Breast feeding, pros and cons

gingerkirsty

[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]'Best possible, ideal, optimal, perfect. Are you the best possible parent? Is your home life ideal? Do you provide optimal meals? Of course not. Those are admirable goals, not minimum standards. Let's rephrase. Is your parenting inadequate? Is your home life subnormal? Do you provide deficient meals? Now it hurts. You may not expect to be far above normal, but you certainly don't want to be below normal.[/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]When we (and the artificial milk manufacturers) say that breastfeeding is the best possible way to feed babies because it provides their ideal food, perfectly balanced for optimal infant nutrition, the logical response is, "So what?" Our own experience tells us that optimal is not necessary. Normal is fine, and implied in this language is the absolute normalcy--and thus safety and adequacy--of artificial feeding. The truth is, breastfeeding is nothing more than normal. Artificial feeding, which is neither the same nor superior, is therefore deficient, incomplete, and inferior. Those are difficult words, but they have an appropriate place in our vocabulary. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Advantages. When we talk about the advantages of breastfeeding--the "lower rates" of cancer, the "reduced risk" of allergies, the "enhanced" bonding, the "stronger" immune system--we reinforce bottlefeeding yet again as the accepted, acceptable norm. [/FONT]
[FONT=Times New Roman, Times, serif]Health comparisons use a biological, not cultural, norm, whether the deviation is harmful or helpful. Smokers have higher rates of illness; increasing prenatal folic acid may reduce fetal defects. Because breastfeeding is the biological norm, breastfed babies are not "healthier;" artificially-fed babies are ill more often and more seriously. Breastfed babies do not "smell better;" artificial feeding results in an abnormal and unpleasant odor that reflects problems in an infant's gut. We cannot expect to create a breastfeeding culture if we do not insist on a breastfeeding model of health in both our language and our literature. '[/FONT]

Taken from an article all of which can be found here - http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/8529/BF/language.html

Not one of us mothers here whether we breastfed or not made an informed choice I bet. Did I know that my baby was more likely to be hospitalised if I choose to ff? Nope! Did I know that the baby milk industry doesn't actually have to list its supply of ingredients? Certainly not!! Had I known that every batch could have ingredients derived from different batches and sources - and is as such never actually tested before giving to our babies - I might have thought about my choices a bit more!

No mother that chooses to formula feed should feel guilty about it, that I feel passionate about, but every mother should be able to make an informed choice and have the support she needs. It is when a woman believes that she really is giving her baby something as good as breast milk that I feel so annoyed with the crap we are fed as mothers.

zekepes

I breastfed my son for 13.5 months.

Pros - don't need to bother washing bottles, sterilising, waiting for bottles to warm, going downstairs in the middle of the night etc, saves money

Cons - all to do with expressing (I did that as I went back to work p/t when he was 3 months old - for a max of 3 hrs at a time but even so!) and too lengthy to go into here! If I ever do it again (have another baby - I don't really consider it a choice, for me, whether to BF or not - I just see it was part of having a baby) I wouldn't go back to work for at least a year (I wasn't planning too but they were desperate at work and I didn't know better!)

There is no way my DH would have done a nightfeed anyway so there was no disadvantage there! After the first few weeks night feeds just took 10 mins anyway and as I didn't need to mess about with bottles it was very quick and much easier than bottle feeding.

The desire/motivation to do it has to come from her though!

nadnad

i have a 9 week old son and i breast feed him. It was something i thought about long before i was even pregnant and something I was determined to do, although I went into it with an open mind telling myself if for some reason i couldnt do it then i wouldn't beat myself up over it.

It is difficult for some people and the first 3 days i thought I was never going to get the hang of it and the nurses in the hospital weren't helpful (very busy and ddnt want to spend time with me) so they told me just to give him a bottle, which I found very frustrating and unhelpful, but I perservered and it clicked into place. It was still tough for the first week at home but it gradually got easier, but I was determined and I carried on. I set myself targets - first I said i'd do it for 4 weeks and then re evaluate then 8 weeks now I'm saying 12! I'll probably keep going until 6 months but I'm taking it week by week.

