Not breastfeeding and SIDS

[BerryBGood]

Thought this might be of interest to breastfeeders?

analyticalarmadillo.blogspot.com/2010/08/breastfeeding-sids-guilt-at-what-cost.html

I think the majority of people who say that couldn't be bothered have other reasons... There will always be some who just couldn't be bothered, of course - but a lot of people who say they couldn't be bothered actually mean "I had a shit load of problems, am still upset by it, don't want to talk about it".

Guess it depends where you live / quality of your antenatal care.

I would agree that this information is not well discussed for the reasons that the article states. I know that our local breastfeeding information leaflets shied away from stating that there is a reduced incidence of SIDS in breastfed babies so as not to upset women, therefore women are not able to make a truly informed choice.

There also seems to be a current uproar of "That's anti-formula feeding!" every time something in connection to breastfeeding is publicised, be it on here, or in RL. So think that has an affect on how often its thrown around. Which really does no one any good at all.

I thought this was old news, TBH.

Not sure why to pull. I think lots of better reasons to feel guilty (about not feeding) than SIDS risk which is pretty low anyway.

I admit I over reacted. Sorry op.

I am gobsmacked at the first post after the OP. The day when evidence based information on infant feeding is with held on MN for fear of offending, then I will walk away for good.

The thrust of that blog entry was to talk about guilt essentially, not SIDS. The OP found a fact that she found fascinating within it. In my area the link between SIDS and bottle feeding is not highlighted in any NHS antenatal class and this is an area of high deprivation and low breastfeeding rates.

That's interesting foxytocin. And it's true, if SIDS and bfing are discussed at all, it's with the slant that bfing decreases the risk of SIDS, with the implication being that the risk of SIDS in a non-bf baby is the 'normal' level if SIDS risk: when in fact it is the bf baby who faces a 'normal' level of SIDS risk (when only considering SIDS as a rick factor of course - there are many known and unknown risks for SIDS).

Berry You've answered your own question with "people who can't be bothered to bf..." - they won't give a fuck anyway - all this type of article does is place guilt upon the shoulders of those who care enough to read/listen to the advice of others.

I'd like to know what the numbers are for SIDS/FF where the parents are just "crap"... but are we going to ignore that and simply keep bleating on about "breast is best"?

I don't think the increased risk would make any difference; eg I choose to have all my DC sleep in their own rooms very early, DS2 from 3 weeks, even though there is a very slight increased risk - because I just couldn't sleep with him in the room.

Also I didn't buy him a new mattress as the sprung mattress used by his two older siblings was still in good condition. I can easily afford a new mattress I just felt that it was unnecessary.

I don't feel guilt about either of these things.

mumNWLondon- that's the whole point - you could make your own decision, based on the facts, weighing up the risks and doing what is best for your whole family.

The problem comes with the withholding of information that prevents parents from making an informed choice - for fear of making them feel 'guilty'.

I consider myself quite well informed and did not know that there is a greater chance of SIDS if you ff. So thanks for that.

I thought the link was well known though, am surprised to read here that its not.

I just don't think any point in really pushing this because I don't think a tiny difference in SIDS rate is going to make a difference to anyone's decision making process.

My SIL thinks I am mad taking the risk with DS2 in his own room, but otherwise I couldn't sleep, I think she is mad allowing her DH to smoke (although he doesn't smoke near the kids or in the house) but he would rather continue to smoke than lower the SIDS risk. My sister put all her kids to sleep on their tummies as they slept better. My other SIL bought cot bumpers "as they look nice" - but will not swaddle as midwife said its too risky.... each person does whats best for them.

If she bought the cot bumpers knowing that you should not use them before the age of one, then that's one thing, but I did not buy them because I know that you are not supposed to use them for babies. So I was glad to have the information and I made my decision.

Even well educated middle class parents - the one you may expect to be fully informed - don't always know of the latest research. One friend of mine did not know it was unsafe to put a rear facing car seat in the front seat with the air bag on. And she took great offense when I told her this (because she was taking my ds in her car)- she felt that I had accused her of dangerous driving. What was I supposed to have done, not told her, let my ds be put at risk, to spare her feelings of guilt?

