Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To demand a harder hitting campaign to promote breastfeeding?

1001 replies

WashwithCare · 11/01/2010 21:00

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.

OP posts:
standandeliver · 18/01/2010 09:49

WWC - you're being bullied and abused on this thread in a really very nasty way.

You've been tactless, but that's all. But it seems you've stirred up a really aggressive, spiteful and weird response in some of the posters here.

TBH I'm finding this thread more and more uncomfortable to read and I'm going to request that it be removed.

LittleMrsHappy · 18/01/2010 09:58

Standanddeliver I actually agree, I dont think any of their studies/research etc... should be discredited, and if you go by the OP and what she wanted to show, how on earth can you not call that scaremongering?.

She has said a fair few times, that anybody who doesn't BF dont put their child's health first, and are also putting their child at a increased risk of BC, (while not necessary untrue, BUT only if you have a high risk of cancer in your family).

Im not labeling the LINK between the two, I am labeling the OPs propaganda about it.

If you have a look at this thread, we started off as saying that BF does significantly reduce you getting breast cancer, to IT may reduce you getting cancer, and NOW to reduce your getting breast cancer, if BF is already in the family.

For me the above, is WHY we need to put the correct information out, as from what originally the OPost stance on the matter, was simply untrue, scaremongering, and considering she is supposed to be a BF supporter she certainly shows not a bone of empathy in her body!

and to be quite frank after the way she has spoken to me, she just plain disgusts me in every moral level as a mother and human being!

Allidon · 18/01/2010 10:11

I don't have a problem with the information being available, in fact I would be horrified if it wasn't. But the way WWC suggested it be advertised, the way she has spoken to and about mothers on this thread has been rude and insensitive, and were that to be transferred into advertising and health care policy it would do far more damage than good.

AnyFucker · 18/01/2010 11:43

stand, I asked for this thread to be removed way back on the 1st page (for different reasons)

they didn't remove it then, I doubt they will now

they are "monitoring" and have several complaints

CarmenSanDiego · 18/01/2010 17:23

I agree that WWC is being bullied. She made a provocative post. It got a response. But I don't get how people can justify the abuse and namecalling they've thrown her way and then say how pro-bfers are the 'nazis' or the militant ones.

Surely even an emotive topic can be debated in an adult manner? Or maybe not. I don't think the post should be removed though.

WashwithCare · 18/01/2010 19:57

Thanks ladies, but I am thick-skinned and non-plussed about such juvenile abuse. I would be impressed if anyone had a rational argument...

Little Mrs wrote:
If you have a look at this thread, we started off as saying that BF does significantly reduce you getting breast cancer, to IT may reduce you getting cancer, and NOW to reduce your getting breast cancer, if BF is already in the family.

This is NOT the case. Breastfeeding has a protective effect for all women. Here is the link to the NHS site:
www.breastfeeding.nhs.uk/en/fe/page.asp?n1=2

It says
Breastfeeding helps protect mothers against:
ovarian cancer
breast cancer
weak bones later in life.

It is positively irresponsible to tell people this isn't true. To suggest that I am scaremongering is absurd. If you don't turst my word, you only need to look at any reputable site (e.g. NHS, RCM, UNICEF etc)

OP posts:
WashwithCare · 18/01/2010 20:04

Anyway, final point - as I like to reflect on whether I am being fair or not, and tbh, just out of interest, I had a look at the relationship between breastfeeding and allergies in my coffee break this morning?

Basically, the consensus seems to be that a generation of bottlefeeding mums in the 1960s and 1970s is a contributary factor to the big rises in food allergies. Makes sense to me, because what you have is basically mums introducing a highly processed artificial food to the babys' immature little gut from birth. It also says, if you want to protect a child from allergies, breastfeed. And in particular, if you have a child who is at a higher risk of food allergies, then you should be breastfeeding them as long as poss, and certainly for the first year, whilst mum limits her diet appropriatley.

I know posters will be interested, so here's some cut and paste from the sites... and some links:

· Dramatic increases in the number of food allergies have been linked to falling breastfeeding rates in the 1960s and 1970s and the rise of convenience foods and early weaning;

· Breastfeeding is wonderful for babies with food allergies. If possible, breast-feed your baby until they are at least 1 year old. Other advice is to just breastfeed as long as possible, as bf-ing limits gives the child the best chance against not developing long-standing allergies. The breast-feeding mother of an allergy-prone child should avoid eating or drinking milk products, peanuts, and eggs during this time.

· The allergy-prone child should not have any solid foods until the age of 6 months, and wait longer before trying particularly allergic foods.

