Bloody DM misreports baby's death

[laumiere]

"From the Daily Mail todaywww.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1140366/The-perfect-baby-died-days-born---poisoned-mothers-milk.h tml". It was linked under "The perfect baby who died five days after she was born - poisoned by her mother's milk".

The report suggests that the poor baby died BECAUSE she was BFed, not because any protein - including formula or soya - would have killed her. Some of the comments have got me really , even when the baby's mum comments explaining formula would have the same effect.....

Hecate...the title IS Anti Breastfeeding....the way it is worded...

How very sad for the family though...just heartbreaking

Ooops, didn't read the original date....it's an oldish thread....

When you are complaining about newspaper reporting, bear in mind that a whole different team write the headlines and the photo captions. It's the second photo caption I'd have down as the real culprit here. If you look just at the article, stripped of headlines and captions - which would be how the journalist filed it - it's pretty clear it's talking about a rare disorder.

Puzzle, if I were you I would resubmit the complaint, specifically on the headline and caption, for the attention of the chief sub-editor.

Good idea LTJ.

sorry but i have to agree that with the minority here in that i thought it was very clear that this was the result of a genetic disorder,not breastfeeding.

"Ava had been born with a genetic condition called methylmalonic acidaemia (MMA). This meant her body didn't produce an enzyme to break down protein.

In the womb, Natasha, 33, had been breaking the protein down for her.

But on her own, Ava's tiny body was unable to cope with any protein and even her own mother's milk was highly poisonous, leading to a build up of toxic substances, methylmalonic acid and ammonia. Untreated, it can lead to a coma, brain damage and death. "

is about 3 paragraphs down and seemed to explain it clearly to me. i think it is a bit of an easy route for people on this site to just write "FFS the Dm again" even when they have done nothing another paper wouldn't do and it takes away from the times when they are genuinely reprehensible.
at the moment there are 2 threads in this section about child birth. one article is headlined "baby killed by mothers kiss" another titled "baby killed by mothers milk", now on the other thread i learned a lot about the various dangers of coldsores to newborns etc, with no cries of inflammatory headlines. where as on this because it comes from the daily mail i just think it's been reactionary.

well....the title/Headline of the article IS Anti Breastfeeding though...there is no doubt in that, sorry....and how many people will just read/hear the headline and form their opinion based on that?

No, the headline was factual. The reporting was sound. It made it clear that any protein would kill her.

Erm, how was teh headline factual....it was scaremongering...

It was her breastmilk that poisoned the baby. Had she been formula fed, the headline should have read "The perfect baby....killed by her bottle of formula..."

well...why didn't they say died because of rare genetic desease...surely far less scaremongering...

They did, in the article. The headline is there to get people to read it. If some readers can't read and digest the information in the article, and jump to the conclusion that formula would have been fine, you can't blame the DM, can you?

erm...well...but many people will just grab up the headline, not reading the article and spout all sorts of myths...so...the headline is not idea...surely...tbh...why did they have to hype it up in the headline...isn't teh death of a Baby tragic enough and read worthy enough without a scaremongering headline...?

Surely something along teh line of:
Newborn died of rare genetic disease...really would have been apt?

But that isn't the story. Lots of babies die of rare genetic diseases (sadly) either before or after birth. The story is that it was the milk proteins that are normally the best thing for a baby that killed her baby. And as a side story, that if she had been born in the USA, she would likely still be alive. Added to that the fact that the medication was unavailable in the local hospitals.

You wouldn't expect an article to be titled "Driver dies of blood loss following traumatic amputation of the leg during no-fault collision", would you. It would be titled "Horrific A27 Crash kills driver" - Headlines are just attention grabbers.

Anyone with any sense would read the article and conclude that this was a tragic case, and would not decide that breastfeeding was a danger to infant lives.

look....not sure why you have such an issue, lol....but I do think that the title will make people assume that it was breastmilk as such that did it....not the protein in breastmilk and that Formula protein would have had the same effect...(btw....I would have the same issue if the title was on about Formula killed the Baby....)

I don't have any issue. I am merely stating that despite its many other crimes to Humanity, the DM is not guilty of misreporting here. The OP states that the DM misreported the facts of the case. Sadly, the fact is that because the baby was BF, it was her mother's milk that poisoned her. Had she been formula fed, it would have been the formula milk that poisoned her.

I have actually no issues with DM...and whilst the headline might not be incorrect it IT scaremongering...however, we will have to agree to disagree on that one