I wasn’t going to write about corrosive nature of breastfeeding “support” again today, but then I read a new paper that brilliantly explains how the lactation professionals who claim to be providing information and support abuse their position as health providers to shame and blame.
The paper Getting the Green Light: Experiences of Icelandic Mothers Struggling with Breastfeeding, written by Sunna Simmonardottir was published today in Sociology Research Online. Simmonardottir is writing about the experience of Icelandic women and the pressure they feel from midwives who are the main lactation professionals. However, the experience of these women is identical that that of American women and lactation consultants.
[pullquote align=”right” cite=”” link=”” color=”” class=”” size=””]Lactation professionals embrace a hierarchical relationship where they can shame women at will.[/pullquote]
Simmonardottir focuses specifically on whether the “support” they receive is remotely supportive and describes a critical principle:
The interaction between women who struggle with breastfeeding and health care professionals can sometimes be problematic and fraught with conflict and many women tend to feel that they did not get the help they needed and even felt that their feelings and experiences were not acknowledged. It is therefore extremely valuable to examine the role of health care professionals working ‘in the field’ as they possess the power to define and promote the dominant scientific discourses that women have to contend with as well as provide them and their infant feeding actions with the professional stamp of approval.
Lactation professionals including LCs and midwives are typically extremely critical of the supposedly tyrannical behavior of physicians, especially as regards the technocratic model of birth and the emphasis on authoritative knowledge. Ironically, they have become the very professionals they detested, advancing a technocratic view of breastfeeding and touting their authorative knowledge.
The technocratic model of breastfeeding postulates extraordinary scientifically determined health benefits for breastfeeding, although:
… when it comes to measuring the impact breastfeeding actually has, the conclusions are at best contradictory and ‘for every study linking it to better health, another finds it to be irrelevant, weakly significant, or inextricably tied to other unmeasured or unmeasurable factors’. Nevertheless, the assumed multitude of benefits and the supposed risk reduction of breastfeeding have become ‘scientific truths’ that have achieved dominance world-wide and are rarely questioned or contested.
So the choice to breastfeed is not really a choice at all:
…[T]he decision to breastfeed in an Icelandic context [and among privileged, white American women] is not really a ‘decision’, per se. Mothers are simply expected to breastfeed and the assumption that all mothers would want to breastfeed (for some length of time at least) is completely taken for granted. Exclusive breastfeeding is constructed as a pillar of successful bonding and attachment and absolutely paramount when it comes to promoting the close primary relationship between mother and child.
Lactation professionals insists that every woman can breastfeed if she wants, so there’s no point in studying why women don’t breastfeed or stop breastfeeding beyond analyzing their “excuses.” Lactation professionals, like the physicians they despise. strikingly ignore what women tell them — breastfeeding can be difficult, painful and provide inadequate milk supply — and substitute their authoritative knowledge that women don’t understand the benefits of breastfeeding and aren’t receiving adequate support to breastfeed.
Breastfeeding is constructed natural and therefore, women aren’t breastfeeding successfully must be “broken.” Therefore, they must endure techlogical efforts to fix them.
This idea that women have a ‘natural ability’ to breastfeed is culturally very strong but at the same time is counteracted with messages about the possible ‘faults’ that the women possess. They are discursively situated as both ‘natural’ and ‘unnatural’ at the same time, and in order to successfully breastfeed they have to rectify those unnatural faults often by going through quite technical processes, involving a range of breastfeeding aids such as breast pumps, artificial breasts and finger- or syringe feeding systems.
Lactation professionals routinely abuse their power as health providers to confer or deny approval to women.
The power dynamics of this particular relationship between mother (patient) and expert are clearly hierarchical, where the latter is in a position to shame and even scold, and the former feels that she has lost her subject status and is even treated like a child …
Many of the women described how the health care professionals had expressed very negative views towards formula and others had a hard time getting information on formula feeding from health care professionals, who wouldn’t comment on practical information, like quantity, the number of feeds and so on… Many of the mothers associate health care professionals with being judged and having to explain and justify their infant feeding practices.
