Being ‘paid to breastfeed’ - your thoughts?

[SarahMumsnet]

The BBC's reporting this morning that new mothers living in some areas of Derbyshire and south Yorkshire are to be given vouchers for shops including Matalan, Mothercare and John Lewis if they breastfeed their babies. These will be given out as part of a study by the University of Sheffield, aimed at discovering whether “financial incentives” will increase the uptake of breastfeeding in parts of the country where rates are low; mothers will receive vouchers worth up to £120 if they breastfeed until six weeks, and another £80-worth if they continue to the six-month mark.

The scheme, according the senior researcher on the project, is intended "as a way of acknowledging both the value of breastfeeding to babies, mothers and society, and the effort involved in breastfeeding. Offering financial incentives ... might increase the numbers of babies being breastfed, and complement on-going support for breastfeeding provided by the NHS, local authorities and charities."

We've been asked by the beeb what Mumsnetters make of the idea; what's your reaction?

Retropear:" I'm absolutely staggered loss of baby weight and crying isn't on the list of reasons for bfing stopping before 6weeks."

Well - that's what the Infant Feeding survey shows. www.hscic.gov.uk/article/2021/Website-Search?productid=9569&q=infant+feeding+survey&sort=Relevance&size=10&page=1&area=both#top - table 6.6 is the most relevant.

As I said, 'crying' is not given as a reason, but this might be because it is conflated with reasons such as 'insufficient milk'.

(Limited) weight loss is only normal in the first week. If a baby is losing weight after this time, then feeding needs to be fixed, and formula is not the only option.

"I think they need to do a tad more research." Er, why??? Because the reasons the 1000s of mothers surveyed (just under 6000 for table 6.6) don't match with what you think it should be?

No because clearly given the numbers of those giving up after take up something isn't working and more research may be prudent.Ie current findings may not be wholly accurate.Doesn't seem much room for complacency imvho.

More research or previous suggestions would be better than chucking away £200 on mothers nodding fervently when asked if they're still bfing.

Retropear

perhaps it is more that bad advice in those first six weeks contributes to the worry about weight loss?
If you have health professionals telling you to feed in an incorrect way or to supplement (And thus effecting your breast milk supply) or just not trained in correct latch or to spot tongue tie then that could mean weight loss?

So the real reasons are more to do with a lack of care, advice and experience rather than just 'weight loss and crying'?

Yes we do need more research, Retro - but I would say we actually get a lot already of what happens and why. The same survey (done every 5 years so changes are tracked) asks mothers what would have helped them, and we do have a bunch of data on what women say they need.....across all the research, not just this survey, it's pretty consistent.

We know a lot of younger mothers are too embarrassed to breastfeed (20 per cent of those who don't breastfeed at all - obviously a different group to the ones who start and then stop).

Where we need the research is not in the 'what' or the 'why' - it's the 'how'. What works best to meet women's needs, what helps mothers overcome embarrassment, what improves social support so they are not criticised for bf.....

When it comes to choice, what choice does a mother really have, if she is too embarrassed to even start breastfeeding, or finds that if she does start, the infrastructure to support that choice fails her?

Sorry to drag the debate back to the OP re this trial

Can I ask that all those who think that this is a good or 'interesting' idea, and who scoff at the very idea that it might stigmatise mothers who do not bf to consider the following

It is known that it is better for children for their parents to be married. Children of unmarried or single parents in general (I stress IN GENERAL here) have poorer life chances than those born into 2 parent families, even when socio-economic etc factors are factored out.

Similarly it is generally known that younger mothers have better prospects of a healthy complication free pregnancy than older mothers, and are less likely to have children with various congenital disorders esp downs syndrome

Do you think it would be a good idea to give vouchers to married mothers-to-be to the exclusion of the unmarried??

Do you think it would be a good idea to give vouchers to mothers who under the age of 35 to the exclusion of older mothers?

Can you now understand WHY this proposal is so insulting to those who cannot or choose not to bf?

tiktok you say what choice a mother has? If there aren't any medical difficulties to prevent a mother from bf, she does actually have a choice IMO. I understand your point, and I agree that support from your dearest and nearest plays a big part on the choice the mother makes, but do you really believe that if she was to be given some vouchers to bf her dc, people around her will be more supportive of her decision? And if they are, my question is are they offering support for the right reasons? Surely, £200 voucher incentive shouldn't be the main reason for them to realise that bf should be the best choice.

