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.

I reckon every time you take your baby somewhere in the car there is far more chance of it being seriously damaged that formula feeding. I read somewhere that a person has a 1/200 chance of being killed in a car crash (that scared the shit out of me just before I passed my test). There are lots of risks with things that we do just for convenience, let alone things which are necessary.

Don't hold your breath MYODD..

You know, this thread has been really good for me. It has made me even more determined that with this baby I will do what is right for all of us, no matter what that may be and to hell with the preaching of the b/f lobby. Congratulations WWC and others - you've managed to make an enthusiastic supporter of b/f feel much less enthusiastic. A truly great start to your campaign.

The most important thing of all to me is the happiness of my DS, and if b/f threatens to turn me into a loonie again then I will be drawing the line. I know that now.

Gaelicsheep, there have been virtually no responses made to any points raised here. The responses made have been in relation to minor, pedantic issues e.g. who said 'may', who said 'fact', who said 'guaranteed' - no attempt to tackle any serious comments made about the validity of bashing women who ff over the head (sorry, "informing" women who ff of the "risks" of ffing). I'm not wasting any more time here either - maybe our personal experiences are an affront to the notion that all mixed and/or ffers are just misinformed silly girls who sinply don't understand research methodology enough to realise the serious risks they are posing to their children's health. Unless you're WWC, in which case, they're just a juicy source for ridiculous - and as someone else said, twattish - comments for the sake of it. Adios, people.

Sorry if posters feel that I am not resonding - but there is rather a lot of points to respond to.. I will scroll down and look at your post Gaelicsheep - no offence intended!

However, just on this point - no one is saying that FF babies are keeling over like it's poison, but if you look at the UNICEF list of benefits, it follows that if you're bf you incur xtra risk.

Read down it, and as you look at each risk of FF, you can basically say that FF babies are more likely to have these illnesses than bf ones...

Artificially fed babies are at greater risk of:

gastro-intestinal infection

respiratory infections

necrotising enterocolitis

urinary tract infections

ear infections

allergic disease (eczema and wheezing)

insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus

sudden infant death syndrome

childhood leukaemia.

and breastfed babies may have better:

neurological development.
Other studies of health and breastfeeding:

Cardiovascular disease in later life

Breastfeeding, bed sharing and cot death

Breastfeeding and HIV transmission

Breastfeeding and dental health
Women who have breastfed are at lower risk of:

breast cancer

ovarian cancer

hip fractures and bone density.
Breastfeeding may also provide protection against (more research needed):
for the infant

multiple sclerosis

acute appendicitis

tonsillectomy
for the mother

rheumatoid arthritis.

chandelina

What are you basing that number on? (I mean how do you know how many mums there are in total to be able to work out 1%?) And why is it impossible to believe?

Not trying to disagree with you, just interested.

Yes mrsbean78, you're right. After all, why let the truth spoken by those of us who actually have experience of these issues get in the way of smug, self-righteous moralising?!

mrsbean

Call me paranoid but I keep thinking you're getting at me but I'm not bashing those who FF

Maybe it is my paranoia.

Gaelicsheep posted:
Cheers WWC, thanks a lot. I guess that implies that I wasn't as determined then, since I was in agony and gave in to using formula.

I really wish people would stop implying that b/f succeeds for some and not others because the successful ones are more "determined"! Makes me and

I'm sorry that you're offended, and I'm not trying to upset you, but (and I've think I've already made this point) how determined a woman feels to bf does have an impact on the likelihood she will be successful. And I stand by my assertion that telling people it is important to bf is necessary. Under pressure to give up, you need this kind of motivation, I think - besides I am only adovcating you tell people the truth about the risks and benefits.

I'm not however implying you were personally lacking - how could I know that. Everyone on the thread, as far as I can see, accepts that not everyone can bf. All that can really be said is that some women won't be able to bf- BUT it is indisputable that in the UK more women give up than in other bf-ing friendly cultures.,,,

Anyway, this is all starting to feel very circular.

X-posted WWC. Yes, I would appreciate if you would read my posts, and the many other threads where this issue has been discussed (you won't find me under this name though).

Don't imagine, however, that I'm want or need anyone to condone my actions or pat me on the back for trying. I am perfectly satisfied with my decisions. I am perfectly unhappy that I had to take them, but we all have to make the best of the cards we are dealt. Some are luckier than others in this respect.

Yes it's circular WWC, but it's a bloody important point because it goes to the heart of why these arguments get to me so much. Determination only applies when is really not bothered one way or the other (which I don't think I am anymore, tbh - life's too short). Once a woman is committed to breastfeeding then she is determined, full stop. It is then that all the other variables come into play, and it is these that determine whether or not she will be successful.

BTW, given the pain I suffered along with all the other problems we had, I think 4.5 months is pretty darned successful, even if it wasn't exclusive.

