Could all the good of breastfeeding be outdone by giving a 7 week old rusk in a bottle of formula?

[imdreamingofawhiteKITTYmas]

Sorry just have to share this, saw friends 7 week old today, doing reakky well she is BFing but giving her a bottle of formula at night. Today she said she was having half a rusk in it as well.

Now I know HVs and MWs don't recommend it now but I was still when she said it. I said you aren't supposed to now and she asked why and I said I think theres a risk of choking didn't go into the allergies thing and basically you are grinding up a sugary biscuit into your babies milk.

Think it's another one of these things that people don't believe a baby can survive on just milk for 6 months.

No-one has mentioned breastfeeding or formula. They are talking about giving biscuits to 7 week olds. Because? Why?

"crack whore" analogy comes in. Well, sex worker could be doing whatever she can do to earn a living to support her baby. Maybe. Maybe a sex worker because she is addicted to crack. Maybe she's doing the very best in a very bad set of circumstances. Maybe. But, it IS entirely hypothetical, and in the list of "who makes very bad parents", well, I would like to be the one writing that one out anyway.

I think, and, I may be speaking out of turn, it's not the majority here that need to get a grip.

vvv, this mother is doing her best too isn't she?

rusk in the bottle is, like I say, against current guidelines and undesirable. but the reason i brought crack into it was because the tone of the reaction on here was to me, something that might be more appropriate if she was doing crack.

i told YOU to get a grip because you inferred that a crack addicted mother might be doing better for her child's health.

'what's to say that a sex worker addicted to crack cocaine wouldnt be as good a parent as someone who puts a rusk in their baby's bottle?'

this imo is a shockingly ignorant statement.

sophable, maybe a crack addict mother didnt take crack whilst pg, then got back on it now. Wouldnt be harming the baby then would she?

pmsl. she's not an addict then is she.

i think the responses to my call for perspective say enough here about the lack of it.

you know what's crazy? you know what is really insane tinytim (who are you btw?) is that you seem to be saying that a mother addicted to crack would be having less of a negative effect on her baby then a mother that gives rusks too early.

insane.

Well, actually she could still be an addict, people stop smoking when pg and go back to it because they are addicted.

How do you know that this mother isn't the worlds most awful mother??? You don't. Anymore than you know every crack addict in the world is a worse mother.

And me, well I'm tiny tim aren't I.

i have no idea how good a mother either of these (the real or the hypothetical one) are as you say.

i'm arguing the relative damaging effects of their behaviour: crack addiction vs rusk feeding.

i can't take this seriously any more sorry.

But why does it matter? What has crack got to do with possibly severely harming her baby through putting rusks in it's drink?

I'm not a crack addict but I could still do something to harm my baby fgs.

Or can only drug users do that?

"i'm arguing the relative damaging effects of their behaviour: crack addiction vs rusk feeding."

You're the only one on this thread having that argument, Sophable.

Putting solids in a baby's bottle increases their risk of choking and death. Why is it disproportionate to be alarmed by that?

Wow I am starting to feel sorry starting this am feeling too yucky with morning sickness to think right now.

Grinding up rusks and putting baby rice (vile vile wallpaper paste) in bottles was the "done thing" in the 1970s and is still done now, in other countries it's common place as well.

I am by my friends decision as when I was pregnant with my first you were told not to put anything in babies bottles but obviously people don't listen or read the back of packets.

I have decided not to say anything it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference anyway she is quite an intimidating and headstrong person. I did say that you are not supposed to do it now and I think I will leave it at that, her baby her choice.

Hmmmmm,
If she was blowing smoke all over her baby would you still be saying 'oh everyone used to smoke around babies a generation ago and look! We're 'all fine'?

Sorry - it's so much b*lloxs. If we were 'all fine' we wouldn't be seeing half our taxes disappearing into the NHS.

I think you have to acknowledge that if even Cow and Gate advise against introducing solids before 17 weeks in their marketing materials, then these recommendations have passed into common and accepted practice.

Government guidelines are based on the best quality and most recent research available into children's health - research that's been reviewed by teams of epidemiologists, nutritionists and paediatricians. They're not dreamed up by some spud in a back office in Whitehall just to annoy mums and make life difficult for them. The research into weaning shows that introducing solids before 14 weeks is linked to a whole host of serious health problems - like persistent wheeze in later childhood, arterial stiffness in adolescence, diarrheoa and obesity. There's also a big question mark over the role of early weaning in coeliac disease - which is a miserable disease and not one I'd want to put my child at risk of developing.

Of course new research comes along and sometimes it overturns what we know and understand about what's best and safest for our children, but until it does we have a responsibility to do our best for our child BASED ON CURRENT KNOWLEDGE.

The baby in question is being put at risk of illness and it's completely unnecessary. If this was my friend I'd gently say something - not be accusatory or guilt tripping, but draw her attention to information which, I'm betting my bottom dollar on this, the mum isn't aware of.

Yes I know it's wrong but I also know women who have smoked all through pregnancy and continue to do so in front of their children. They know the risks yet they choose to do it. You could go up to them and say "are you completely mad, I think what you are doing is child abuse" but what reaction do you think you would get?! Some people will just not take advice however well meaning it is.

Well said, Sabire.

There's another reason why the "we're all fine" argument is a pile of poo.

Hands up, all those reading this thread who were fed solids in a bottle and choked to death or died of aspiration pneumonia.

No-one?

Amazing. It might be all right then.

oh sophable, pack it in woman!

You are posting about putting this thread into context by taking it so far out of context it's untrue!

