Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Childbirth

Share experiences and get support around labour, birth and recovery.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

Must feed within an hour of birth, is this true?

48 replies

wahwah · 11/06/2009 19:18

I just found out from a friend that after a very lengthy birth (induction, episiotomy etc) she was lying down, exhausted when a midwife told her that she had to feed her baby within an hour after birth.

She could hardly move for drips and exhaustion, so the midwife held the baby to her. Baby didn't want to latch on. Midwife then says that she'll need to give her a bottle and asks what brand milk she'll be using.

My friend has no idea, having planned to exclusively breastfeed and asks her which one she should use-Midwife indignantly says that she can't recommend a brand!

So please tell me, is this really true? Do babies HAVE to feed within an hour of birth, or was this whole event worthy of a complaint?

OP posts:

Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

TripleTroubleMuffin · 12/06/2009 19:38

IMO that is rubbish.

My baby didn't have his first feed until he was more than 3 hours old.

TripleTroubleMuffin · 12/06/2009 19:42

Not my choice though. I wasn't allowed to feed him. Made up ever since...

Portofino · 12/06/2009 19:44

Mine had nothing for at least 24 hours! She was asleep - so was I for most of the time after morphine. I have to admit that BF never happened for me though despite much effort on my part (and that of my sister who had more experience - 3 bf dcs).

chipmonkey · 12/06/2009 20:24

Absolute and utter rubbish! I have had 4 CS's and as the babies are not allowed in the recovery room in my hospital, none of mine were fed till I got back to the ward which was always ages after I gave birth! Dh was very anxious about ds4 as he kicked up such a ruckus! Even ds3 was never given formula and he was 8 weeks prem!

Qally · 13/06/2009 11:45

Absolute bollocks.

There's some evidence that breastfeeding is statistically more likely to succeed if feeding occurs within the first hour. But that's light years from it being essential!

Upwind · 13/06/2009 14:06

at all the people who think they are experts because THEIR healthy babies were not in urgent need of food

Some babies DO need to be fed ASAP. That may or may not have been the case for the OP's friend's baby. We just don't have enough info. We don't even know if the midwife suggested epressing colostrum for a syringe feed.

TripleTroubleMuffin · 13/06/2009 16:48

Excuse me, but we are eperts with our own babies.

Qally · 14/06/2009 01:07

The OP specifically asked if babies, plural, have to, and that is what is being answered. Not "an unusually unwell newborn". She asked, we answered.

If the midwife had explained the situation was unusual and normal practice didn't apply, and/or offered the syringe route, then it seems unlikely that a complaint would be under consideration. A departure from the norm that potentially sabotages bf is the issue. We're confirming it is a departure, as the OP requested.

Upwind · 15/06/2009 07:27

Qually, the OP asked the question in the context of her friend's experience "...was this whole event worthy of a complaint?"

FWIW, my DD was a perfectly healthy newborn with an apgar of 9 who did suffer severe hypoglycaemia, after not being fed for a few hours. The baby in question may have been identified as being vulnerable to low blood sugar for some reason, we don't know.

It might be that the OP's friend should complain, or perhaps the story has become confused.

SoupDragon · 15/06/2009 07:45

The question was whether a baby must be fed within an hour. The answer to that is no.

So, taking the OP at face value, the MW mis-informed the mother and tried to force formula onto her. If there was a risk of low blood sugar, this should have been explained or the original statement worded differently eg "Your baby is at risk from low blood sugar, it's best if you feed them now." From this POV, it's worth a letter to the hospital but I'm not sure an official complaint is really needed.

jellybeans · 15/06/2009 07:49

Hi my baby had to have formula soon after birth as he had dangerously low blood sugar and wouldn't latch on. After that, though, he latched on and was excl bf and still is bf at 7 months so it didn't affect bf although I worried at the time.

