Seen this?

[fifitot]

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7867686.stm?lss

Sigh......breastfeeding rates are poor anyway and then something like this comes along. Yes it's important and yes of course the numbers of babies suffering in this situation will rise as more women breastfeed but.........isn't the issue more about women getting the support they need in establishing breastfeeding? i would be interested to know what the actual fiqures are.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7867686.stm?lss

Sorry can't do a link - it's on bbc news site and aobut breastfeeding. (I am rubbish at this aren't I?)

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7867686.stm?lss

Hooray!

Both the paeds quoted are known bf supporters - we do need to know how badly bf is supported and that poor bf knowledge can lead to fatalities. It's a shame the skim reader of the story will take away the wrong message, though

yes, nothing in this article about support available to mothers who are struggling. Or, in fact that the solution might be early intervention by breastfeeding counsellors.

obviously, terrible if it happened to you and your baby, but it just comes across as another negative bf story.

what about a study on dehydration from gastro-enteritis from formula??

Agree, cupcake. If there is a problem with un-supported mothers, poorly-informed HCPs, and consequent hospital admission for under-feeding (and there is), then we need to know about it, how big the problem is, and how to deal with it.

Agree with tiktok and weasel.

Saddest statistic in the article is that less then 1% of women in the UK exclusively bf until 6 months although I suppose I shouldn't be surprised because I am the only person I know in my peer group of mothers that has done this.

Having been one of the mothers who exc b/fed then saw her DD admitted to hospital due to weight loss of over a kilo I think more monitoring and support would be a good thing.

Support is the key thing though - my DD was given formula in hospital two hourly and once she put on 50 grams we were discharged without any advice on how to proceed. The midwife didn't even turn up for the home visit she promised

The article actually says only 1% of women BF at all past 6mths, which really surprises me! No wonder everyone keeps asking me if I am still BFing .

I don't know anything about hypernatraemic dehydration but surely there would not be enough wet and dirty nappies from a baby who was not getting enough milk? Isn't that a good way to reassure a new mum that everything is OK?

This type of awareness raising is important - bf is about wanting the best for your baby and part of this mothers need to be aware of the potential 'risk' (for want of a better word) and how to spot them.

As Dr Sam Oddie says in the article: "....as far as I'm concerned the answer isn't more formula feeding, but increased support for breastfeeding from the outset in the form of counsellors".

This type of study will only work to highlight bfing in my mind.

The BBC interpretation of stats is badly written - one per cent of mothers bf excl to six months. Plenty more than this are still bf and continue for a lot longer - it's the exclusivity of it that's the issue here.

I also wondered at that 1% statistic.

This article really made my blood boil as it was so sensationalist! Yes, it briefly mentioned counsellors but not "bf counsellors" so this wasn't explicit and left room for miss-interpretation. I fear that a lot of people skimming over this would have thought that BF was risky and not that BF support was poor

It is difficult to assess how much fluid a baby is getting but often HCPs are obsessed with volume (I speak as a neonatal nurse!)- they forget that colostrum has little volumes, babies do have some reserves of their own and it's ok for them to dip their weight slightly after birth- that can actually have a positive health effect re: obesity rather than automatically assuming it's a negative thing!

Wet nappies that aren't dark dark green are the simplest way of assessing if baby is getting enough milk but for a lot of new parents they won't have a clue what the norm should be here. It's the same with looking for sunken eyes, a sunken fontanelle and lethargy... how on earth do you look out for that if it's all new and scary? That's why women need 24hr access to BF support so they can ring up/ visit someone and air their concerns before baby gets dehydrated.

And as for the way they presented the 1% thing... grrr! I'd like to know where their source plus I agree about the explanation of what they meant by exclusive!

MIL came over today to tell me about how BFing can kill your baby because it says so in the paper. She must have meant this!

Scary, jenbot!

I agree it could make a new mum very anxious. Looking back I am so glad I didn't know half the things I know now about what can go wrong with BFing. I just ploughed on regardless of what anyone said.

the title is "breastfed baby risk investigated"

and the spin is "breastfeeding can be risky"

quite and, "drinking insufficient water causes dehydration in adults."

It's what you leave out that makes a mockery of the truth.

What they fail to point out clearly enough is that properly supported breastfeeding is not risky. It is the appalling advice about routines and timing feedings and sleeping though, and lack of expert guidance on latch and positioning and demand feeding that sabotage a healthy breastfeeding relationship.

Even properly supported bf can be risky, actually. My son was extremely unwell, and that was with a lll volunteer, private lactation consultant, and several midwives assuring me he was well latched. He wasn't latched at all, and once the milk flow slowed due to lack of stimulation he dehydrated very fast. He was fed on demand, skin-to-skin and co-sleeping (still is). Formula supplementation every 2 hours around the clock, then combined feeding until I'd pumped my supply up, saved his life. I say that as someone who hasn't fed him anything but expressed bm now since mid-November, and a very committed bf supporter.

The problem is that you need to have faith in your milk, and your baby's ability to extract it, because you can't see anything. But with some babies that faith is misplaced, and if women aren't aware, and don't have competent hv/cmv to keep an eye out, their babies could get into serious trouble. By the time your baby has orange crystals in his nappy, things are really rather bad.

We had shit support. DS got the crystals in his nappy.
We were told that was quite normal, and sent home.
He lost 12% of his weight the first six days.
Thankfully he started feeding relatively ok.
Midwives were all fucking shit.
I just hope there's been no lasting damage. But as no-one took my concerns seriously at the time, I doubt they even beleive me when I tell them he got dehydrated his first week, as surely someone would have picked up on it.

I thought the article was quite balanced... but the headline was rather inflammatory and unfortunately that is what people will remember.

Qally - but your bf cannot have been 'properly supported' because despite their involvement, your 'supporters' were unable to spot a compromised baby It's true - some babies do seem to be feeding ok and this is why routine weighing in the first week is important. From what you say, this didn't happen with you

Orange crystals - sometimes called 'brick dust'- are urates, and they are not a sign things are 'really rather bad'...but they are an early sign that things can get bad if you don't take action. They are not normal - they happen when the baby is getting short of fluids and the response should be to check the feeding and to ensure more, and more effective, milk transfer.

Glad to hear they're not that bad, but it was still worrying. The paed we saw in A and E didn't really give us any advice, or suggest it was anything to do with feeding.
Man I feel so let down about those first few weeks.
I will be asking for a different community midwife next time!