Nickycky - are you seriously saying that a mother who smokes, drinks and takes drugs should breastfeed?! This is madness and I think that ff a baby in this situation is the ONLY thing to do.

I can't believe that anyone in their right mind would suggest such a thing.

Smoking anywhere near a baby is madness but breastfeeding is still the best choice of food for them regardless.

Drinking should be limited to 1 or 2 alcoholic drinks per day although I can't see why anyone would want to be drinking near a baby anyhow. Therefore breastfeeding is better unless you're a mad alkie

I'll agree about the drugs part, although to my mind if you're that selfish that you are on drugs and don't want to stop then you shouldn't really be having babies in the first place.

I meant illegal and addictive drugs in my above post.

Exactly Oranjboom. I don't know about the drugs - depends which ones I suppose. I do know that methadone is not ok when bf. But I specifically asked about smoking mothers when I underwent bf peer support training - and yes, breastmilk with a hint of tobacco is better than formula. Though it is obviously best to quit, or cut down so that you have a cigarette as long as possible before bf. I don't know how much alcohol intake you'd have to have before formula became the healthy option - but I'm betting you wouldn't be in any fit state to care for a baby if you drank that much.

It is official advice (NCT) that a smoking mother should still breastfeed if she really cannot give up. Shows how bad formula is that the milk of a smoker is still the healthier option. It can help undo the damage done by smoke exposure and help wean them gently off nicotine if the mother smoked while pregnant.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=...&itool=pubmed_DocSum

quote:

The author concludes that the scientific literature indicates that it is far from ideal to smoke and breastfeed--but it is worse to smoke and not breastfeed.

It's another one of those myths, like breastfeeding and implants. There is more silicon in formula than milk from enhanced breasts.

ALso I agree motherhood is not a competition.+ + Breastfeeding thing divides women...but it should do the opposite. Ruthless marketing has taken the pi** out of mothers for too long now.
I'm so concerned because I don't want other mothers and babies to miss out on the experience. So many mothers have no idea of the risks.
If those who are involved in trying to improve rates don't know why women choose bottlefeeding how are we supposed to help? Instead of taking it as a personal insult why can't you see it's a genuine request, to understand why someone takes that risk and how to prevent it happening in future.
Do you really think I go through the hassle of travelling on public transport for meetings on this subject and give up my time for no pay for fun?
Also it's to benefit society too, tax payers are contributing to the £35 million pounds the NHS spends a year on treating babies who are sick because they are formula fed.

Okay, maybe I was a bit harsh in my last post, I didn't mean to offend anyone, but labeling bottle feeding mothers as selfish is generalising to a great extent and generalisations tend to annoy me. There are many, many different reasons why a mother would choose not to breastfeed, and I'm not saying it's always the best thing for the child, but sometimes it cannot be avoided.

What I'm trying to say is that a lot of the reasons young mothers (particularly) don't breastfeed is because the issue is pushed upon them by the medical proffession and breastfeeding mothers. I should imagine it feels like being bullied into it. Someone who is forced to do something they don't really want to will inevitably give up before long. By all means give them the information, but do it in a way which is factual, we don't have to condemn bottle feeding mothers, we all know how difficult being a mother is, particularly first time around, each and every one of us has made mistakes with our children at some point (and anyone who says they haven't is lying!).

We really need to encourage breastfeeding in a friendly and open way. I trained to be Le Leche breastfeeding councellor, but I decided not to complete the course, the reason? Because I disagreed with the issue of feeding on demand, there was no way I was going to be a permanant bottle for my child, I have the right to a life too, and to me, logically, the more often you put your child to the breast the smaller and smaller the feeds they are taking get, because if your feeding your child every half hour you have no time to replenish your supply of milk, and no chance of allowing your baby to take a full feed, which increases the frequency of feeds the baby needs. Yet Le Leche don't feel the need to address this issue and I was found my self questioning this. I couldn't sit and tell a breast feeding mother to let the child consume what it wants when it wants, because to me that's only making life tougher on the mother and is of no actual benefit to the baby, other than for comfort and I think the food for comfort thing should be avoided lest the association continue into adult-hood.

