breast is best

[Haitch27]

Is anyone else who is pregnant sick to the back bloody teeth of the 'breast is best' campaign being shoved down your throat everywhere you turn and being badgered by health carers to attend breastfeeding 'workshops'?? Maybe its just where I live but it seems to be everywhere yet the one thing no one says is "are you planning to breastfeed"? Assumption that all Mums will!!
Curious to know as I said if it is just my area or is it everywhere?

haha apparently men can produce milk heehee how much i'm not sure!

"newborns!! Ha, my 3yo still does that"

All three of my children are very attached to my breasts still - not literally so though! (they're 4, 6 and 10). I'm sure some of the comfort they get from resting their heads on my chest now comes from subconscious echoes of the pleasure they experienced through breastfeeding as babies.

No, Ruby, you started the name calling further up the thread because you are utterly determined in your assertion that people who ff are a selfish drain on society (at best). According to you, if you don't bf you are 'not a responsible member of society'. This is not only risible, but unpleasant and reductive. But like I said, fortunately I suspect you are in the crazed minority. You tell me I am blind to what you call 'the bigger picture': well, the bigger picture is precisely what I am thinking of, and bf is one small element in the overall health and development of a child. As for society, I am afraid it simply isn't going to erode because people ff, though I am sure it inflates your self-importance hugely to think that it will.

As for this business of some midwives deliberately trying to encourage a newborn baby to the breast when the mother (who has just given birth) has expressed an opinion otherwise - what a nerve. Mind you, nothing surprises me about some midwives. What a depressing thread!

"As for this business of some midwives deliberately trying to encourage a newborn baby to the breast when the mother (who has just given birth) has expressed an opinion otherwise - what a nerve."

There is no excuse for a midwife ignoring a mother's express wish not to have her baby placed tummy down on her stomach or chest for skin to skin contact after the birth.

But it is perfectly reasonable for the midwife to put the baby in this position if the mother has not expressly asked her not to, because it's a position which is natural and beneficial for the baby.

"Mind you, nothing surprises me about some midwives"

I know loads of midwives and on the whole I'd say that they're unusually compassionate and thoughtful people.

And the reason why they have such strong feelings about breastfeeding is because they (often) know much more about babies and about breastfeeding, and about the early interactions between mothers and babies than the general public. Generally the less they know the less they care about breastfeeding.

But I also find this thread depressing. I find it incredibly sad that so many babies are kept from their mother's breasts. For someone who knows about breastfeeding it can fill your heart with pity to see a newborn rooting for the breast and then being given a bottle instead. I understand that all mothers love their babies equally - passionately, and want the best for them, whether they breastfeed or not, but it still makes me feel gutted to see a baby being denied its mothers milk.

Yes Standanddeliver I do understand what you are saying, it does not mean all formula fed babies/children will get obesity,diabetes,gastrointestinal problems etc, it just means that the likelhood is increased. However we all have a choice to smoke or not to smoke, or to eat unhealthily or to drink alcohol despite health warnings, but with bf that choice is taken away from us and a variety of factors involved make it difficult or impossible to bf. I wish i had a ready supply of milk flowing like a tap but it was not so. There are some that cannot bf for whatever reason, be it physiological,psychological or external factors such as support to help do that.

At the end of the day i believe it is a womans choice to either ff/bf and they should be respected and not made to feel bad, but does not mean i agree with it.

I dont know but i do think that some women produce more, some less and would love to do a study on it. My cousin and friend seemed to have milk practically flowing from their breasts and were forever engorged, but me no. My friend when she had her son in hospital had so much milk that she donated it to the milk bank (27 years ago mind you) She said she ate a lot of liver just before the son was born so that might be it too.

"Shouldn't the midwife just adhere to the physiological norm when it comes to immediate care after birth of mother and baby - unless the mum has asked her to do something different?"

No, they should ask when the woman arrives (and ideally this should already have been discussed during pre natal appointments). I had no idea that the baby could do this when pg with DS1, if the MW had done this without asking my preferences I would have been horrified. The sad part is, I would have had no idea that the midwife had done this to me and my son deliberately. Once again, even if you discount the feelings of the mother, how is that fair on the baby, to get to the point of latching on and immediately being removed? You say you have seen several new mothers decide to BF after birth, how many more have their babies latch onto them and immediately remove them? What about their choices and their feelings? It isn't perfectly reasonable not to ask a woman's preference, it's presumptious.

My children don't need your pity thanks. Save it for children who aren't being fed at all.

