Does exclusivley breatfeeding mean I don't need to use any other contraception?

[smallblessings]

My DD is 16 weeks. I have not used contraception since she was born except withdrawal as I thought I had read that BF is as effective as using condoms. I am I right? Just wondering because I keep worrying that prehaps I am pregnant again following a non- withdrawl incident.

NO! It is not a reliable method of contraception. I know several people who have got pg while exclusively breastfeeding.

Fraid not 100% effective. You really should use other forms of contraception, plenty of Mums on here with very small age gaps to prove it.

Theoretically yes, but in reality i wouldn't count on it. My best friend is a result of bf as contraception.

No! It is absolutely not a reliable form of contraception, even if you bf day and night.

I also know women who have become pregnant this way.

I think you may need to do a pregnancy test...

Short answer, no. Use something else.

Sex at 16 weeks? jeez - don't tell my dh

My friend thought this - hence two children less than a year apart

You've probably got away with it - but make sure you take precautions next time...

Not quite. Some interesting info here:
www.kellymom.com/bf/normal/fertility.html#prevent

No, as a friend of a friend found out and now has 2 under 1!!

Ye, it's a recognised form of contraception, though not the most reliable. If used correctly (google "lactational amenorrhea method") it's actually more effective than condoms are in women who don't breastfeed.

If another pregnancy would be a disaster you may feel that 92% success rate isn't adequate for you; in that case I'd caution against condom alone too, but if you're just spacing your children, it might be fine.

(I am a family planning qualified GP. I used LAM between my children until 6 months)

No it is not.

I got pregnant with ds2 whilst I was exclusively breastfeeding ds1 (every 2 - 3 hours).

I have an age gap of one year.

sorry, it's 98% effective according to the Family Planning Association

I was bfing every 2hrs day and night at the very least, exclusive feeding from birth. My periods came back at 14 weeks. Wasn't having sex with dh then but was surprised to be having periods again. I would never trust it as contraception.

Oh. I really hope I'm not. Yes i might like to have another one in 3/4 years but not now.

My periods returned 8 weeks after ds1 was born so that may make a big difference.

Have your periods returned smallblessings?

Babbity that is what I thought i had read.

susie No they have not returned.

If you're having periods then you're probably ovulating, so you can get pg. And even if you're not having periods, you could be about to be having periods (iyswim). I certainly wouldn't trust it as a method of contraception.

Babbity Thanks for the link. I feel happier now. I might do a test when I can get to the shop just for reassurance.

I think the thing is you will always have people who conceive on virtually any form of contraception - sometimes it's because they weren't following the rules, sometimes it's just bad luck. There have for example been a handful of pregnancies worldwide on Implanon (considered the most effective form of contraception) and thousands per year in the UK on the pill, and thouands more conceived when couples are using condoms - but that doesn't stop any one of these being considered adequate form of contraception. What is an acceptable failure rate for one woman/ couple is completely unacceptable for another. And of course one's perception of risk is altered if (say) you know someone who's conceived on LAM/ condoms/ the pill, the same way as your perception of the risk of smoking might be altered if you grandpa moked 40 a day and died in his sleep aged 110 with not a day's illness.

So yes, LAM is abolutely a recognised form of contraception, so say the WHO, FPA, Faculty of Sexual & Reproductive Healthcare of the RCOG in the UK, but each woman should take time to appreciate that there is no foolproof form of contraception, and if they choose a less reliable method like condoms/ diaphragm or LAM, they should be counselled that unplanned pregnancy would be less likely with something else.

Babbity, you're right about reliability of other methods, but I am intrigued - you never know when your periods are going to return, so how can it possibly be reliable? You could have ovulated (ie for the first time since giving birth) without realising, surely. Wouldn't you need to be using temperature checks etc as well in order for it to be effective?

No, the reason it works is because in the whole of the six months there's only a 2 week "danger period" if you're unlucky enough to get your period back before 6 months. Let's say you're unlucky and despite it being uncommon (though not unheard of) you ovulate prior to six months: you'd have to be having sex around ovulation - about a 3-4 day window. Even if you DO have sex then only about 15-20% of intercourse around ovulation causes a pregnancy, and of those an even smaller number will implant. So you're talking about 15-20% of a number which is very small in the first place IYSWIM - and that's assuming you are actually having sex around those danger days. Then 2 weeks later your period arrive and you know you can no longer rely on being anovulatory.

"you never know when your periods are going to return" Thus you never know when you ovulated or are about to ovulate. Personally I think you would have to be barking to rely on it as a contraceptive method unless you want a small age gap.

My periods returned with no warning after 8 weeks with all 3 pregnancies despite exclusively breastfeeding each time.

But you see, soupdragon, for you it would be barking, but for someone else it would be the perfect contraceptive. They don't have do do anything, they don't have to take anything, all they have to do is accept the 2% failure rates, and remember to switch to something ele at 6 months or when they get their first period. Even though you never know when you're going to ovulate it's still 98% effective when the rules are followed.

I was the same Soupy.

I can still remember that frankly terrifying dawning realistion that I was pregnant with ds2 as a 4 month old ds1 lay fast asleep in bed beside me.

I adore my children but a 52 week age gap is really really hard - physically and mentally.

It is ONLY 98% reliable if ALL the following conditions are met ALL the time, without exception:

• No bleeding at all since the post-birth bleeding.
• No food or drink at all (not even water) except breastmilk directly from the breast given to the baby EVER.
• Round-the-clock on demand frequent breastfeeding with unrestricted access and no imposition of routines. As a rule of thumb baby will never ever have gone longer than 3hrs by day or 4hrs overnight without breastfeeding.
• Absolutely no bottles, dummies or other artificial teats.
• Baby under 6 months old and no solids introduced.

Even with all these conditions met 2 out of every 100 women will become pregnant. Very very few women in the UK meet all these conditions, hence so many people who know someone who got pregnant while breastfeeding. If any one of the conditions is not met, then the effectiveness decreases.

Being aware of the signs of ovulation in your own body can be helpful in predicting when your fertility might return, but this is very difficult to learn while breastfeeding!