With my other DS, he was in NICU and I was in HDU very ill, he was formula fed for 3 days and then I still managed to bf from day 3 (first time I saw him) for a few weeks.

bubblagirl · 15/06/2009 08:05

i read a report that mothers who received sedation the babies should feed as quick after the birth as possible usually within 10 mins an hour the latest different hospitals probably act differently due to incidents that could have occurred in the past as long as baby welfare was best interest then i would rather someone be a bit over cautious than not cautious enough

Qally · 15/06/2009 08:16

Upwind - but you knew that. If the OP's friend wasn't told her baby was vulnerable, at the time or on her birth notes, frankly that in itself is worthy of an informal complaint IMO. And as she seems not to have been told this, then or later, all she (and we) can do is operate on the basis that that wasn't the case. To do otherwise is to think even worse of the midwife in question.

And as Soupdragon has pointed out, that wasn't the question being asked, which was "must babies be fed after birth". The usual, run of the mill answer to that is "no".

Upwind · 15/06/2009 12:13

Qually, I only knew when it was too late.

Agree that the mother should have been told about the risks, but after a very lengthy birth and just after meeting her newborn, the seriousness of "low blood sugar" might not have been clear. I certainly did not know how dangerous it was.

PavlovtheCat · 15/06/2009 12:15

Agree this is appalling unless there was a medical need, which it appears there was not.

Upwind · 15/06/2009 12:20

"Agree this is appalling unless there was a medical need, which it appears there was not. "

So, you think that you are in a better position to assess that than the midwife involved?

You must be clairvoyant.

PavlovtheCat · 15/06/2009 12:23

Not assessing, just offering a non-medical opinion.

Take yer knickers out of yer backside.

Upwind · 15/06/2009 12:37

Pavlov - that last post was ignorant in every sense of the word.

happywomble · 15/06/2009 13:26

I am not in the medical profession but after my experience with my first born I would definitely give the feeding a good go in the first hour while the baby is alert.

My first baby was born after emergency c-sect in the night. I was taken to the recovery room and by the time we were reunited he was asleep. He was sleepy throughout the first day and not crying for food. In the end the midwife noticed he was shaking (low blood sugar) and he was immediately given a bottle and taken away to special care for a night. They did x-rays etc it was all quite frightening. I was fairly distraught partly due to being separated and partly due to him being given the formula.

I persevered with b'feeding but his weight gain was very poor so I had to top up once a day with formula.

The best case scenario is obviously to only give breast milk. But sometimes it is not possible and at least my DS was mainly b'fed until 10 months.

Second time around I tried feeding DD as soon as she was born and luckily she latched on.

In OPs case I think the midwife offered the bottle far too early..surely she should have observed the baby and waited a few hours at least. If the baby was shaking or showing signs of dehydration then I think there would have been little choice but to offer the bottle.

stleger · 15/06/2009 13:36

My aunt (4 breastfed babies in the sixties!)was horrified when her first grandchild was born and was being fed. She was adamant that babies should not be fed at all for 24 hours.

totalmisfit · 15/06/2009 13:40

the exact same thing happened to me. b/f was completely messed up by it as the first milk dd tasted was from a bottle.

for the record, i've subsequently heard that babies actually don't 'need' to feed for a day or so after the birth, which is presumably because mother nature endows them with reserves so they can sleep and the mother can too, after an exhausting labour. Obviously if you can get b/f established asap that's the best thing to do, but don't worry if it takes a little while.

Stigaloid · 15/06/2009 13:57

it is a load of rubbish and you should not feel forced to give your child formula at borth if you do not wish to. My son developed an allergy to milk protein because of forced formula feeding at birth.

Original poster

wahwah · 16/06/2009 21:24

Thanks all. Just to clarify her baby was fine, no concerns, no low blood sugar. She's not the type to complain at all, but it did her good to hear that her experience wasn't ok and she's advised the hospital so that they can pick it up with the midwife and more generally as a practice issue.

OP posts:

Flip

1 2