I dont need to get a grip at all.

"They know the risks yet they choose to do it."

I'd challenge that. There was a recent study by the FSID (foundation for the study of infant deaths) which showed that parents hugely underestimated the role of smoking in cot death. Most parents DON'T know - they know it's not good for children but they don't often understand the extent of the risk their exposing their babies to.

No, I'm with sophable on that actually. Yes it's dangerous, we all agree on that but the fact is that it's a small risk compared to things that some Mums do every day.

None of us (I doubt) agree entirely on methods of childrearing, whether that be a generation thing, pfb thing, smacking, co-sleeping etc etc but the fact remains that we learn all the time, research is very often flawed and then reversed as time goes by.

In my opinion there is a lot to be said for the no nonsense approach of yesteryear. I would not choose to add solid food to a bottle as it is unnecessary IMO but I would not slate someone for doing it - some of my friends would let their children sit in cars without seatbelts; to me that was unheard of and irresponsible but it's not my place to tell others what to do...... to the OP, all you can do is say 'I wouldn't do that' explain why and leave it to your friend - her baby, her way

Nobody's suggesting that anyone tell this mother not to do it, only that it might be kind to her (as she's going to have to cope with any repercussions) and the child, to make sure she actually understands the reasons that giving solids to babies under 16 weeks is strongly discouraged by EVERY responsible health professional involved with the care of babies (OK - I know there are some dinosaur HV's who are still telling mums to give solids to young babies, but they're getting fewer all the time - certainly you'd be hard pressed these days to find one who'll OK it for a baby under 10 weeks).

"but the fact remains that we learn all the time, research is very often flawed and then reversed as time goes by."

So basically you're saying that we can happily disregard ALL research into the things that affect the long and short term health of our children because SOME research is poorly designed?

I don't accept this argument - and what I notice is that it tends to be used most often by people who actually don't know what constitutes sound research in the first place, who make their minds up about whether a study is worth taking notice on based on a 50 word report of it in the Daily Mail. Of course the findings of research are going to be challenged - but that doesn't mean that ALL research will eventually be overturned and that therefore NONE of it is of any use to us.

I personally prefer to err on the side of caution - if it's not necessary to either you or your baby and it puts your child at risk of long term health problems then why do it?

And once again - I'm not suggesting that anyone tell this mum she 'shouldn't' do it - obviously it's her choice, but I would bet my bottom dollar that the mum in question doesn't really understand what the risks are (probably because she's surrounded by people saying 'well - they tell you one thing and, what do you know, three weeks later they tell you the complete opposite - just do whatever's easiest for you'). In the meantime ignorance might result in that poor little baby ending up with problems that were completely and easily avoidable.

Sabire I have never read the Daily Mail in my life!

The fact remains and you can't deny it that 'research' is often flawed and is occasionally reversed so yes, it's great to learn more but what is sensible and scientific today may be the opposite in 10 years time.

For instance 'swaddling'; I was told under no circumstances to ever swaddle my child as they get too hot and 'research' had shown it was a probable contributory factor to SIDS, my mother was told to lie my youngest brother on his stomach, I was told to put my youngest on her back etc etc etc and the list goes on........what is the new advice I wonder?

This forum is full of different generations of women with different methods - that's the beauty of it.

People don't know the risks of smoking - absolutely not. Or they may be told them but do not believe them, or do not have sufficient personal or social resources to change their behaviour to accommodate them.

Putting rusk in the bottle of a tiny baby is absolutely not a common thing these days and for a good reason. I think the risk of allergies and digestive problems is there, but is less likely than the very real danger of dehydration - a baby's kidneys cannot cope with the density of the fluid at 7 weeks. It is rare for babies to die of this, but they can certainly become ill. There is also a known risk of choking.

Why we should pretend it doesn't matter all that much because it was done to babies in the past and they were 'ok', I don't know. Research will not overturn this advice either - it is based on solid, factual physiology and knowledge of how the infant body copes.

This baby will probably be ok as it is only half a rusk once a day. But it's not a trivial thing.

I was the one who said it was possibly not a work of genius move to be putting rusk in bottles.

Sophable, ought I to have been applauding this woman for her intelligence then? [baffled]

It's not a bright move - just because it was done years ago doesn't mean it was clever then either. What would you say to someone who slung a carrycot on the back seat of a car and drove off without strapping it in? Because they're unlikely to have an accident, but if they do, it's very likely to have devastating consequences.

With the benefit of current thinking, neither course of action (the untethered carrycot and the rusk in bottle) is a clever one. No?

i just don't understand why some mothers (and fathers) think nothing of ignoring current parenting advice, and grinding up rusks etc. I remember a friend of mine telling me that she gave her 5 mth old sugar water every night to get her to sleep and another mother telling me how she gave her 8 mth old son plastic bags to play with, 'but only while she could keep an eye on him, because he enjoyed playing with them'

on both occasions my reaction was a very understated 'really? erm, you know you're not supposed to...' and that's all i could muster. never found the nerve to broach the subject with either of them. and then on the other end of the scale you have me freaking out about everything to do with my dd's health and wellbeing, at every available opportunity.

fecking hell

of course it isnt going to undo the 'good'

you are all mad

(probably not a good idea to make it a regular thing though)

Enid - but no one has agreed with the idea that it undoes all the good, have they? Anyone who's mentioned this aspect has said it won;t undo it.

Or are you one of the people who only ever read the OP and not the discussion after it, and then jump in with accusations (in your case) of madness......?

Surely not, TIktok - that would be madness in itself