Sorry, forgot to add this;

Yes bottlefeeding mothers are defensive, they are constantly being told they are doing something that is bad for their children, people make harsh judgements about them without even knowing them and so when you ask the question 'why did you decide not to breastfeed?' they are bound to assume that they are about to hear yet another lecture about how they are letting their children down. As a mother, thats the last thing you want to hear.

Given some of the attitudes here from breast feeding mothers towards non b/f mothers, it's hardly surprising they are defensive. It's a social perception that needs to be changed. If every breast feeding advocate feels that not to breast feed means your selfish, it's no wonder they are defensive, I would be too, and thats what I was trying to get across. No one knows a persons individual circumstances, and the issue of whether to breast feed or not, is a personal choice, all you can do is make sure that everyone has a clear understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of both methods, beyond that there is little anyone can do to influence the decision.

Making judgements and generalising really doesn't help.

I come across as harsh because I am just sick of the excuses! Too long mothers have been pandered too, every breastfeeding story says "don't feel guilty if you don't want to" why not? I would.

Actually, Sillicat, you're absolutely right. I was a bit harsh in my response to you too, and to Katie-Jane. As you say, sniping at each other isn't helping. I got irritated by Katie-Jane calling people like me "wet" and responded by calling her "selfish". How childish of me! I apologise.

On the "on demand" thing - I understand your logic, but actually the more often you feed, the MORE milk you have (supply and demand)- if you are feeding every half hour, your milk will replenish that quickly if you give your body a chance to get used to it - honestly! The half hourly feeds shouldn't last much more than a few weeks, as there is more milk there, so as the baby's stomach grows, they can take more milk which will last longer. If a baby is still feeding that frequently after a few months - there is likely to be a problem that needs looking at. I found that within a couple of months, the demands were far enough apart to have become a routine - or shall I say pattern? - which I then used as a guide, telling me when he was likely to be hungry, rather than shoving my boob in his mouth every time he cried (which I did at first!) I kinda think of feeding on demand more as a way into a baby-led, flexible routine - allowing for individual hunger patterns and growth spurts, unlike a rigid 4 hourly feed cycle.

I still think that to choose not to bf is usually a flawed decision - but I shall try to be more understanding in future. I really doubt anyone is CONCIOUSLY putting their own needs before those of their children. After all, as you say, we've all made mistakes in bringing up our children - and I'd hate to be criticised for mine - especially if it was too late to change them! We need to promote bf to pregnant women and teenagers (before they get pregnant, if possible), rather than to mums. It's about education, not blame. People need to be making an INFORMED choice - and since all the information says breast is best, it is very hard for those of us who are passionate about it to see how someone can choose to ff.

Oh, and having reread your post, another point. Do these young mothers feel "bullied" into putting their babies to sleep on their backs instead of their stomachs? Will they give this up too? Anyone who is having a baby needs to be able to make a choice in a mature way, rather than just doing the opposite of what they've been told to do cos they don't like being bossed around!

Advice to bf needs to be comparable to advice to put a baby on its back. I see the difference though: it's a vicious circle - because some people don't want to bf, they are told to bf more strongly, which makes them kick against it more strongly. We need to get to them before they become prejudiced against bf in the first place.

Mothers put their children on their backs because this is what they are ADVISED to do - it is now current medical practice to do so. Just as not smoking anywhere near a baby is ADVISED....I think back to the days of my parents smoking and placing me and my sister on our fronts and ff...are we still here? Are we healthy? I think so.

No current medical advice (as far as I am aware of) says you MUST bf or you are risking your baby's life....this is ridiculous....if ff was so dangerous then surely the advice would be NEVER to do it.

If mothers want to bf then great...the benefits are obvilously there but if they choose not to let's not make out that their children are going to be severly disadvantaged because as far as I can see it this is clearly not the case.

Im definately against the CV method I think it's cruel and outdated.

Karen 999:

quote:

If mothers want to bf then great...the benefits are obvilously there but if they choose not to let's not make out that their children are going to be severly disadvantaged because as far as I can see it this is clearly not the case.

Isn't this a total contradiction??! How can you possibly claim that, "the benefits are obviously there", in the same sentence as saying, "children are not going to be severely disadvantaged"?? You are not making any sense - can you explain what you mean please...

