I think Badinter has completely missed the point.
Printable View
I think Badinter has completely missed the point.
Gigi said somethikng quite powerful....INFORMATION is power, and coupled with Rouge's initial post, to choice is 100% my viewpoint.
I'll encourage any parent to breastfeed/express BF milk to their child-because its as natural as intended, but for those it doesn't suit (for what ever reason-be it natural or not-and I hold NO judgement) FF it is.
What an interesting thread for us all to read and consider. xx
I agree this is a great thread!
Yes Homebirth or natural birth is another area of misinformation. If I tell people of the RISKS of using pain medication or birthing in a hospital I am seen as judging them or just another hippy. But people constantly feel the need to criticize my birth choices without an open mind for discussion.
But you know I think as parents we can be very quick to take the responsibility for stuff too, ie is something because of us, or because of the advice/information we were given by someone? Sure you can say we're the parents and the book stops with us, it's out job to be informed etc - but as we've discussed the facts are often not easy to find and unpick, many are brought up believing the medical profession are to be trusted implicitly (healthcare generally is v passive), as new parents how can anyone know that they need to question/research themselves and ultimately shouldn't those paid to support be held accountable?:
Based on my knowledge now I believe my son has autism because of me. You know what, that hurts.
The other thing is, sometimes things aren't down to fault from anyone. I have a good friend who did everything "right" - calm natural unmedicated homebirth, excl bf from birth, AP and yet her son has autism - no answers as to why. Gut healing seems to be having a HUGE impact for them - but as she said do I blame myself for taking lots of antibiotics, birth control pills when younger, being not bf myself etc and on some subjects just not knowing, or do I figure some things are just bigger than we are and instead look to the pharmas and the AF marketing etc.
AA
I find it strange that we can't be told that ff increases the risk of SIDS but we can be told that smoking does????
What about all the women that smoke while pregnant....
Smoking in general and smoking while pregnant aren't illegal!!
What's the difference??
Great thread. I wish I could figure out how to share that article on fb!!!!
No, I don't mind you using me as an example ;) I guess for me, I tend to see myself as quite an 'educated' person, having done two post-grad courses (one a Masters), so it almost makes me feel 'dumb' not to have known this. I mean, in my sleep deprived state of looking after a newborn and also getting up every two hours (often never at the time of DD) to give my husband medication, I tried to do a bit of research, but I didn't come up with anything like this. I just wish this info was more well known. Like you said, I may have still made the same choice, but at least I would have been able to do that knowing all the facts.:
Formula companies lobby is stronger? And smoking will never be completely illegal while governments can make tons of cash from the taxes on cigarettes and alcohol regardless of the effect on people's health.:
Thanks for caring and sharing your experience. I believe my son's autism stems from the gut flora he gained from me so I do feel it all comes down to being "my fault". That's just a point of fact for me though, information to work with, not a call for guilt and denial. I don't think it was all fully in my power. I certainly had no power over the huge amount of antibiotics I received as a child,not being BF the gut flora I inherited from my own mother. I also made many positive choices for my son such as a natural birth and full term BFing, but there were things I could I have changed had I known more. One being that I would have held out even longer, or sought donor milk, before supplementing my low supply at 2 weeks old with formula!:
But when I raise the point that autism is preventable and curable most mothers don't seem to want to know the details. I don't get it because I switched my guilt off and dove into the information in order to help him.
:
You are such a lovely mummy :)
I'm confused - there are some articles that say BF'ing reduces SIDS, others say there is no identifable link - this is from the SIDS for kids information statement as clearly they aren't willing to make a statement saying it absolutely proves the link. At the end of one article on Reuters I found the below:
" The analysis doesn't definitively show that there's a cause and effect relationship between breastfeeding and SIDS risk, but Hauck said she is "fairly confident" that's the case."
Health authorities aren't going to make recommendations unless they are satisfied of the link. It's dangerous for them to do this, as there are so many studies done everyday around the world on health issues, often with conflicting results, or data gathering methods which aren't consistent. They would be changing their recommendations all the time, confusing people by making statements that they later retracted. This is exactly the same as allergies - there is the potential for a link between starting solids later than 4-6 months, but until the academic world is convinced of this fact through consistent and substantiated empirical evidence, they won't release it as a statement of fact and authorities won't officially be changing their recommendation of starting solids until after 6 months.