The outcomes can be heartbreaking:
Should a mother exercise her own agency and decide for herself that the best thing for her would be to give up on trying to breastfeed, she runs the risk of being constructed as the villain, the selfish mother who didn’t want to inconvenience herself for the sake of her child. The biggest sin according to this cultural script of good mothering is not trying hard enough and giving up without a fight. The women want an outsider, especially a health care professional to tell them that they have done enough and that they have passed the test, but for some of the women no one ever does.
Lactation professionals insist that they aren’t forcing women to breastfeed or to continue to breastfeed when it isn’t working, but that’s not true.
The notion of freedom and choice does however become debatable when we consider the culture that they inhabit, where almost all women initiate breastfeeding and the notion of ‘giving up’ on breastfeeding means that you have failed your child and your identity as a ‘good mother’ is challenged.
Ironically, lactation professionals have merely replace the despised medical patriarchy with a new matriarchy based on what is “natural.”
The discursive shift from the ‘medical’ to the ‘natural’ has been successfully implemented without any recognition of the fact that the ‘natural’ is also a cultural category, and has no intrinsic meaning. The unequal power relations between patient (female) and physician (male) that were once so strongly criticized have not been discarded, but simply re-imagined and reproduced within current health care systems. By proclaiming that all women have a ‘natural’ ability to breastfeed, for as long as they wish, the experiences of a large number of women are marginalized and pathologized and essentialist understandings of women as a homogenous group are sustained.
Can you clarify who you categorize as ‘lactivists’? I have met lactation support staff who I think would meet your definition, based on my best guess. However, I know others who want to help Moms who want to breastfeed reach their (the Mom’s) goal, while encouraging them to make their own decisions. I am a lactation consultant and I been the first person to hand out formula to a family often. I discuss what a women wants and if the road gets tough, I ask again what she wants to do at that point. I present not breastfeeding as a totally reasonable (and sometimes ideal) option. I think some lactation support personnel need to hear how some of their assistance is perceived. It is very hard to find the line between supportive and pushy sometimes. I think the first step is to say “what do you want to accomplish and how can I help you?” I think some women are looking for “permission” to stop breastfeeding, and it is hard to read when that is what someone is looking for. It is sad that women feel like they need permission to stop though. I haven’t worked with anyone I consider pushy or condescending in a couple years though (probably just luck of the draw right now).
I think it was Heidi who suggested donating formula in Anna’s name. I believe I will be picking up some more shortly. Putting my money where my mouth is!
Are you actually agreeing with me?? Wow. I didn’t think it would happen. It’s OK to tell moms that breastfeeding is recommended and then support their decision to formula feed instead. I’m impressed with you.
???
What did you just think you read.
I thought any suggestion that formula was “fine” was verboten, and that any suggestion that formula feeding was even a “choice” was not to be tolerated.
Are you saying “it’s OK” to “support” formula feeding only after you have made it very clear that breast feeding is what is recommended and that formula is a very distant second to breastmilk?
Because I’m unimpressed with that suggestion.
Bit of anecdata. I spent last week working in an entirely different region away from home. I did a few autopsies on babies who were miscarried or stillborn-because its a regional service covering a huge region, there are a lot of different obstetric units that refer into it. Every baby comes with the maternal obstetric notes-these are ‘hand-held notes’ that the woman brings to all appointments so that no matter what type of care she is receiving (midwife led, shared care, consultant led etc), all care providers can fill in information. So these are notes that she has access to all the time. Every single set of notes I received had an information booklet about ‘feeding your baby’, and every single booklet started out with a variation on ‘we will support your choices when it comes to feeding your baby’. And then every single booklet discussed in depth the benefits of breast feeding, and some guff on how some mums might be it difficult but we will help. But not a single one mentioned formula. NOT ONE. They didn’t criticise it, they just airbrushed it completely from existence.
I’m a doctor-from my earliest training it has been drummed into me about giving patients adequate information about risks, benefits, evidence based data to help them make a decision about an issue. If I was discussing a process with a patient that had a risk of harm, and ignored that risk, and didn’t tell them, I’d be disciplined, even struck off. How come lactivists can completely ignore formula and ignore the risk of harm to babies whose mother isn’t able to produce enough-we know this can harm babies. It’s so incredibly paternalistic, and it’s concerning that even NHS services seem happy to put this sort of biased information into notes.