The health benefits of bf are MASSIVE. Are children not being "severely disadvantaged" when they end up in hospital with a variety of problems and infections that bf would have protected them against?

I would appreciate a reply!

Johnny & bump -I think the trouble is with the word 'severely'. Because formula is so widely available, people assume that the difference between breastmilk and formula is negligible. They think, as Karen does, that "if ff was so dangerous then surely the advice would be NEVER to do it." Formula is better than cow's milk or starvation, and those 2% of women cannot breastfeed, so how on earth could the advice be NEVER to use formula? But you know what, it should be a last resort, not a first choice!

The advice is to breastfeed for AT LEAST 6 months. The advice is to put a baby on its back to sleep. The advice is to use a carseat every time you take your baby out in the car. If you fail to do these things, you still have a good chance your baby will be fine. SIDS and car crashes don't happen to everyone, lack of bf doesn't necessarily lead to ill-health. There are situations when using formula is the sensible option. There are situations when not using a car seat is the sensible option (I can only think of fleeing from an extremely dangerous situation as an example though.)

Oh and really: "I think back to the days of my parents smoking and placing me and my sister on our fronts and ff...are we still here? Are we healthy? I think so." Yes, YOU are. And hundreds like you. But hundreds aren't. Why must people keep saying "I'm alright, Jack" on this subject? It's like saying because you've been in a car crash and walked away without a scratch it's not dangerous to crash your car! And then proving it by saying "Put your hand up if you've died in a car crash. See, no hands went up." *sigh*

And yes, I know my analogies are getting more and more extreme. But people don't seem to understand that we are talking about risks and likelihoods rather than certainties. No one is saying that ALL ff babies will have health problems or that ALL bf ones will be healthy. It just increases the odds.

Nickycky

quote:

And yes, I know my analogies are getting more and more extreme. But people don't seem to understand that we are talking about risks and likelihoods rather than certainties. No one is saying that ALL ff babies will have health problems or that ALL bf ones will be healthy. It just increases the odds.

I actually don't think your analogies are extreme - they're absolutely valid!!

How many mums out there would leave hospital with their newborn baby and let them ride in a car without a safe baby seat? ... and yet how likely is it that they will crash & their baby will sustain severe injury's as a result of this one journey? ... highly unlikely, but it's just not worth the risk!!

Bf provides the best nutrition possible,protects our babies from the possibility of suffering specific illnesses that can be very severe, and these are just the things that science has already 'proved' time and time again. Research also suggests that there is loads of other 'good stuff' in colostrum/breastmilk that they haven't been able to analyse yet... is NOT bf a risk worth taking?

Despite the fact that 2% of mums cannot bf for medical reasons, and a small number of other mums cannot bf for other genuine reasons, I still see no reason why their babies should do without breastmilk. We already have 'breastmilk banks' in this country which are currently reserved for very ill/premature babies who need brest milk to survive, (doesn't this say something in itself when they can't survive on formula). This means we would be perfectly capable of providing every baby in this country with breast milk if we really wanted to. Don't get me wrong, it's better for a baby to be bf by their own mother, as our milk naturally 'adjusts' to meet our babies needs- but donor breastmilk would be the next best thing.

However, please don't think that I am trying to make mums who try to bf but end up ff feel guilty!! As I've said on loads of previous threads, it is very difficult to bf when those around you, (medical staff, family, friends etc), are unable to provide the intensive support that many mums need. My own experiences of bf are probably only helpful to a pretty small number of mums. But if loads and loads of mums all keep talking about their own experiences, and the facts about bf, then we'll all keep learning more and more stuff thats relevant to us as individuals.

Bf support groups are great - it's really good to see that your not alone & that other mums struggle too. It's even better to see these mums get past their struggles and become happy and confident bfeeders. This can really dispel the feeling that ‘failure’ is imminent after a few difficult feeds – it becomes easier to believe that things will get better soon, and constantly reinforces all your positive feelings about bf.

Bf shouldn’t only be a topic that’s talked about once we become mums: if our own children grow up seeing and hearing about bf as a matter of course, they will have much more background knowledge and an in-built confidence in their own ability to bf when the time comes. Self-belief at the outset, and an awareness of the common problems that occur, will allow mums to quickly source effective help when they need it rather than feeling fearful and alone.