· Breastfeeding can prevent many food allergies. This is especially true if the mother forgoes some of the most allergic foods (especially peanuts and perhaps milk or eggs). On a positive note, mothers who eat beneficial bacteria, as in yogurt, while pregnant and nursing may help prevent food allergies.

www.drgreene.com/21_1093.html www.bipolarfocus.org/1libr/pa/pa_food 2all_hhg.htm

www.askdrsears.com/html/4/T041800.asp

www.nutramed.com/children/inf ant.htm

Then I looked to see how hard it is to have a lactose free diet ? Doesn't look that hard if you're prepared to do some basic cooking. There are lots of menu planners, e.g. on Tesco site and Sainsburys.

On the whole, I conclude I am not being unreasonable to think that not bf-ing a child with allergies is very much a choice. I have to say, with the strength of evidence available ? if I had a baby with food allergies, I would consider it well worth the hassle?. Would miss my decaf lattes though?.

OP posts:
Allidon · 18/01/2010 20:25

LMH was referring to a study posted on this thread, which found bf only offered protection to women with a first-degree relative who had breast cancer.

WashwithCare · 18/01/2010 20:46

By Allidon Mon 18-Jan-10 20:25:20
LMH was referring to a study posted on this thread, which found bf only offered protection to women with a first-degree relative who had breast cancer.

My view is that LMH struggles to understand the evidence base and is desperate to belive that bf does not generally protect women against breastcancer. However indefensible her position is.

OP posts:
AnyFucker · 18/01/2010 20:54

WWC, let me get this right

you spent your "coffee break" gathering evidence to prove one poster on MN wrong ?

this person you have never met

whose opinions mean so little to you, as you make so plainly obvious

why would you do that ?

you seriously need to examine your motives

LMH, please do not respond

BetsyLittleson · 18/01/2010 21:17

No, LMH, don't respond. It's not worth the increase in your blood pressure.

I didn't continue to bf my milk protein and soya protein intolerant children either, having weighed up the potential impacts on my health and the rest of my family if I was to cut out all dairy and soya containing foods, given that I had a number of children with very small age gaps who needed me at my best. They are happy and healthy on hypoallergenic formulas which I am very thankful for.

LittleMrsHappy · 18/01/2010 21:17

Oh shut up you pleb, we have very very different studies then, not my understanding of it AT ALL! the NHS website says this, BREASTCANCER WEBSITE says that it MAY so therefore a possibility.

But who do we go by, the experts who research breast cancer OR the the hard hitting stance from the NHS, that "Breast is BEST" so misleading isn't it!

Both are reputable sites, and both say too completely different things. So erm!

You are beginning to infuriate the fucking HELL out of me with regards to MY, as its not just LACTOSE I have to cut from my diet its Soya, ANY FOODS containing CITRUS!!!!!! AND ALL DAIRY PRODUCTS! I also have to stay away from peanut food groups as my husband is allergic to those!!!!!!!!!!

so are you telling me you are more qualified than the experts and consultants in the medical world who deal with my child everyday, that they are wrong, and all I have to do is live of a diet of veg and my own body will be OK and healthy?

I HAD HAD HAD NO choice to give up BF you fucking imbecile, but yes clearly you are the expert here, and all medical advice should be ignored because the breastfeeding dictator whos sooo narrow minded, thick as shite know better than them!

AnyFucker · 18/01/2010 21:19

gah

LittleMrsHappy · 18/01/2010 21:27

Too late, sorry girls, I get more and more infuriate by this, not only because of the struggles we are dealing with on a daily basis, and a battle with his consultants due to formula cost, but some pleb on a website knows so much better then me, his consultants and experts in ds2 field, as his citrus allergy is so rare, normally you get a intolerance, but not allergy.

Arrggggg fooking MUPPET! go fooking shag the cows, better still go shag your DH ex, both of you are heid the balls, and are well suited!

gaelicsheep · 18/01/2010 21:32

WWC - none of the things you just posted are news to anyone who's been on Mumsnet for, um, 5 minutes, least of all LMH I am sure. Why are you going to such trouble to try and discredit her, when it is clear that she's had a really tough time and really difficult decisions to make about what's best for her and her child? How can you even begin to presume that you, on the basis of a few posts on an internet forum, know her background enough to pass any critical comment regarding her child's health. Who do you think you are?!

AnyFucker · 18/01/2010 21:35

< links arms with gs >

lmh, seriously, love, go and hug your babies and ignore this nasty piece of work

her putdowns are getting less and less subtle, she will soon get on everyone's last nerve

WashwithCare · 18/01/2010 21:45

Well GS and AF... lets see... it's a debating forum, so I come in with a desire to debate the issues.

LMH is taking a stance, and I am disagreeing with her... isn't that what you do on a debating forum?