It is for the same reason that antenatal information about the NICU is not shared – the hope is that moms won’t need it. If and when they do need it, THEN the information is shared. Moms have enough new information that they have to deal with.
Oh yea, how to properly feed a baby VS NICU. Clearly those are both on the same scale.
But you know what? People here would actually be in favour of ALSO telling mothers about potential NICU stay and what to expect. We are very much in favour of mother to be more informed.
I agree that what services hospitals do and don’t provide should be more clearly spelled out. Is there a 24/7 OB in house, or just on call? What about anesthesia services? Neonatal services? Full nursery or just parked at the nurses’ desk? And if there is not a NICU, where do they refer and how will the baby get there? If there is no adult ICU, where do they refer and how will the mother get there? These are questions that patients may not think to ask.
There are many hospitals available in my area, so information about what resources are available at what hospitals is readily available here.
Same scale? No. However, both the NICU and infant formula are interventions that some, not all, infants will utilize. Those who do, appropriately, learn about the intervention (NICU, formula). Those who don’t utilize them, do not need to learn about them. Seems simple enough. Should I go over it again?
Seeing as more than half of babies will be fed formula, and that you can’t really decide who will and who will not be taking it, seems to me like it should be taught to people beforehand.
Exclusively BF babies are actually the minority, so using your own logic, seems to me like everyone should be learning how to formula fed, and only those who really want to breastfeed should be thought about it. And really, we should wait until the baby is there, why take the time to teach them something beforehand when it might not be usefull.
Seems simple enough, should I go over it again?
I don’t agree. I think it is a waste of time for people who will never use formula to have to be “educated” on how to use it “just in case”. I also think that it is straightforward enough to use, that it is OK to wait until it is time to use it to learn about it.
You will never know in advance if you need to use formula. And seeing as more than 50% of baby’s will get formula, it’s not a ‘just in case’
And if you are not properly informed and ready, you might rind yourself at 2am, without anything and without any clue on how to do it.
I also happen to think that breastfeeding is pretty straightforward: Put the baby’s mouth on your breast and voila, so really, why are we wasting all this time teaching people how to breastfeed? It’s totally ok to wait until the baby is there to learn about it.
Since you’ve never had a baby, let me explain a bit about the postpartum period to you. You are exhausted, probably in at least some discomfort (if not outright pain), and dealing with a lot of stress (provided that you and your baby are healthy, it’s mainly “good” stress, but stress all the same). Having that information readily available at home is important, particularly if you wind up needing to supplement when you hadn’t planned on it.
Isn’t there detailed instruction on the can? Isn’t the information readily available online? Haven’t most people, at one time or another prepared a bottle of formula for a sibling, relative, or while babysitting?
My husband never had. Nor have either of my siblings.
Editing to note that I babysat a lot. And the parents always left prepared bottles of formula in the fridge. So until I had my own children, I had never prepared a bottle either.
Well, it that case, I think your husband could ask about it. Not everyone needs a lecture on the details of commercial infant formula.
IT WASN’T A LECTURE. IT WAS AN INFORMATIONAL PAMPHLET FOR READING.
Ha – ha – ha.
And women whose first language isn’t English?
Or who can’t read?
Or who don’t have the internet?
Or a support system of relatives and friends with young children?
I once saw a lovely baby from a Traveller family who weighed double what he ought to have done. His mother was making his formula up twice as strong as it should have been.
The mother, never having gone to school after age six, and having disengaged from postnatal services by leaving the area shortly after the birth (which is a common Traveller practice) was just winging it. She couldn’t read the instructions on the can and was socially isolated without anyone to tell her differently.
She had attended every single antenatal appointment. The time to tell her how to safely make up formula would have been carefully, in person, and with photographs or drawings, when she was pregnant.
I ended up drawing lines on the child’s bottle with a marker every 30mls and explaining that it was 1 scoop for each line, and it took a while to work out an explanation that made sense to her.