IMO, public (not just mums) in such areas, as well as country wide, need to be educated on the benefits of bf. They need to be given a clear picture of what bf entails and of the benefits you will be providing to your dc.
I also believe that media and marketing campaigns are the way to go. Someone earlier on mentioned soaps, and it's true, all those new "mums" can only be seen holding a bottle to feed her baby, or cans of formulas left around to advertise such and such brand. Wouldn't you agree that if there was at least one of those mums seen to be bf, public may start to perceive bf as more of a norm, realise that it is not "disgusting", "weird" or "perverted"?

Area where I am from, formula seems to be the best choice. "You will have a more settled baby, she will sleep more throughout the night, won't cry as much, less hassle" etc; but even while I was pregnant, I knew I wanted to bf my dc. That's why I say that, yes, mums do have a choice on how they wish to feed their baby.

ProudMum, of course a mother may literally have a (bilogical) choice, but when choice is constrained, mothers become less 'enabled' to make a choice to bf. You can imagine (to take an extreme case) a 17-year-old mother living with domineering parents and no supportive partner, and friends who say 'ewwww' at the idea of breastfeeding....how far does her 'choice' extend? (I have known mothers in those situations). It really, really doesn't matter to her if you try to 'educate' her.

Have a bit of empathy!

rubberduck - I don't know if the study will throw up any positives or not. They will have to find out if other mothers find it stigmatising.

Your reductio ad absurdum doesn't help at all, sorry. I'm not one of those who scoff at the idea it is insulting, though....but it is certainly not crystal clear that it is.

tictoc

As far as I can see its entirely on all fours with the proposal under discussion- If it were introduced it would amount to the state incentivizing 'good' decision making (get married, have children by time 35, bf for 6 months) in the context of highly personal choices ( or non choices as the case my be)

The problem that you have with my analogy I suspect is not that it amounts to "reducto ad absurdum" as you say but it highlights fairly and squarely WHY this is an appalling idea and WHY the suggestion that it would amount to an insult to non bf mums is entirely justified

myrubberduck, I can't work out from your post whether you know that the government is introducing a marriage allowance that rewards people for getting married (and discriminates against those who don't), and has cited precisely the reasons that you describe - better life chances - as its justification.

tiktok I appreciate that there are many situations as the one you listed, I'm sure you came across plenty doing what you do. I just wander, do you really think that (following the example you stated) the girls' domineering parents, unsupportive partner and friends will suddenly think that bf is cool, because she will get £200 vouchers!? Is that really the reason for a girl to bf in the first place?

myrubberduck, you are bang on the money with that post.

tictoc, this
"They will have to find out if other mothers find it stigmatising."

is misguided.

It is not about polling people to ask them if they find it stigmatising. It is a bigger ethical issue than that about how policy treats people (objective) not how they find it.

and that is why all the "oh but it would make me sad because I couldn't bf" stuff is neither here nor there. It is not bad because it would make some other people sad. It is bad because it is degrading to the people who are in the study whether they express this or not.

tiktok, sorry I spelt your name wrongly.

I agree wholeheartedly Rubber it's no better than the married tax allowance(another huge waste of money used to tick us off like naughty school girls).

Incidentally statswise my kids are fucked on all counts- not married,older mum and didn't breast feed until 6months. Thank goodness reality is a little different and they're utterly thriving in every way.

For those of you that find this idea morally objectionable, I'm interested to know what specifically you find wrong? NB, this is not a question about the practicalities, which is a separate thing (ie I'm interested in should it be done at all, not could it be done well)

Is it the notion of paying for behaviour per se?
Is it that it is unfair? If so, on whom?
Is it because it rewards people for doing something they should have done anyway? If so, do you feel the same way about stop smoking schemes that pay people for giving up which (by definition) don't pay money to non-smokers or ex-smokers? Or this scheme in Oldham where the NHS and Council are paying to install new boilers and insulation in 1,000 poorer peoples' homes to cut admissions to hospital?

I am still not seeing why people are so outraged by the very concept of a financial reward for someone who adopts a healthier behaviour.

It's interesting to hear a public health intervention aimed mainly at poorer people being seen as rightwing and stigmatising. It's quite difficult to spend any time on public health work and not end up pretty leftwing. Look at what Bloomberg did with soft drinks, for example!

I explained in detail my objections,the patronising state pat on the head thing is an extra.

People like me aren't married simply because we don't want to be and a gov telling us they'd like us to be married to be perfectly frank is not what I'd decide to get married for.

Ditto bfing. People aren't breast feeding for a variety of reasons which £200 of vouchers won't change or make better.

Aside from that it's a feminist issue imvho.We decide what we want to do with our bodies,not the state,not partners who want the cash,it's not rent a boob.If bfing gets too much it gets too much,money should not come into it.

Oh and smoking has no relation to breast feeding so a dreadful analogy.

Smoking kills and costs the NHS millions,formula in this country if prepared correctly doesn't.

Personally if it is a money saving issue that is the reason behind such a ridiculous idea formula prep booster classes to avoid hospital admissions would be better imvho.

Just a namecheck tiktok...spelt it wrong (am new on here!)

Interesting - I am a bf advocate because I am a feminist, and was a feminist first :)

Women should be able to use their bodies exactly as they wish - and yes, there is an ethical point to answer whether the state (in whatever guise - in this case it's not the state but hey-ho) has any business tweaking choices or nudging women one way or the other.

The difficulty is that there is not level playing field. There are powerful interest groups affecting women's choices, creating an environment where women have low confidence in their bodies and less autonomy, not more (read Politics of Breastfeeding for a primer on this).

The social attitudes constraining women's choice are difficult to combat but they are rooted in patriarchy and sexism.

A small incentive/reward may or may not make a difference in all this - we don't know. But it could be argued it supports autonomy and self-efficacy.

I think the ethical jury is out on this. I am amazed people are so certain they are right in this.

Mildred don't worry abut name spelling. My name isnt actually tiktok!!

I think it is unethical in a similar way to buying organs or buying donor blood (or donor breast milk for that matter) is unethical.

I think the state has a responsibility to materially support people who don't have enough - especially parents.

I think the state would do well to improve the services that help mothers to breastfeed because we hear over and over again that they aren't effective enough in too many cases where women are willing to breastfeed.

I think giving a mother cash on condition that she breastfeed is profoundly, morally different from both of those things.

Or, to put it another way (I am just trying out ideas here so may fine tune this as I go along):

I oppose the marketisation of everything.
At the moment the way people choose to feed their children is not explicitly subject to the market in the way so many other things are. when i put my baby on the breast it is a non-financial, non marketised transaction.
attempts to monetise breastfeeding (stupid "breastfeeding packs" as gifts which contain nothing anyone actually wants) fail and so they bloody well should. Breastfeeding is outside, beyond, the market; it transcends the market.

When I get a subsidy to insulate my house, we are all acknowledging and legitimising the primacy of the market in this situation. If it costs me less to do the work then I will do it. It is manipulating the market for a desired outcome; but it is still tipping its hat to the market, rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's.

My breasts are not Caesar's.

Ditto retropear earlier.

I too am unmarried (co-habiting), an older mother, ff my DC from start and too boot, had a C-section! Truly a really "bad" mother

Myrubberduck, you expressed far better than I did the point I was trying to get over yesterday

And a standing ovation for your last post Mildred. I wish the formula companies would bugger off with samples etc too. I saw a bounty rep seven times in my hospital stay with DS, wouldn't leave me alone. I eventually told her to 'please piss off'. And off she pissed.

I'm also unmarried, although i call my dp dh on here. Marriage is just paper, legally binding contract, and i don't believe in marriage tbh, when people get married that's when things turn sour imo. It's what i see from everyone i know, married unhappy people. I cannot name one happily married couple unfortunetly
Currently me and dp have been together for 9+ years and cohabiting for most of it, the gove can shoot me if they like but we are happy and our kids are happy and secure without some expensive, overated wedding along with a piece of signed paper!