To demand a harder hitting campaign to promote breastfeeding?

[WashwithCare]

I?m sometimes taken aback to hear mothers gave up bf-ing because it was sore, or involved feeding for hours at a time? What did they expect? What did they think newborns do? Didn?t they imagine that anything chewing on your nipple for 10 hours a day was going to nip a bit?

But then again, who can blame them? Breastfeeding for the minimum WHO recommendation of 2 years is practically unheard of. Nearly everyone will tell you it?s absolutely your decision, and fine to stop. The public info campaign is fluffy and vague about the benefits, and the baby on the follow-on formula milk box looks decidedly peachy. Lots of women are so mis-informed, they believe that formula is almost as good as breastmilk.

Is it time for something a little harder hitting? How about this for a tv ad; (scene 1) mum feeding her newborn a bottle telling her mate how hard bf-ing was. Caption: Breastfeeding Hurts. (scene 2) same mum, but now older, bald and sick, hugs toddler. Caption: So does breast cancer. FADE to caption: "Breastfeeding significantly Reduces your Life Time Risk of Breast Cancer". Followed by cheesy inspirational slogan.

Standanddeliver - I get what you're saying - I do. But my posts were not aimed at you specifically - not in the sense that I was aiming all the criticism at you - there are other posters on this thread, including the OP, who have made those kinds of comments about "selfishness" etc. all the way through.

Whatever the position is regarding mixed feeding - and as I said I never take it as a perjorative term - the fact is that some women, like Mrsbean, feel that they are made to feel inadequate. So whatever the good intentions, somewhere the messages are going awry.

I've had this conversation with people on here so many times before and there are no easy answers - I would never pretend there are. Of course it isn't the right approach to pretend you can just mix breast and formula however you like and it will all be OK. But on the other hand, the guilt and anguish that Mrsbean, and myself, ended up feeling because we had no choice but to resort to some formula cannot be right either. The fact is that formula is not poison - it is not the optimum feeding method but neither is it going to significantly harm your child. Everyone in this debate needs to keep this in perspective.

mrshappy some of us have family who were MURDERED by the Nazis.

how you think the fate of my grandfather, tortured to death and lying in an UNMARKED GRAVE is in any way comparable to a public health campaign designed to inform women about infant feeding issues, even where it lacks tact I cannot fathom.

Anyone who would make the comparison is a thick, heartless, nasty FUCKER.

I will report every single post where you refer to Nazis and fascism where it isn't relevant.

Some of you lot are so fucking sensitive about what people might think of you - spare a fucking thought for the families of people who were MURDERED in GENOCIDES through no fault of their own. Can you see past your ignorant snouts at all?

I could give two shits at this point what you feed your baby by the way.

By hobnobsaremyfave Sat 16-Jan-10 09:38:14
Just as an aside WWC how are you finding breastfeeding a todler whilst heavily pregnant? And will you tandem feed whenyour new baby is born?

The main problems bf-ing a toddler (pg or not) are people's attitudes tbh. DD is 4 in the summer, and so her feeds are very lmited - always a night time feed and usually a morning. It woudl be rare for her to have one at any other time - unless she was sick.

The main practical downside is that DD is very atttached and wants me there in the morning and at bedtime. She's recently been happier to leave me asleep in the morning - but the nighttime feed is fairly non-negotiable. That means she has never spent a night away from me - and I have only not put her bed about twice.

Attitudes are the biggest problem. I no longer bf in public -not really necessary anymore - but have lost count of the friends who have told me I need to stop feeding her.

I do find it ironic that whilst it is a social faux pas to ever comment on a mum2be's feeding choices, most people have no prob telling me off for feeding DD

I don't think I have the right to impose stoping DD bf-ing. She is a sentient other and has a right to participate in the decision about when we stop bf-ing iyswim. Obviously open to review depending on how well I am etc., but my ideal would be to allow her to self-wean, and if that means tandem feeding, I don't have a prob with that.

garlicsheep, excellent post, especially the latter x

Can I just say also, that coming in here and reading these posts, it also unfair for the ones WHO had no choice and to come on here and see that the "MAYS" are being said as if they were FACTS and also set in stone, is also unfair and also ill-the advised to those wanting advise on the feeding methods of their choice.