It is difficult because you can feel tied to the baby, even though I can express easily I just don't like giving him a bottle for some reason, I love the closeness of feeding him myself. I've been lucky in that I've never had sore boobs or cracked nipples (although i've a blocked milk duct at minute) but even without these problems its tough. At the start I felt like I was sitting with my boobs out all day long!

I would say that anyone having to be talked into breast feeding probably shouldnt do it, they may resent it and I think if you're not comfortable with it then the baby wont be and this is when problems occur. Without doubt it is best for baby but you do have to consider what is best for mum as well and if for some reason she is not comfortable with the idea then she shouldn't be forced or talked into it. Its a cultural thing and in this country its still a bit "taboo" which makes it that little bit harder, I hope this will change in the future.

surreysaver

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I think it's absolutely appalling that a midwife said anything of the sort.

In the middle of a life or death situation, you do not need the lecture, and a friendly comment to put everybody at ease has a much bigger benefit than a critisism from someone after you've had nine months to make your own decision. All you breast is best hippies carry on breast feeding, and let everyone else run their own lives!

Always_Harassed

There has been research that shows it massively reduces the incidence of breast cancer in the mother.

PeskyPenguin

Just out of curiosity, how is it that some posters cherry pick which research and guidelines to adhere to?

The Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths recommends that parents don't co-sleep with babies who are less than eight weeks old as one study found that this also increases the risk of cot death. They recommend that baby sleeps next to you, rather than with you, for the first six months of life.

However, many posters are here mention co-sleeping as the most natural thing in the world?

neverdespairgirl

PeskyPenguin wrote: »

However, many posters are here mention co-sleeping as the most natural thing in the world?

Co-sleeping doesn't necessarily mean in the same bed - for example, my DS as a newborn slept in a Moses basket next to our futon.

neverdespairgirl

surreysaver wrote: »

All you breast is best hippies carry on breast feeding, and let everyone else run their own lives!

I can't help but feel that this level of defensiveness and aggression indicates a lack of reasoned argument.

shirlgirl2004

PeskyPenguin wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, how is it that some posters cherry pick which research and guidelines to adhere to?

The Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths recommends that parents don't co-sleep with babies who are less than eight weeks old as one study found that this also increases the risk of cot death. They recommend that baby sleeps next to you, rather than with you, for the first six months of life.

However, many posters are here mention co-sleeping as the most natural thing in the world?

And in countries where co sleeping is the norm levels of cot death are much lower. One study does not prove anything. I however do not cosleep on a regular basis.

As we're discussing breastfeeding it is also useful to say that it reduces the risk of cotdeath. http://www.fsid.org.uk/breastfeeding.html

Hell_Dans_Un_Handcart

PeskyPenguin wrote: »

Just out of curiosity, how is it that some posters cherry pick which research and guidelines to adhere to?

The Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths recommends that parents don't co-sleep with babies who are less than eight weeks old as one study found that this also increases the risk of cot death. They recommend that baby sleeps next to you, rather than with you, for the first six months of life.

However, many posters are here mention co-sleeping as the most natural thing in the world?

The studies these guidelines are based on include data from countries where tribes regularly use opiates - I'll have to have a gander and find this study out. It also doesn't take into account whether or not the parents had been smoking or drinking, which is really crucial. Most verdicts of baby being "smothered" are now being viewed by much of the medical community as incorrect, because smothering is only assumed.

I think one of the reasons people aren't all advised to co-sleep is because you'll have the mooses who go "well, they are only guidelines" and go ahead and use duvets, smoke, get drunk beforehand. And then you're going to have some very unfortunate accidents. For that reason, the cot as the safest place is the most responsible advice to give out, I believe.

And yes, in places like China where co-sleeping is the norm, the incidence of SIDs is vastly reduced. Nobody is entirely sure why this is, mind.