Olifin, no tricky maths, just looking at the number of babies born. So if 700,000 babies are born a year, WWC is saying only 1 pct of them, or 7,000, are still BFing after six months.

She says only 1% of them are "exclusively" breastfeeding after 6 months. That's no surprise really, is it, since most people follow the advice to begin weaning at this time?

There's no need to list all the risks (again) WWC. We all know them. It doesn't change the fact that the majority of formula fed infants are fine, thriving in fact.

I don't know what she means or where the number came from. The NHS stats say 25 pct of women are still BFing after six months.

Gaelicsheep - I don't know how to make this sound non-patronising, but I think you need to give yourself a break. You fed for 4 1/2 months - you tried very hard - you clearly feel bad about it, and didn't give up bf-ing lightly. Give yourself a break - you did well - better than most...

BTW, I think the ebf figure is about not supplementing with formula.. though the advice is you shouldn't be offering solids until 6mths, so EBF to 6 months is the gold standard. I'm not sure it's that implausible.

In Scotland, I'm not sure they collect this stat - it would be hard to collect it in a sample survey as the numbers are so small. At 6 weeks, only 25% of babes are ebf, so you wouldn't expect it to be that high at 6 mths...

Makeyerowndinner - sorry - i would happily answer the question, but I've looked and i can't find it - can you paste it?

Risks of severely depressed mother due to extreme pain and feelings of complete failure:

baby fails to thrive as not fed often enough

baby generally neglected

mother harms herself and/or her baby

Get my gist?

I did not know it was going to hurt so bad! I did not know that newborns feed constantly! I did not know to expect that WHY becasue nobody fucking told me!

All i got was breast is best. I do think more BF support is necessary. I dont think trying to guilt people into it will help at all

I am still BF but thats becasue i went and found support

YABU

By Allidon Sat 16-Jan-10 21:55:44
There's no need to list all the risks (again) WWC. We all know them. It doesn't change the fact that the majority of formula fed infants are fine, thriving in fact.

You make it sound like I'm being a bit pedantic or trivial to mention that a handful will end up with leukemia or die from cot death....or a heart attack in later life....

If that's the case then WWC about the ebf figure then it has no scientific relevance and exists purely for political reasons. The arguments against formula, or any other food or supplement, before 6 months are mostly all centred around the virgin gut and the perceived dangers of introducing foreign substances before gut can cope with them. At 6 months this is (generally) no longer an issue.

What that figure is saying, therefore, is that it doesn't matter what solid crap the baby is being fed: if the mother still only gives breastmilk as a drink then she is de facto doing better than the woman who is weaning onto the healthiest food but has introduced some formula upon going back to work. That makes no sense at all.

This whole thread just goes to show how emotive the whole feeding issue remains. No matter what information is out in the public domain and how well it is presented there will always be some women who go that extra mile to bf, there will be some women who are unable to bf and those that actively chose to ff.

As an unsuccessful bfeeder it can sometimes feel that i have to justify why i switched to bottle feeding so soon both to family, friends and health professionals - believe me though 4 days with infrequently wet and no dirty nappies seemed like eternity (my DH and i did a little dance on the ward when we changed our first dirty nappy - how times have changed!!!)

On a lighter note my sister in law tells the tale of when she attended her antenatal classes last year and one session was entitled `advantages and disadvantages of bf' After 2 hours of the midwife talking about the advantages of bfeeding my SIL tentatively asked what the disadvantges were the midwife turned round and said (scathingly) that there weren't any and changed the subject

No, of course it isn't trivial. But your argument is that the majority of FF infants are not fine. A list of risks which affect a minority does not prove that statement.

Thanks chandelina!

I don't think it's as high as 25% after 6 months, or certainly not 25% of all babies. Maybe it's 25% of babies who were BF initially. But even that sound high to me, I remember it being far lower than that in the national survey thingy (can't remember what it's called! Will go and have a look).

checked the stats again and must concede to WWC that incidence of exclusive BFing is less than 1 pct throughout UK at six months. Two thirds because of the introduction of formula or millk supplement and 10 pct from introduction of solids. (not sure about the rest! Juice?)

anyway, I didn't exclusively BF but made it to 17 months and feel damn proud of it, frankly,

Gaelicsheep - the thing it breastmilk continues to contain anti-bodies, so continues to gives babies xtra protection that those who are receiving formula - so yes, it would be best practice to continue to bf exclusively - ie no forumla until the baby is 2 years at least.

You would hope that every mom would wean onto healthy solids!

WWC - thanks, but actually I don't feel bad about it - not any more with the benefit of time. I had no choice in the matter and I now accept that there is nothing I could have done differently - except perhaps give up sooner and enjoy some of the early time with DS. What makes me feel bad is other people's assumptions about people like me.