I am in by no means sating to disregard these research, but to also advice them for what they actually are, instead of the scaremongering that we have seen x

As do I my great grandfather and uncles and aunts were killed.
Its a term, that is now not used as the definition which it started off as, but I am sorry I cause offence. x

LittleMrsHappy the term is only used that way by ignorant, nasty fuckers.

That you have family who also were murdered by Nazis makes it even more unfathomable that you would invoke them so glibly.

You can stick your apology, I very much doubt you mean it.

I hope I never see you bleating about your hurt feelings with respect to bf campaigns, I will be the first to laugh in your face.

Just clicked on to this thread and I am not going to read it all as it's too long but certainly not surprised to see that some fuckwit refered to people who support breastfeeding as nazis. It always seems to happen on such threads. We have a long way to go in this country to dispel such ignorant attitudes.

WHat on earth do you mean it's no longer used as its original meaning?

I need to go and have a lie down......

Gaelicsheep wrote:
Standanddeliver - I get what you're saying - I do. But my posts were not aimed at you specifically - not in the sense that I was aiming all the criticism at you - there are other posters on this thread, including the OP, who have made those kinds of comments about "selfishness" etc. all the way through.

I think what I actually said was, that it was IMHO, selfish for a mother2be to decide nto even try bf-ing (assuming there is no medical reason to do so). I actually stand by this - I can't imagine why a mother woudl want to deprive her child of teh benefits of breastmilk for reasons such as "I just don't like the idea of it" or "my breasts will sag" or "it's just not for me"...

I would never descrive Mrs Bean as selfish - she sounds like a hugely determined mum who has successfully bf after lots of difficulty. So I'm not sure what the argy bargy is about - however, I do think it's good she felt under pressure to keep going because it sounds like that pressure was key to motivating her to continue.

Well done Mrs Bean - some women really do go the xtra mile. Friend of my mine was hospitatlised in a breast care ward with mastittis and although she was in agony she was determined and carried on. It's woman like this that make it all the more irritating that other mums can't be bothered bto even try, because they think (wrongly) it will make their boobs sag or whatever.

It would be great if people had to have compulsory education about the history of the nazis to gain a little understanding of what they did then perhaps we wouldnt get such comments.

very good, good on you!

take my apology as you will, or dont. I did mean it!

I have reported it myself as yes it was wrong to use, but I am not the only one who used it on this thread, but as you will....

I have been ignoring the Nazi comments, which have been dotted through the thread.

The idea that pro-bf-ing supporters, who simply want to give mothers information about the benefits of a natural and normal feeding method that will improve their health and the health of their baby can be compared in any way to a political philosophy based on genocide is just LAUGHABLE....

Well, it's no surprise that there were other fuckwits using it.

I wouldn't expect my 6 year old to say such things and I would also tell her an apology doesnt quite cut it....

I ma very much aware on the history of adolf hitler also. so no compulsory education needed here. x OR do I have to prove that on here?

I was meaning that some people here are very radical in their views as was hitler, Yes it is a poor analogy but when you are constantly being hit by a brick wall against all this scaremongering and ignorant people (which I have showed myself to be by using this word) its hard to not come up with this dig, as for me WWC would have all these FF mothers murdered by her insane dribbling!

That's MY opinion! and a few other also, rightfully or wrong.

Im just sick to death of people making judgments daily, about peoples decisions that have NO RELEVENCE to the impact on their own life!

once again, I am sorry for causing offence, no more I can say x

I wish to GOD! that these debates would not be allowed on forums like these or that people with such strong views kept them to themselves as it those who do the bigger damaged to mothers in supposedly making a CHOICE in a already difficult time in our lives!

standandeliver Fri 15-Jan-10 19:05:07

"If intelligent women read this information and choose to interpret it as meaning: 'If I give a bottle of formula then I've got to stop breastfeeding all together/will definitely fail at breastfeeding/it's not worth me continuing to breastfeed' then really, you have to ask yourself what's going on in their heads."

Precisely. And when you have found out what is going on in their heads, you will have to word your information accordingly. There is no good in providing information that may have the opposite effect to that intended. Nor is there any point in blaming the target audience. Campaigning is there to get results: the onus is on the campaigner.

