Mummy Guilt Culture - Protecting or Patronising

[purplepixie1978]

Wow, I wish I had known that before. Yet another thing to tell my Mum and sister when they tell me to "just give him/her a bottle" next time. People need to know these things! We do so many other things to reduce SIDS risk (provide education I mean), why not this?

Gigi, I'm with you - I tend to step back and if people show interest in MCN I'll give them the info they need to get going. Even though I wasn't a successful breastfeeder with DD I have educated myself so friends who have had babies recently I have been able to help with tips to increase supply etc... I just hope I can be as supportive of myself next time!

[Trillian]

Hi Armadillo and welcome!

I think I'm one that kind of 'sugar coats' when others bring up these topics about their own children. Eg at Mother's Group people speak about when to wean, or basically when to introduce formula. Most have introduced formula by 6 months. I'm happy to say I won't be weaning until DD chooses to and I give my reasons, but I don't feel comfortable saying something along the lines of "ideally mothers should exclusively breastfeed for six months, with the child naturally weaning, and I don't believe formula should be introduced as it is unnecessary and increases the risk of health problems now and down the track."

I don't want to be seen to be judging other mothers, because I'm not. They can make their own choice, but I sometimes feel as though when I present facts that are opposing the choice they want to make, I'm seen as preachy. This happened in a discussion of turning baby seats - my DD is the only one still rear facing, and when I said it was because of the risk of internal decapitation and that I'd leave her rear facing as long as possible, the response I got was "well the law says 6 months, so if s/he wants to sit up then that's what I'll do. S/he's happier now s/he can see out the window." I just left it, but I certainly felt as though I my opinion was not at all wanted!

Kaytee, I don't think you sugar coated things, I think you realised that the group you were with wouldn't be receptive to a debate on the subject, so you gave your reasons for doing what you do and left it at that. Sugar coating would have been to say "Oh yeah, using formula is just as good as breastmilk" and validate their choices for them.

I totally agree with using anything you are told, even if it hurts, for future reference. However, I still think there is a time and a place to share that knowledge. I never felt guilt about the choices I made, but there was still an internal struggle to come to terms with the choices if that makes sense. So if anyone had of said to me at that point in time when things were still a bit raw, I would have told them to bugger off. Not that I wouldn't appreciate being told, but rather that I have too much going on to accept the information. But at the same time I wouldn't like things sugar coated or be patronised, I would prefer they are just not said at the time.

[Lenny]

Eta: Then again, I'm not a health professional. I certainly feel that health professionals should give all the facts so that we can make the best possible choices for our little ones.

You are right. Good on you for not rocking the boat at your mum's groups! However, if someone in you mum's group asked you specifically for help or advice, then i'm sure you'd be able to gently let them know all the things you have learned.
We need the information from our medical professionals and our governing bodies etc. It needs to be published a easily accessible. (Funding anyone?)

[Teeki]

Gigi, you sound very similar to me and my Mother's Group! I'm the only one doing a lot of things, DH calls me the "group hippy" lol. I generally do the same as you - I won't jump in if people are talking amongst themselves about something if they do it differently to me, but if they ask I give whatever info they're asking about.

I've been thinking about this a little more, and I reckon some of the problem is that the info needs to be given early. E.g. Our ante-natal class was run by a fantastic community midwife who outlined every reason why breastfeeding is the normal way to feed a baby, and gave us all the facts about formula. No one felt judged, she was just helping us make a decision about how to feed our baby.

Another example, yesterday DH and I went to buy a new car seat for DH's car (so he can pick up DD from childcare when she starts). We had planned to get one that suits from 6 months/8kgs until 7 years. Technically she fits, she's 8 months & 8.5kgs, and then we won't need to get another one later. But the woman explained to us the facts about forward facing seats, and how seats are now manufactured with shoulder heights/limits. DD is still a cm or two too short according to the lines on the seat, so we chatted with the woman, and decided to get another convertible seat. I think, if we'd already gone and put her forward facing and were then told the dangers of it, we'd be more likely to get defensive about it.

Sent from my GT-P7510

[Tegam]

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!!!!

[Loveinamist]

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!!!!

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.

[Tegam]

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

[sunshine 11]

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.

[onthefly]

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?

[AnalyticalArmadillo]

I'm confused - there are some articles that say BF'ing reduces SIDS, others say there is no identifable link -

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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."

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

[wysiwyg]

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.

[onthefly]

Well that's something, but it really should be "avoid formula feeding, if you can"