks here about 'women should breast feed to reduce risks of cancers' could, if taken to their logical conclusion, be used to say well if you stay childless then you are more likely to get cancer - and for some cancers that is probably true and its a greater effect than bfing - but is the benefit really large enough that you would run round encouraging all women to have children? By all means support bfing, but the benefits should be put into a realistic and reasonable perspective.

OK, fairycake, I accept your apology

Here is a link to recent IUBJ articles:

www.internationalbreastfeedingjournal.com/articles/browse.asp

It does call into question best/standard practice - the means of promoting and maintaining breastfeeding is researched and the different ways to do it are assessed. What you will not find are articles which have an underlying belief that breastfeeding and breastfeeding support and education should cease (like the brain surgery journal is unlikely to call a halt to all brain surgery in favour of aromatherapy or homeopathy).

There's a lot of decent research about infant feeding and I don't know of any that fails to find the 'merits' of breastfeeding. As long as the science is good and the methods are ethical, and conclusions are drawn from the evidence, what's not to like?

The accuracy of women's recall of experience with regard to feeding is pretty good. There has been some interesting research into this - the researchers recorded women's current feeding in clinic notes, and then returned to the same women some time later, even years, and asked them to recall their feeding (length, frequency, time of weaning and so on) and found women's accounts were mainly v. accurate.

Ethical studies are not difficult to design, either.

The main difficulty with bf research is nothing to do with either of those things - it's isolating the feeding from other aspects of life and environment.

bellissima: respiratory disease is not normally a synonym for asthma or allergy. Respiratory disease usually refers to infections of the lungs and chest cavity, and infant feeding has an association with this - it's one of the conditions looked at in the Millennium and the Dundee cohorts. It would be in order for this to remain in the literature for mothers and for HCPs.

Please stop speculating about stuff you have no firm knowledge of. Breastfeeding and breast cancer? "Bfing does indeed have benefits in reducing breast cancer in women - most studies show that and for me it was certainly a plus factor. But probably not nearly as much as having your first child at fifteen." - this is top-of-the-head warblings. Later childbearing (one study I read has the cut off age at 22, not 15) has an impact on br cancer risks, but added to that is frequency of childbearing, too.

I have no idea how 'having your first child at 15' compares with breastfeeding - and nor do you. To write something that states that something is 'probably not nearly as' protective ....as if you had some decent knowledge?

tik-tok no it's not top of the head warblings. If you have lots of children you do indeed cut down on your breast cancer risk by, to give one factor, cutting down on the number of monthly cycles between puberty and menopause. Early puberty and late menopause are also risk factors for breast cancer. Early pregnancy reduces the risk of breast cancer. Kindly prove to me if any of these are not true.

That's not saying that having lots of children and then bfing all of them might not give you a little bit of extra benefit over and above just popping em out. It does. But none of what I have written above is untrue.

How on earth do you know that I have no decent knowledge of these things? Sabire said 'people like yourself' but then refused to answer the question of who exactly she thought I was. Indeed, why on earth is it only for you to impress us all with your range of knowledge? Is this forum only for bfing counsellors? Are we to list our degrees? (you haven't after all). Is it not for MN members? Maybe you want to be on an IBUJ forum rather than debating with members of the public?

Cruella, a big thank you for acknowledging what I said!! I do think I make a valid point in all of this. Sometimes it's not a 'selfish choice' but a real psychological barrier.

As for all of the debate about whether 'breast is best' - of course it is and that's why women like me feel so terribly guilty and as I can't do anything other than think about how this will really be until I give birth, the problem can magnify and the more people criticise me, the bigger the barrier gets.

oh and tiktok, i didn't come into this thread looking for supposrt, more to try and expand people's minds about the reality of the situation.

Who has criticised you?

A few friends and relatives have been a bit weird when I've tried to express how i feel and then launch into the benefits of breastfeeding like I don't know and have simply made a choice.

Belissima - FGS, I know about the link with childbearing and breast cancer and age of first periods...the 'top of the head warblings' I complained about was your comparison - that 'probably' having a baby at 15 reduces breast cancer risk a lot more than breastfeeding.

If you are a medical statistician with access to unpublished research which makes a comparison of this kind - women who have a child at 15 versus women who have done any breastfeeding - then accept my apologies.

If not, then try not to obscure the discussion with top of the head warblings.

Thank you!

geraldinerose - your post of yesterday looked like one asking for support, to be honest.

"I hope people can try to understand where I'm coming from as this is a genuine mental block." was a strong hint that you were looking for understanding....and I suggested you might get more 'understanding' and discussion for this specific issue on another thread.

I am sorry if I misunderstood - but AIBU is not the folder for supportive understanding, sorry!

Am impressed with your ability to rest cups of tea on your breasts though

Do you not think it might be time to let this one go agree to differ and move on ! 700 odd posts and no one is ever going to "win" the argument if anything people become more antagonistic and hardened in their stance which at the end of the day helps no one.

So how much greater is the benefit of breastfeeding than the benefit of having your first child at 15?