Besides, why should this only be a question relevant to intelligent women? I have never said all my friends who gave up were intelligent women. Don't the babies of average or less intelligent women need breastmilk just as well?

If Scandinavia has 98% breastfeeding rates, then they can hardly be limiting themselves to information that can be understood by intelligent women.

LittleMrsHappy, it does not matter whether you are right or wrong, as soon as you bring in the Nazis, or Hitler, you have lost both your credibility and the argument. Try stay away from it in the future, if you have something useful to say, and dont cloud it in naziness.

I wont use it again, I cant even explain it, some of the views are so radical that it honestly just..........................

And it is scaremongering at it very very best, and also shameful scaremongering at that x

"Precisely. And when you have found out what is going on in their heads, you will have to word your information accordingly. "

I disagree. Information needs to be given objectively, and unambiguously. I'd say that the VAST majority of NHS sponsored patient information on the issues surrounding mixed feeding meets the brief completely.

If you have seen any examples of poorly worded or judgemental BF promotion material produced by any of the major health bodies like the NHS, the RCM or any of the high profile charities involved in this issue (like La Leche or the NCT) maybe you could provide links to them here. I personally have spent a lot of time reading and analysing health promotion materials on infant feeding as part of my work and I haven't come across any from reputable bodies which I would consider judgemental.

"Besides, why should this only be a question relevant to intelligent women? I have never said all my friends who gave up were intelligent women. Don't the babies of average or less intelligent women need breastmilk just as well?"

It's not a question which is relevant just to 'intelligent women'. The point I was trying to make is that most of the information I have seen about using formula if you are breastfeeding, is clear, non-judgemental and unambiguous, and therefore I find it odd that people with good literacy skills and good understanding should be reading so much into it that is simply NOT THERE!

I have never said they were judmental; you must be confusing me with other posters. I am saying that information given tends to emphasise the difficulties of pursuing breastfeeding once you have introduced any mixed feeding- not that the difficulties are made up. I have never seen any information that says, 'well actually some people are able to reinitiate breastfeeding after a few days' break', or 'even if you do top up, some people still manage to combine that with breastfeeding'. In Swedish parenting magazines, you get stories like 'I was able to breastfeed my adopted baby'- they are strong on success stories. It's not that either side is lying: they are just telling different parts of the story. Maybe the Swedes are silly and naive (they certainly often come across that way), but then again a bit of naivety seems to work for them.

We were talking about my friends who gave up breastfeeding because they had been told (and this I know is true) that bottle feeding for a day or two would jeopardise their breastfeeding forever. It might have been clear and unjudgmental and scientifically correct- the point I am making is that the Swedish bumble bees don't know this, so they fly anyway. And that I feel this is a factor in the high Swedish breastfeeding rates. The fact that the information they get focuses less on the difficulties.

It is possible to have to pieces of information that are both unjudgmental and factually correct, but are still totally different in emphasis. I believe this is a factor in breastfeeding rates.

Not the most important factor, certainly. Generous paternity leave and well trained house husbands is likely to be a stronger factor.

"PUTTING a baby on their belly has been PROVEN to be harmful to the baby due to suffocation"

Ummm, not so! For years and years women were encouraged to put babies to sleep on their fronts as it was thought to help babies sleep more soundly and discourage 'flat head' syndrome. Most babies who slept like this came to no harm, and even today many preterm babies are put to sleep on their fronts in hospital.

The reason why mothers are now encouraged to put babies to sleep on their backs was because research showed that a much higher number of babies who were prone sleepers died from SIDS than would be expected. In other words the research highlighted an association - the mechanism for the link between prone sleeping and higher rates of SIDS is not properly understood. We just know it exists. We also know that if you take several thousand bf babies, and compare them to several thousand ff babies, you will find more SIDS deaths among the ff babies, as well as significantly higher rates of admission to hospital for serious respitory and gastric illness. And this is when other factors such as parental smoking, parental income, age and education has been 'adjusted' for. And whatever you may think about the research, paediatricians, doctors and midwives clearly feel this information is important enough, and the research reliable enough, that it ought to be communicated to parents when they are in a position to make a decision as to how they're going to feed their babies.