I really hope to see the day when every baby gets the breastmilk they deserve, and ff is 'wiped off the map' becomes mums don't want it !

Johny&Bump - sorry for not replying to your post earlier..what I meant was that children who are ff are still having their needs cared for. I know the benefits of bf - I have done it - but having ff both children also and knowing many others who have ff fed from birth - there is no difference between the children. My friend bf for one year - her little boy is gorgeous but has had several colds etc.....another friend who ff from birh has a little girl who has never been ill (so far)and she is nearly 2.

What I am saying is that bf is better for baby but I really do not believe that ff is so terrible.

Having watched this programme, I would say I was 80% in favour of CV's method and 20% in favour of the 60s method. The things I didn't like with the 50s method is things like not giving eye contact when feeding and leaving baby outside for hours.
However, for the purpose of the show, they needed a direct extreme antithesis of the 70s method.

There is so much politics around now about bringing up a child and people are easily made to feel that what they're doing is wrong in some way. For me, a happy mum is a happy baby, and if this means getting your baby into a routine, then I don't see anything wrong with this at all.

In my mind, it's not selfish to do what you feel is right, a lot of what CV said actually was full of common sense, albeit a bit harsh at times.

The 70's method was not about the 1970's, it was how mothers brought up their babies before stupid men started writing stupid books which then lead to stupid confusion about how to care for a baby.
As a species we've managed to exist since time began, since before books were invented oddly enough. It's only since the advent of child care 'manuals' that we've started questioning our abilities as parents and forcing more and more ridiculous notions on our offspring.

Oranjeboom, I totally agree. I think ironically, manuals have only served to confuse and plant a seed of doubt in our minds, rather than help us regarding child care.

What I questioned about the 70s method is this; how you can realistically employ this method in modern, urban living where more women than ever before have to return to work, often for finanical reasons. I wonder what effect, if any of course, it has on the child to carry it around for 6 months, and then one day wake up, return to work and baby is not being held any more. There didn't seem to be any "weaning off the sling" at all. In my opinion, this could be perceived a crueler than anything Claire did. I'm not particularly pro babies sleeping in your bed either. The people I know whose children have slept with them, have found it hard when it comes to the time, often at age 2 or 3, to say it's time you slept in your own room. Their own quality of sleep has been poor, at best, for more than two years, and even the relationship has drifted which isn't ultimately in the best interest of the child.

I'm just wondering whether the 70s method unintentionally builds up a child's expectations of its parents, and when it's time to stop having your child in bed with you, or carrying it around, whether the child would feel a sense of rejection. I know children of this method are supposed to grow up confident, and I'm prepared to accept I am wrong on this, however, I do wonder how the child reacts when their continual lifelines are suddenly stopped. Of course, if you are planning to be at home as a full-time mum, indefinitely, then this method may prove very effective.

WHen we look at the tribes on which this method is based, the child is supported not just by its immediate parents but by the community as a whole. In our society, you're very lucky if your mum or family lives close by, and for people like myself, I would not have that support network, so would have to think carefully before deciding which method to use.

In an ideal world, I would not work, but I have to for financial reasons, and if I am honest, motherhood is the priority but I would also like to continue working to keep a sense of self. This way, I feel happiest as a person and as a mother. For these reasons, the 50s method is probably best for me, so that my child and I can feel confident knowing what is happening and when each day. Otherwise I'd be all over the place and feel stressed, then tired and start to doubt if I'm coping.

I brought up my children in this way. They give you cues as to when they'd like to get away from your arms and go about their own business.

My oldest was a very attached baby, she didn't really try to get 'out of arms' until she was about 8 months old, my youngest was making bids for freedom at about 3/4 months old!

They also both slept in bed with me and chose to sleep in their own beds way before age 2. I think it was easier with my youngest as she wanted to be near her sister so I didn't have any troubles at all. I've never had a sleepless night due to babies, I'd say the first few weeks of being a first time mum did cause a few night time troubles - mainly because I had a lot of trouble breastfeeding, she wouldn't latch on and for a while I could only feed whilst sitting up. Once we both got used to it then all was very peaceful at night.
As I've said in the slings thread, I have two very confident happy girls so it's obviously worked for me to follow Mother Nature not some silly book.