You know, people don't always do what's best for them.

They make decisions and select choices on the basis on many reasons, and 'what's best for me/my baby?' might or might not be part of it.

How can buying cot bumpers because they look nice (FFS) while knowing their (un)safety record be a decision based on 'what's best'? How can smoking when there are babies and young children around be doing 'what's best' for anyone?

There are limits to how far parents can be compelled to do 'what's best' and in some cases (use of safety restraints in cars, for instance) laws have been made which actually do exercise compulsion, and rightly so, IMO. Same goes for inappropriate punishments - our society has made it illegal for children to be physically punished beyond a certain limit. I am quite sure some parents think it's 'best' to batter children with sticks as part of ordinary discipline and happily, the law disagrees.

Whatever the law, everyone has the right to full information about their choices, politely shared and clearly stated. Thereafter, their choices are up to them (within the law).

I had heard of the link between not BF'ing and SIDS. From what I understand it't because BF'ing may provide some protection from infections etc that may cause SIDS (but they don't really know). It was in my ante natal notes, breast feeding promotion stuff, baby books and web sites (FSID etc). Thing is though, as they don't really know what causes SIDS, there's a huge range of risk factors including: Smoking, not placing your baby on their back to sleep, baby getting too hot, Baby getting trapped under covers/blankets, baby sleeping in a different room to you before 6 months and co-sleeping as well as not BF'ing. And I bet all of us have done one of those at some point. As others have said at the end of the day you need do what's best for yourself and your family.

I think the positives are often well known, but not the things that could be perceived as negative to formula feeding. That is the main problem, and it is patronising to say grown women who chose to have a child shouldn't be made aware of the impact of their choices.

I think many women think FF and BF are mostly the same but bf is a little bit better.

People tend to make more of the fact that bf is easier and requires less than faff than the fact that it is better for the baby for their health.

I am pregnant I hope to breastfeed, I will be gutted if I can't but I don't think lying or playing down the upsides to breast feeding will make me feel better if I can't. I'd still prefer everyone who can breastfeed does.

Just read the posts about cot bumpers. Grrrrr. If they are no good why do they sell them for the little cribs you keep babies under 6 months in? Sigh I didn't know.. Bought really cute ones from mothercare with lions.. Off to research.

Again just cause you know somehting doesn't mean everyone else does.

ALso another point is like with AIDS you have a nation wide campaign for something.. everyone learns what they need to know. So the powers that be drop the campaign, and then what happens? It's no longer common knowledge and people start getting ill again, sometimes we all need to be reminded of what is good for us.

mothercare sell moses baskets with little quilts on. it then says in the instructions that quilts shouldn't be used for babies under 1 year. um, so what's the quilt for then!? Same with cot bumpers. Now that's dangerous.

Cot bumpers and the liner / quilt in Moses baskets piss me off. They're not safe. They shouldn't be sold. End off, as far as I'm concerned.

What exactly are the risks of cot bumpers please? Any research or links?

All I've read about is risk of babies using them to climb out of cots, or risk of long ties causing strangulation. Both risks sounded rather hypothetical and unsupported when I've come across them, but there seems to be a consensus here so perhaps I'm out of touch. My baby co-sleeps at night but occasionally naps in his cot so I need to assess the risks again, I think.

I thought that cot bumpers weren't thought of as dangerous any more, actually. But the risk was to do with rebreathing oxygen and having too much cO2 in the air surrounding the baby. You can reduce the risk by putting a fan in the room where they sleep, I seem to remember reading. But I think the whole study was discredited TBH. FSID have taken the cot bumper 'risk' off their literature anyway.

There were some really interesting stats about different factors relating to SIDS risk quoted on the webchat with Helen Ball a few months ago. Here's the whole thing:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/mumsnet_live_events/980577-Live-webchat-with-sleep-expert-Dr-Helen-Ball-Tuesday-15th

I can't remember how many posts to a page in a normal layout now, but it's post number 101 so will be right at the beginning of the 5th or 6th page, I think, unless you have pages set up differently. The whole chat is interesting actually, but I thought those stats themselves were fascinating. They are all from different sources so no actual studies referenced, unless they were earlier in the chat and I have forgotten about it.