Nothing in medical research is as clear cut as you would like to think it is and it doesn't make sense to disregard it just because there isn't a clear 'cause and effect relationship' between certain lifestyle behaviours and various health outcomes. In other words, we don't usually expect something to be 'conclusive' in the sense you mean, for research findings to have a bearing on the choices we make for ourselves and your children. Two examples I would give you would be the link between prone sleeping and SIDS I mentioned, and the link between lone sleeping and SIDS.

As for 'not seeing both sides' - what side do you want me to see? I understand (and sympathise) with why women don't want to breastfeed and why they are cynical about the research on which the bf recommendations are based. I also understand why so many women who are bf stop before planned. What do you think I'm missing?

Standanddeliver - I think you are missing that a pg LittleMrsHappy probably looked around and saw lots of other mothers FF-ing, and expected to FF herself and didn't for a minute think that her baby was at any disadvantage by choose formula. And when she said she was going to FF, probably nobody said, that's not a good idea.

Now her lovely LO is 6 months old, and she loves him more than anything and would die for him. And now she is encountering, perhaps for the first time, the argument that breast is best, actually not just best but much better...

So she is horrified and upset, and nothing will over-turn her view that her choice for her baby was't the best one.

So you are wasting your time. If a delegation from the RCM turned up on her doorstep to explain the facts patiently and fully, she probably wouldn't beleive them eitehr. So I owuldn't take it too personally

"I am saying that information given tends to emphasise the difficulties of pursuing breastfeeding once you have introduced any mixed feeding- not that the difficulties are made up".

I disagree that the materials (at least those I see) 'emphasise' the difficulties of continuing to bf after the introduction of top-ups. They mention them - which they need to do. I think what you probably want to see is additional information reassuring women that introducing formula need not be the end of breastfeeding, and encouraging them to feel that mixed feeding is a viable option. I think the authors of these leaflets need to walk a very fine line - remembering that a) formula is often introduced by bf mothers when they are struggling to establish bf, and in the absence of good bf support, and b) only a very, very tiny number of babies are exclusively bf - far fewer than is possible, and far fewer than mothers wish.

I think the bottom line for me is 'Informed Choice'. If you want to give a bottle you should be supported to do this - by which I mean, shown how to use formula in a way that it impacts as little as possible on your chances of continuing breastfeeding as long as you want. If you want to exclusively breastfeed you should also be encouraged to do this, and shown how. Fundamentally - you need to know the pros and cons of both, and given the tools and the knowledge to realise your choice.

I have never seen any information that says, 'well actually some people are able to reinitiate breastfeeding after a few days' break',

"Not the most important factor, certainly. Generous paternity leave and well trained house husbands is likely to be a stronger factor."

Not discounting the importance of good support postnatally, but I would point out that the communities in which bf is most entrenched, and where women experience the fewest difficulties with establishing lactation tend to be in developing countries where women have a) no welfare support and b) men aren't necessarily domestically 'well trained'!

Cory - that's just not the case - there's plenty of info out there about mixed feeding, or getting your milk up, say after mum has been ill...

I'm not sure what a campaign about mixed feeding would say... Over a third of new mums already believe formula is better or as good as breastmilk - so I'm not sure the UK is ready for such subtlety!

Anyway - isn't that the thinking behind the every breastfeed matters angle?

WWC said Standanddeliver - I think you are missing that a pg LittleMrsHappy probably looked around and saw lots of other mothers FF-ing, and expected to FF herself and didn't for a minute think that her baby was at any disadvantage by choose formula. And when she said she was going to FF, probably nobody said, that's not a good idea.

Now her lovely LO is 6 months old, and she loves him more than anything and would die for him. And now she is encountering, perhaps for the first time, the argument that breast is best, actually not just best but much better...

So she is horrified and upset, and nothing will over-turn her view that her choice for her baby was't the best one.

So you are wasting your time. If a delegation from the RCM turned up on her doorstep to explain the facts patiently and fully, she probably wouldn't beleive them eitehr. So I owuldn't take it too personally hmm

What a grotesquely patronising post WWC, LMH has stated quite clearly in numerous posts why she couldn't bf, FFS!

Take your stirring spoon elsewhere eh and stop speaking for other people when you clearly have idea what you're talking about.

Yes, because Hitler's radical views can easily be compared with what you percieve to be radical views about supporting breastfeeding.....

This is pointless. You and I are so far apart in our thinking.