And whilst we're at it - since you and not me are obviously the oncology expert (silence on the qualifications notwithstanding) - just what (other than family history about which one can do precious little) are the main risk factors? Please point me in the direction of any reputable research which does not give 'not having children' as one of the primary risk factors?

sorry - for ovarian cancer - oops

tiktok - apologies if my choice of words were misleading, maybe I should have tried to word it a little clearer. The 'genuine mental block' I was trying to convey was to help people understand that it might not be just wanting to avoid saggy boobs or cracked nipples etc, it can be something different altogether that, in my opinion, hadn't been considered so far in this discussion.

Don't worry, I'm not asking for 'supportive understanding'.

yes, this skill hasn't been used for a while as have gone off tea during pregnancy!

And finally - since you are the expert not me- when was the point about bfing being beneficial for allergies and asthma taken out of mainstream textbooks and no longer transmitted to pregnant women?? (no seriously, I am interested - it was certainly still being mentioned in west London in 1999).

bellissima - for the third time, I am not disputing that pregnancy, age of first periods, and other factors impact on br cancer risk.

I have no idea of the direct comparison of risk between having a baby at age 15 and breastfeeding - and I suggested, strongly, that you have no idea, either.

This did not stop you from saying that it was 'probably' a greater risk to have your first baby after the age of 15 than to not breastfeed - you might be right, I don't know, but it's objectionable to speculate in the way you did, by actually using the word 'probably' .

On the subject of allergies and asthma - why were people still 'mentioning' a connection between allergies and asthma and ff in London in 1999?

Well....people 'mention' lots of things with not a lot of strong evidence. Things get into text books that are plain wrong (I have never seen a text book which claimed strong evidence for this, but I have not seen every text book!). People 'mention' that mothers need to eat Mars bars to make their milk fattier; they 'mention' that babies should feed X minutes per breast Y times a day (and that is in text books).

You already know there is a massive mythology around feeding and lots of mis-information, together with people simply making stuff up. You've just added a little bit of it yourself,with your daft 'probably' comparison of age of childbearing versus bf.

And my ovarian cancer question?

What ovarian cancer question?

Good vid Boobuffet Wessern Sydney Uni is where I done my learnings!

Interesting point about changing the way we speak about breastfeeding being "best", I will definitely have a rethink about how I approach when talking about feeding.

So sad (and bloody stupid) about the New Orleans mothers being discharged with formula into a chaotic situation with very little clean water available when they are actually lactating. I read an account of a women who ended up in the Superdome with her newborn and 5 year old and who fed both of them breastmilk, meaning she only had to sort out enough food and water for herself.

No one ever mentioned Mars Bars to me . I, on the other hand, was tested every single month for toxoplasmosis and warned off red meat during my second pregnancy abroad. But when I mentioned the 'peanuts' thing I just got quizzical looks.

Apologies. Which reputable research does not put 'not having children' as a primary risk factor for ovarian cancer? And not make more of that than feeding methods? Show me that and I'll accept that statement of mine as 'warblings'.

And go back to work. And hope that tik-tok's time is taken up only by 'people like myself' who are interested in the main debate.

Am interested to know what you mean by your last line bellissima - can you clarify at all?

"However, I don't agree with people preaching about formula as if it were the devil's own invention."

Who's doing that then? I haven't seen any posts using moralising language about formula. Can you be specific as to which comments you're referring to?

"and the reasons that people formula-feed are diverse. Some of these are cultural"

Yes. Agree. We have extremely low continuing bf rates in the UK, and that's a self-perpetuating situation. Every woman who chooses not to breastfeed, or who chooses to stop bf has her own very good reason for doing so. But you do have to ask yourself why it is that in this country the majority of women are opting out of bf for more than a few weeks, when in other countries women start bf in far larger numbers and continue for far longer than we do. What is it about the lives of mothers in this country that makes bf such a difficult option? I ask myself that question all the time.

"I note that you did not truly respond to my comment that some people are physiologically unable of bf'ing.. apparently, the numbers are so small that they are irrelevant".

Umm - where did I say or imply that they're 'irrelevant'? I actually commented earlier that many women in this country have extremely difficult experiences of breastfeeding. I also commented that the numbers of women who are physiologically unable to breastfeed is in the order of about 2%. Both of those things are true!

"because you just want to rail against the big baddies who are anti-breastfeeding (e.g. anyone who doesn't see it as the most pressing issue in the world today, as far I can see?)"

I don't see it as the 'most pressing issue in the world' - you ascribe those beliefs to me in order to ridicule my views. Sorry - it won't wash.

"Flatearther - indeed. Your own opinions seem somewhat blinkered to me".

The 'flat earther' comment was a reference to the inability of some people on this thread to accept what is blindingly obvious to everyone else who has more than a passing knowledge of the subject of infant feeding. You reject as 'un-factual' all scientific and medical research which raises questions about the safety and efficacy of formula, because it makes you uncomfortable to admit that there might be something there worth thinking about. I would like to ask you, when it comes to your baby, is it only in relation to bf and ff that you reject the validity of good quality research like the Dundee study, despite the fact that it is accepted by all the major health organisations and forms the basis for NHS advice given to parents as to how to optimise their children's health and safety?

Bellisima - I've done 5 years of bf altogether, and I'm very pleased to have reduced my risk of ovarian and breast cancer. I've had as many months not ovulating as a result of breastfeeding as I have from going through 3 pregnancies. It might well have reduced my risk further to have started my family at 15 and had 8 children, but to be honest that wouldn't have been something that I think most people would plan for.