All I am doing is politely stating my case, without resorting to foul and vulgar language, as a number of other posters have. Every thing I have said has been well evidenced, and I have provided clear references, including web links on numerous ocassions.

There is no need for any poster to respond if they find what I say unconvincing or just plain bonkers...

Personally I am posting because I am intrigued about why other mothers, who access to the same information as me, seem to come to such different conclusions. I think it is a fascinating topic.

OP posts:
HappySeven · 18/01/2010 21:54

Think I have a different definition of "politely" and "well-evidenced". Each to their own.

gaelicsheep · 18/01/2010 21:56

WWC on Sun 17th at 20:21:25:

"LittleMRs made a choice - it wasn't her consultant's medical advice that her bm was poisionous to her son that led her to ff - it was her choice.. That's all I'm saying. You say she chose not to, I say she couldnt' be bothered - but our meaning is the same."

That is a shameful attack on an individual poster. She has since seen fit to try and clarify by giving you ever more informatiion about her problems, and still you have not retracted those abominable hurtful comments.

Some people have suggested that you, WWC, are being bullied on this thread. A lot of us disagree with you, yes, and some have resorted to personal insults, which I don't agree with. But you have seen fit to pick one particular poster who disagrees with your views and engage in a personal attack that criticises her parenting, the medical advice she received and the difficult choices she has made regarding the health of her own child. All on the basis of a bit of Googling. That is unforgiveable and very very cruel.

Because of this I am now also going to report this thread.

WashwithCare · 18/01/2010 21:57

LMH, you wrote:
But who do we go by, the experts who research breast cancer OR the the hard hitting stance from the NHS, that "Breast is BEST" so misleading isn't it!

I'm not sure which reputable experts suggest that bf doesn't reduce your risk of breastcancer - please post a specific link as I would be interested to see it.

Ahh yes... the NHS - those well known free thinking radicals... though unless you were being treated privately (I assume not) then presumably all the advice you have been given has come from the NHS?

Anyway, there's no need to be abusive.

There's lots of advice on lactose free and citrus free diets. Anyone whose a vegan is eating a latose free diet - it's not exactly rocket science - and if you're not avoiding animal products you could also continue to get calcium from salmon and sardines...

The real prob with lactose if that it's added to lots of commerical products, like bread, biscuits and cakes... but you can make lactose free cakes and biscuits, and buy a breadmaker.

It irritates me when people try to justifiy their own decisions by pretending things are more dificult than they really are. I feel it is irresponsbile as it perspetuates a belief that the obstacle is insurmountable, and may put off another mother who faces simliar difficulties in the future from even trying.

OP posts:
Allidon · 18/01/2010 21:59

Well said gaelicsheep. WWC, just FYI, the study LMH was referring to was posted on page 35 of this thread by another poster, and clearly states that that particular study found bf only protected women with a strong family history of breast cancer.

mrsbean78 · 18/01/2010 22:05

Why this is fantastic! WWC has proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there is no need whatsoever for medical consultations with professionals! You can find and interpret state-of-the-art evidence by googling on your coffee break! This breakthrough will save the NHS millions. Brilliant!

AnyFucker · 18/01/2010 22:09

I also think we have a widely varying definition of what constitutes a "debate"

AnyFucker · 18/01/2010 22:11

gs, report away

you are wasting your time, honestly

WashwithCare · 18/01/2010 22:11

GS - I'm perplexed by your position and cannot follow your logic at all.

My recollection is that I said (in a toally open) and non-specific way, not directed at anyone in particular - I belive women give up bf-ing too easily.

I wanted a discussion about health promotion and cultural norms. I have repeatedly quoted national statistics.

LMS and a number of other posters, yourself included, elected to turn it into a personal argument - instead of discussing the national and cultural norms in the impersonal manner I had started the debate in, you CHOSE to make very personal statements about how difficult you had found bf-ing.

I was very willing to repeat on numerous occassions that no one could say any specific individual hadn't tried hard enough, as we all accept now every woman can bf.

When I thought replies were likely to offend, I sometimes tactfully overlooked posts - but when I did I would often get "accused" of not responding to specific comments, or if I stopped posting for a few hours, of "abandoning" the thread or being unable to answer.

LMH elected to engage in an argument with me where she wanted to push the point that a child with allergies couldn't be breastfed. She used emotional language, about throwing breastmilk down the toilet etc.

She elected to have this argument, and when she didn't like the answers I gave her, she became abusive.

No one is forcing anyone to debate the issue, but if a poster wants to come onto a thread and repeatedly push their opinion, on what basis do you believe I shouldn't be allowed to offer mine?

OP posts:
Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread