Do you judge mums who bottle feed?

[babybrian]

I tried to breastfeed, for one reason and another I failed. I am about to start going to baby groups and have worked myself into a bit of a neurotic state.

Tell me, honestly , do you judge mums who bottle feed? My dd is only 8 weeks and I worry people will think I don't love her.

Xposted with Lutyens. Sorry for the losses in your family

"Banging on about health benefits to mothers who already know about them is pointless and a little rude."

FFS rude???? I am responding to posters who said I was talking bollocks. FFS, I certainly don't mean to talk bollocks. I was called pathetic. Forgive me for defending my position. I assume people want the truth. I quote "Strong evidence shows that in all populations, in both wealthy and poor countries, these babies will have a higher incidence and severity of many serious diseases including bacterial meningitis, bacterial infection of the blood, diarrhea, respiratory - tract infection, serious gastro infections, middle ear infection..." etc etc the list goes on. From a lady who has dedicated her life to HELPING OTHER WOMEN and done her research!

I didn't want to bang on about anything. I was asked to provide evidence - mamasparkle asked me to provide studies - and I respnded by quoting Jack Newman and the studies he has read, and Ina May Gaskin who lists a whole load of studies in various reputable journals which I listed above.

And btw saying, well my sister/mum/cousin didn't have any problems, or did have problems is a little spurious, if we are talking about spurious stats. FGS, I talk about the Lancet and get shot down but someone says oh well I am as strong as an ox and everyone nods in agreement . Feels to me like people are trying to vindicate their own decisions, rather than looking at the information from an objective point of view.

The thing is Ruby take for instance the increased rate of SIDS in formula fed babies- the 'evidence' isnt conclusive its based on corelation of certain variables- for example its a proven fact bf rates are LOWER in those who are of a lower socio economic group, however smoking in this group is higher and smoking with babies is a known risk factor for SIDS. Also alcohol, drug abuse etc etc, so the formula feeding aspect of it is a miniscule variable when it comes to SIDS.

You don't know its a miniscule variable, it could actually be a large factor, you haven't a clue.

I understand people on this thread not wanting to believe that ff is linked to higher rates of illness in babies.

But for myself, I know what I consider trusted sources, and if I come across information which clearly states that ff is linked to higher rates of a whole host of common and less common illnesses, in current RCM produced midwifery text books, in NHS sponsored information, in World Health Organisation and Unicef literature, as well as that from the American Academy of Paediatrics, I don't think it's unreasonable, deluded or fascistic of me to believe it.

And RedRedWine - research into SIDS which looks at the role of infant feeding takes into account variables such as social class and smoking, as well as other things. The FSIDS are a very conservative organisation. It has taken them years to publicly acknowledge that there is a link between ff and higher rates of SIDS. They really wouldn't have done it if they'd felt the research to be very unreliable. And TBH, I can't see why it should be such a surpise that babies who are prone to higher rates of minor infections and respitory illness (which ff babies are) might also be prone to higher rates of SIDS.

"Banging on about health benefits to mothers who already know about them is pointless and a little rude."

Oh come on - acknowledge the context in which these comments are made!

Defending the view that how a baby is fed does actually matter on a thread like this is completely reasonable isn't it? Given the number of people here aggressively insisting that there are no proven health issues to consider?

I think the only people 'agressively insisting' anything are the usual lactivists tbh....

Ruby -Strong evidence shows that in all populations, in both wealthy and poor countries, these babies will have a higher incidence and severity of many serious diseases including bacterial meningitis, bacterial infection of the blood, diarrhea, respiratory - tract infection, serious gastro infections, middle ear infection..

Yes. This is linked to poor hygiene and dirty water involved in the preparation of formula, rather than the actual formula containing ingredients that cause these illnesses.

"Yes. This is linked to poor hygiene and dirty water involved in the preparation of formula, rather than the actual formula containing ingredients that cause these illnesses."
Part of the issue is poor preparation of formula, however formula is not sterile and does contain certain bugs. With correct preparation with clean hot water this will not cause an issue for our western babies.

Titty and Ruby, I stand by my posts. Making sure that uninformed people are educated in the health risks of formula is one thing. Using that fact (i.e. formula has health risks), against formula feeding mothers is unacceptable. Many of the mothers including the OP have no real choice about moving to formula and in most cases are fully aware that there are health risks.

Plus you can not point at any one child and see with any certainty that child has a certain illness because of the way they have been fed. To be able to say such a thing, we would have to raise the same child from birth twice, feeding differently and see what the effect is. Impossible of course

On a population level it is very different. We can say and research backs this up, that if every child was breastfed we would have less cases of the illness mentioned.

"Using that fact (i.e. formula has health risks), against formula feeding mothers is unacceptable".

But nobody here is arguing that this information should be 'used against' ff mothers!

"Plus you can not point at any one child and see with any certainty that child has a certain illness because of the way they have been fed."

I think we all accept this too!