I am not challenging the worthiness of the data or the belief you may/may not have between BF'ing and SIDS BTW, just wondering how health authorities could disseminate this information without creating enormous confusion and the potential for great harm if the information is incorrect. I have no idea how they would possibly keep up with all these differing studies and give people advice that wasn't consistenly changing and people being attacked for their decisions to/not do something based on something that has in the world of health academia, yet to be proven.
That's a good point Sunshine.
As I understand it - what is yet to be confirmed is the exact cause and effect relationship. Is it the absence of breast milk in the infant's diet, the formula itself or a combination of the two? The studies - which correct for other risk factors - show a clear increase in the risk for formula-fed infants. We just don't know exactly why that is.
It's important to bear this in mind (and I know this point has been made several times, but is worth saying again) - Breast milk is the biological norm for infant nutrition and complementary food for young children. Formula is the alternative and as such, we should examine the changes that occur in health outcomes etc when it is used instead of breast milk. The burden of proof should be on formula to prove it can do everything that breast milk can without introducing new risks.
In any event, this isn't the point of this thread :) Do we need protecting from information? Who gets to decide that? What agendas are at work?
They say breastfeeding reduces SIDS compared to what? Why aren't we holding milk of our own species as the norm for comparison - the standard with which other substitutes should be compared? Do these other substitutes potentially result in a less positive outcome when compared to what we know babies are supposed to eat, is surely the question?:
I'm confused - there are some articles that say BF'ing reduces SIDS, others say there is no identifable link -
Another way to phrase your comment is - "there are some articles that say not breastfeeding increases SIDS, others say there is no identifiable link".
If there are some that show a link, don't we need proof that this isn't true?
Going back to my "fake blood" analogy - if a fake blood came out and some research showed people who had been given it during a transfusion were at increased risk of say cancer, would we not want the blood thoroughly testing to ensure it wasn't the case? Would we be saying "There are some articles saying real blood reduces cancer, others say there is no identifiable link"? We need to prove real blood reduces cancer rates!
As per my blog entry linked in the OP: A meta analysis of 23 SIDS studies revealed 19 studies found not breastfeeding increased the risk of SIDS.
So yes 4 studies didn't support the risk that 19 others found.
We also have to realise that some SIDS studies are flawed as they group "any breastfeeding" and "exclusive breastfeeding" together, some consider 3 or 4 months exclusive feeding instead of 6.
Furthermore, Health Authorities should be pulling together research from other areas to consider the big picture surely? ie Zenskin studied babies in all stages of behaviour: deep sleep, dream sleep, drowsy, alert, fussing, and crying. Bottle-fed babies were found more often in the deep-sleep state, and breast-fed babies were more alert. Breast-fed babies also had higher heart rates, indicating reduced energy efficiency. Computer analyses also show that the heart-rate patterns of breast-fed babies are more rhythmically complex, another indication of a more energy-efficient system.
He concluded that non breast-fed babies develop a less energy-efficient and rhythmically functioning autonomic nervous system, which controls infant arousal, than breastfed babies.
Does research ever absolutely prove something beyond all doubt? Isn't it about risks and likelihood? Not all babies who are not breastfed will suffer SIDS, not all babies who are breastfed will be protected from SIDS - yet we are asking research to try and prove something without question?:
this is from the SIDS for kids information statement as clearly they aren't willing to make a statement saying it absolutely proves the link.
I don't know who SIDS for kids are, I'm in the UK and we have FSID (Foundation for the Study of Infant Death) and as per blog they have acknowledged the link.
Yeah I wonder why the study doesn't sum up "The analysis doesn't definitively show that there's a cause and effect relationship between not breastfeeding and SIDS risk, but Hauck said she is "fairly confident" that's the case." - thoughts on a postcard ;):
At the end of one article on Reuters I found the below:
" The analysis doesn't definitively show that there's a cause and effect relationship between breastfeeding and SIDS risk, but Hauck said she is "fairly confident" that's the case."
Just an update on this thread - I read an article on ABA about this today breastfeeding-co-sleeping-and-sudden-unexpected-deaths-infancy - and it says that
"SIDS and Kids Australia will be adding a sixth message to the safe sleeping campaign to be launched in 2012: Breastfeed baby if you can."
So perhaps it just took a while for it to be agreed on how to get this message out there.
Well that's something, but it really should be "avoid formula feeding, if you can"
I so agree! So tired of breastfeeding being placed as something "extra" to do. It's just feeding your child the normal way!!: