I read this article today. And it made me really sad to think that mothers still think that they've been failed by breastfeeding support and that all we do is to pressure them into keeping at it. That's really not what we're setting out to do, and as 'we' I mean breastfeeding counsellors and peer supporters.
Yet, to take the same example as the one in the article, if a mother comes to see me with mastitis or a supply issue, would I tell her to feed more? Well to be honest yes!
Let's talk about mastitis. It's an inflammation of breast tissues caused by milk stasis (milk not being removed from the breast) or a blocked duct. And the most effective way to resolve mastitis is indeed to feed more and get the baby to remove the milk/unblock the plug that's causing problem. I know, I've had it! Because that's the thing, breastfeeding counsellors are firstly breastfeeding mothers who have had similar experiences to the mothers they support and know first hand how hard it can be. Their 'agenda' is not to please the public health's politics of the moment but to genuinely provide the best support they can to other breastfeeding mothers.
Milk supply issues? Breastfeeding works as a balance between supply and demand. Basically the more a baby feeds, the more milk the mother's body will make. So yes again, feeding is the best way to increase supply.
And I do talk about formula to the mothers who come to my antenatal breastfeeding sessions. And if they ask, as they often do "When is it that enough is enough and it's best to stop?" I do say that the most important thing for a baby is to have a happy mother and that if breastfeeding makes them unhappy it's time to stop. I do!
But if I agree that the mother's happiness is key I can't help feeling anger and frustration at reading this : "Furthermore, breastfeeding activists (or lactivists) shouldn't have to borrow risk factors from the developing world to make mothers in Eastleigh feel breast milk is the only safe foodstuff for their children."
Journalists should present correct information and I don't consider it correct information to say that we borrow risk factors from the developing world. It's also in our wealthy country that children are unnecessarily hospitalised for infections that breastfeeding prevents when formula doesn't.
Gastro enteritis for example. Not only does breastfeeding alone - not formula - provide protection against such infections but formula can be detrimental, not promote a healthy growth of babies' immature gut.
For mums too, breastfeeding is important. Breast and cervical cancers are on the rise and lots of studies show how breastfeeding dramatically reduces the risks for mothers to contract them.
In an ironic sort of way I also read today this post from The Alpha Parent. I recommend to read this to see just how much breastfeeding is not just a bout the developing world risk factor.
And this is always at the back of our mind, as breastfeeding supporters. And it would be nice, for once, if the media tried to see things how we see them, and what our daily struggle is to have to juggle mothers' emotional well-being and not putting pressure on anyone with what we know about what formula does to babies and mothers' health, instead of always getting us pilloried for what we do!
Anne, BFC
I almost forgot this : "(..) in order for breastfeeding to have the no-alternative, liquid-gold status it enjoys in public health, its benefits would have to be so much more pronounced and demonstrable that you wouldn't even need to demonstrate them." Well, have a look at babies in who early use of formula triggered a dairy allergy which makes them be sick after each feed and are in pain from their digestive track being burned by the acidity. What does that mean anyway?! That formula fed babies should straight away suffer infection after infection to 'demonstrate' the superiority of breast milk? As that, some of them do... :(
ReplyDelete