"Plus you can not point at any one child and see with any certainty that child has a certain illness because of the way they have been fed."

Makes me think of last night's panorama - the father of the child with hearing loss caused by glue ear made more or less the same point in defense of his refusing to stop smoking around his children.

so we are comparing giving your child formula with smoking around your child now

if formula was as bad as cigarettes it would come with a health warning label like cigarettes do ie "FORMULA KILLS"

but it doesnt...because nobody can prove that it does or anything of the kind

god this debate could just rage on forever....

"so we are comparing giving your child formula with smoking around your child now"

Curry - you're not reading people's posts objectively. I compared the reasoning used by Babieseverywhere with the reasoning used by the dad in the Panorama programme. I didn't compare formula with cigarettes. Really I didn't. Come on - be adult!

i know i know,im just nitpicking!!

In response to OP - no I don't judge.

At the risk of hijacking the thread - what is the answer to improve the numbers of mothers BF to say 6 months? Figures for initiating breastfeeding are fairly(?) high but quickly tail off.

It appears that the health benefits of BF are not enough to keep mums BF and are readily dismissed once the switch to FF is made - understandable as it's just one more thing to feel guilty about. Would it be worth asking mums who FF what would have made a difference in choosing BF, continuing with BF and whether you would BF your next baby?

"the father of the child with hearing loss caused by glue ear made more or less the same point in defense of his refusing to stop smoking around his children. "

Poor child. Don't understand why any parent would smoke near their children (playground/school gate etc)

LindenAvery - as long as we keep reassuring women that formula feeding is 'absolutely fine', and telling them that breastfeeding is 'best', so that they think it's the equivalent of giving their babies organic carrots (ie, nice but optional) women will carry on not breastfeeding or giving up quickly when they find it a challenge.

I'd ask - why should women breastfeed, if they find it at all embarrassing or difficult, given that formula is 'fine' for their babies? What's the point? We think 'good enough' is 'good enough' in relation to everything else we do for our children, don't we?

I judge people who are totally intolerant of other people's life choices.

I know bfing is better for my baby and he would be at less risk of some conditions. There is no need to keep forcing YOUR rhetoric down MY throat.

Perhaps the time has come to banish all us evil, cancer causing ff mothers to a far off corner of MN where we won't offend the sensibilities of bfing activists. We can take up residence amongst the froot shoots and Gregg's sausage rolls. FFS.

"Part of the issue is poor preparation of formula, however formula is not sterile and does contain certain bugs. With correct preparation with clean hot water this will not cause an issue for our western babies."

It is also about the protective nature of breastmilk against these diseases that formula fed infants miss out on.

"Using that fact (i.e. formula has health risks), against formula feeding mothers is unacceptable."

That is unbelievable. I am not using anything AGAINST anyone. I have already, time and again, said that many women are failed by various agencies that are meant to be on their side, and this is tragic IMO.

"We can say and research backs this up, that if every child was breastfed we would have less cases of the illness mentioned."

I said this and was completely shot down. I was told I was 'making no sense' by missmoopy. I said 'So it stands to reason that it is possible that fewer children would have been affected by these things had they been breastfed.'

currycrazy "if formula was as bad as cigarettes it would come with a health warning label like cigarettes do ie "FORMULA KILLS"

but it doesnt...because nobody can prove that it does or anything of the kind": in The Journal of Pediatrics, a study published the following information: more than 1000 deaths per year could have been prevented through breastfeeding. That is a shocking statistic. It might not mean that formula actually killed them, but the lack of breastfeeding did. . 1000 babies. Per year.

sithatporridgeinyourzone "where we won't offend the sensibilities of bfing activists"

I don't feel remotely offended. Others are getting exceptionally offended by the facts and figures surrounding FF.

"I judge people who are totally intolerant of other people's life choices"

I'm not intolerant of people's life choices.

I'm intolerant of a society which makes normal physiological feeding for babies a rarity, and of an industry which bombards women with expensive advertising idealising artificial feeding.

I find the posts which try to personalise this issue and turn it into one of competitive parenting really depressing. This is a political issue and a health issue - it's not about individual morality or lifestyle choices.

Yeah, whatever. Read your posts.

So glad I don't offend you by the way in which I feed my child. Was causing me sleepless nights, so it was.FFS.

I'm not sure you'll find many ff mums trying to turn it into a competitive parenting issue.

"I'm not sure you'll find many ff mums trying to turn it into a competitive parenting issue"

Count the number of defensive posts on these boards containing comments about bf mothers thinking they're 'superior' or ff mums being made to feel they're 'being a bad mother'.

Even your comments about 'so glad I don't offend you' - defensive and personal. Also aggressive. What have you got against me? I'm not judging you or any other mother.

agree with ruby and titty. esp titty - you are right it is a political issue

PMSL @ ff mothers "being defensive" -what do you expect when faced with the "ff causes cancer line"? Seriously.