I do agree with Allidon the midwifes should know from a womans birthplan or should ask the woman frist what they would like and not assume. It would be bad if they had put the baby on the womans tummy for the baby to latch but the woman does not want to bf so removing that baby would be cruel imp, better to know beforehand.

Look - just because an intervention is the cultural norm, if it's proven to be disadvantageous for babies compared with the physiological norm why should midwives actively try to increase its incidence? (which is what they're incidentally doing if they ask the mother whether she intends to breast or bottle feed before putting her baby in her arms). Midwives should ask mothers if they want their baby delivered on to their stomachs after the birth and explain why they encourage skin to skin contact. If the mother is not happy with this she can say so.

I appreciate it feels uncomfortable to think of other people pitying your babies when I'm sure you children are happy and very well cared for. But I've had a lot of contact with tiny newborn babies and I'm just telling you what I feel when I see them rooting for the breast and then being given a bottle. I think it's sad. So do most midwives, although they see it so frequently they probably get hardened to it after a while.

Pigletmania - why do you feel the need to point out that "it does not mean all formula fed babies/children will get obesity,diabetes,gastrointestinal problems etc?"

Has anyone here suggested that they do?

And we all agree that nobody should be forced to breastfeed, or berated for not doing so.

And we all acknowledge that lots of women have the choice taken from them by poor support and advice.

Can we leave these agreed on points out of the discussion and focus on the points in hand? It gets a bit wearying having to state and restate the bleeding obvious.

"Midwives should ask mothers if they want their baby delivered on to their stomachs after the birth and explain why they encourage skin to skin contact."

All well and good if part of that explanation is "the baby will crawl up to your breast and latch on", but somehow I doubt it. Again, do you think it is fair for a baby to get to the point of latching on and then be removed? Isn't it better, if the mother is determined to FF, that the baby is not placed in such a cruel position?

It doesn't make me uncomfortable to think of other people feeling pity for my children, it makes me think they're bonkers quite frankly.

This is why I think any campaign trying to raise the profile of breastfeeding is a fantastic thing.

Breastfeeding to me is totally natural. My mother and all my aunts breastfed their DC's. All my generation who are now having DC's are doing the same. It never occured to me not to, and I think I am extremely fortunate in being able to. I think the role of extended family being supportive and seeing it as the norm cannot be underestimated. I remember with DS1 going to see family, DS was about 8 weeks old and I was shattered. I commented that I didnt know if I could continue bfeeding and my aunts rallied round supportively encouraging me - which was exactly what I needed at the time.

And today I have realised why this particular debate can get so emotive. Coming from a culture where where bfeeding is totally expected, I cannot understand why someone would expressly request no skin to skin/ initial latching on. (am not saying that to be critical of anyones choice or inflame the debate) but it is totally alien to me. And i guess that the government is trying to replicate my 'hardwiring' (for want of a better word) through this campaign.

Because I can totally understand that if you havent seen bfeeding first hand etc, you could view it with the same instinctive reaction that I have described above - as a totally alien concept/ thing to do.

Does my post make any sense?

"s fair for a baby to get to the point of latching on and then be removed"

Don't think it's any more unfair than denying the baby colostrum altogether - which is there to provide him or her with special protection during the most vulnerable few days and weeks of its life. I don't think there is any evidence that babies who are denied access to the breast after a couple of initial feeds are in any way emotionally traumatised by the experience. It's pretty normal in the UK at least for babies to have a few feeds at the breast before switching to the bottle. In fact lots of mothers who really dislike the idea of breastfeeding will still do everything they can to ensure their baby at least receives colostrum.

Colostrum is part of nature's grand design to begin to make good the unique immunological vulnerability of all babies at birth. Babies who are denied colostrum are disadvantaged in immunological terms - there is no denying this. Don't midwives have a duty to gently encourage mums to give their baby colostrum, just like they would encourage them to wash their hands after going to the toilet and handling their baby, or discouraging visitors with colds from handling their baby?

mistletoekisses - your post makes perfect sense to me! I think when you say "i guess that the government is trying to replicate my 'hardwiring' (for want of a better word) through this campaign" I think you are hitting the nail on the head.

Its that bit of what you said Standanddeliver

Honestly - there is no other choice which adults make on behalf of themselves and their children where responsibly adults fall over themselves to deny the medical evidence of increased risk of ill health in babies in the way that we do with infant feeding. Can you imagine us taking the 'the only thing that matters is that you do exactly what you feel like' line in relation to any other maternal choice which affects the health of babies? Like smoking, diet in pregnancy or drinking? Like it or not - the maternal choice not to breastfeed does have implications for childrens health and development - whether we can perceive it with our own eyes or not. The least we can do as responsible adults is not deny this in order to make this choice easier for ourselves.

Smoking and drinking will have a direct influence on a persons health, if we ALL smoke or drink too much we can expect to get lung damage and liver disease, but not everyone will get disease as a result of ff it all depends on individual differences really.

So what i am trying to say is that because you ff your child will get such and such disease is wrong, it will make them more suspecpible for example to be hospitalised due to gastroentaritis but not all ff babies will get it. I have know a coupld of my fiends who have bf whose children get a lot of tummy bugs.

"just like they would encourage them to wash their hands after going to the toilet and handling their baby"

yaaargh! meant 'just like they would encourage them to wash their hands after going to the toilet if they were going to handle their baby'.

No, midwives have a duty to respect the wishes of the mother and not to meddle or impose their own value systems without being asked.

Oh, and further to your point above, sadly NOT EVERYONE on this board does agree that people should not be berated for ff.

But presumably if they were removed either just before or immediately after latching on, they wouldn't get any colostrum anyway? Yes midwives should offer that information, but they shouldn't override a woman's choice if she says no (or isn't even asked )

Oh, and the gastroenteritis point - this arises mainly when people aren't cleaning or sterilising the bottles properly - according to my obstetrician, anyway, and she really ought to know.

Yes i do agree with you Standanddeliver that mums could be gently encouraged to give the first feeds for the colostrum, or to at least express if they are uncomfortable about the baby on the breast. One of my friends said that it made her feel ill at the idea of a baby on the breast, and a lot of women feel that way. My cousin was like that, but had a lot of milk and expressed exclusively for 9 mothns which was fantastic.

if the mums dont want to than it should be up to them at the end of the day no matter what they feel and what we feel. I can see both sides of the coin as my dd was largely ff and bf for the first couple of weeks and she is at the moment very happy and healthy strapping little girl

sorry meant no matty what the MV feel if the mum is adament she does not want to than so be it.

"Smoking and drinking will have a direct influence on a persons health, if we ALL smoke or drink too much we can expect to get lung damage and liver disease, but not everyone will get disease as a result of ff it all depends on individual differences really".

All babies are affected by their mothers choice of feeding, whether it manifests itself in the form of disease or not.

FF babies will grow up into children with greater arterial stiffness than bf babies. Their blood pressure will be higher as adolescents. FF babies as a group display physiologically abnormal growth patterns (the identification of which is the rationale behind the switch to using growth charts based on exclusively bf babies as the standard against which to plot the growth of all babies). The palates of bf babies and ff babies are different. I could mention other ways in which bottlefeeding impacts of the physiological development of children. The point I'm trying to make is that infant feeding choices affect all children in a variety of ways - some subtle and imperceivable to the individual, some less subtle. But it's still true that you are what you eat - whether we are talking about a sub-optimal diet in early infancy or a suboptimal diet in later childhood. Many, many children grow up with suboptimal diets and will appear to be robustly healthy and happy. In fact I would say this is true of the majority of children fed on diets deficient in fruit and vegetables. It doesn't mean that as individuals their growth and development has been unaffected by their diet.

"So what i am trying to say is that because you ff your child will get such and such disease is wrong, it will make them more suspecpible for example to be hospitalised due to gastroentaritis but not all ff babies will get it. I have know a coupld of my fiends who have bf whose children get a lot of tummy bugs."

Yes, yes, yes. We have acknowledged this. We all accept it to be true. Now can we move on.?

Ta

[mn - any chance of giving us a rolling-eyed emoticon please?]

"One of my friends said that it made her feel ill at the idea of a baby on the breast, and a lot of women feel that way. My cousin was like that"

Hmmm.

If there was any other physiologically normal behaviour which inspired feelings of helpless disgust in a mother, and which impaired her ability to provide optimal care for her baby, wouldn't she at least be offered counselling and support to overcome it?

"If there was any other physiologically normal behaviour which inspired feelings of helpless disgust in a mother, and which impaired her ability to provide optimal care for her baby, wouldn't she at least be offered counselling and support to overcome it?"

I see your point, but I think the more pressing problem is mothers who are unable to breast feed through lack of support. I said this earlier in the thread, but if all mothers who wanted to BF were able to, this in itself would raise the profile of BF and help to normalise it, as well as reducing the health concerns to the population. Once those mothers can successfully BF, then the focus could shift to those women who don't. Given the way the situation is at present, all that money hypothetically spent on counselling would be wasted if the mother wasn't then given the post natal support she needs.