Given that pregnant women where I live are given leaflets on Folic acid, Vitamin D and Calcium, Skin to Skin, car seats, safe sleeping, domestic violence, safe foods in pregnancy, smoking cessation, pertussis and ‘flu vaccination, alcohol and drug awareness, mental illness in pregnancy, workplace discrimination, benefit entitlement in pregnancy and the postnatal period and countless breastfeeding leaflets, I really don’t think one on safe formula feeding is much to ask.
I think a leaflet on formula preparation is unnecessary and can easily be given out if or when the mom decides to use it. Sharing a leaflet implies an endorsement that formula and breastfeeding are even choices.
An appropriate analogy might be that a pamphlet about recognizing the symptoms of PPD/PNDA is appropriate. Pamphlets that explain various treatments options, such as Zoloft, Prozac or Wellbutrin are inappropriate.
Ah- the old “providing information is endorsing that choice” chestnut.
Much like abstinence only education then.
And you don’t actually believe that woman should feel breastfeeding is a choice. Gotcha.
Postnatal depression leaflets do indeed spell out that treatment options include talking therapies like CBT and drug therapies including antidepressants, and that the treatment plan will be individualised between each woman and her care providers to best meet her needs.
True. I do not think breastfeeding and infant formula feeding are even choices.
Really? I am surprised that the pamphlets would share details such as Prozac, Zoloft or Wellbutrin. Like I said, it is important for those who are screened in for possible issues, but it seems like overload for every mom.
You still haven’t thought about the women who can’t read, don’t have internet access, may be socially isolated and aren’t in a position to proactively seek information from HCPs.
Any thoughts on that?
I’m a doctor and I still ended up with all the same pamphlets as everyone else, even though I already knew all the stuff in them, and when it came to the “how to access extra help if you have a low income” I didn’t need it.
I don’t mind, because I know it is better to give everyone information they might never want or need than to neglect giving someone information she might find vital.
I’ve just realised, when you say “even choices” you may mean “equally valid and acceptable choices”.
However, I read “even choices” and interpreted that as “actually choices”, as in to breastfeed or not to breast should not be presented as a choice, women should just be expected to breastfed and only permitted to consider formula if they fail, and only after you’ve made sure they know that formula is a VERY BAD THING.
Could you clarify which you meant please?
The former.
Mothers who lead transient lifestyles and have sporadic contact with healthcare providers are not a thing.
Breastfeeding instruction: Put mouth on nipple
Isn’t the information readily available online?
Haven’t most people, at one time or another, saw someone else breastfeed?
So why do you need to give people any info on it?
Ha. Reading about how to breastfeed is about as helpful as reading about how to ride a bike.
Ah, so we shouldn’t bother teaching it. You just learn by doing it.
Like I said. So get all this breastfeeding information out of our hospitals.
Gosh, you are clueless. The information about the fact that breastfeeding matters is important, BECAUSE people like you make it a point to assert that it does not matter. Learning that breastfeeding matters is only the first step. Learning about how to breastfeed takes a little time and effort – that’s why moms need to learn about the importance while they are pregnant. Waiting until after the birth to figure it all out, assuming that it is “easy” “natural” or “instinctive”, is a recipe for disaster. Sure, a lucky few can wing it, but most moms need guidance and understanding.
It is positively spiteful that you, and others like you, frame breastfeeders as the bad guys. Your constant barrage of scare tactics ensures that no more than 50% of moms will ever breastfeed and it makes you feel better about yourself. Am I right? You still feel badly because breastfeeding did not work out?
And the same thing apply to formula feeding mothers. That’s what you refuse to see.
Nobody is framing breastfeeders as the bad camp. Many people here have breastfed, many others (including myself) are planning to.
You yourself are the bad camp and a perfect example of why many people hate lactivists.
We think that ALL women should be supported and given proper information to make their own informed decision about what is best for them without any shame attached. Saying that over 50% of baby will receive formula is not a scare tactict, it’s a FACT.
See how you are accusing me of feeling bad because breastfeeding didn’t work out for me? I’ve never even breastfed you idiot. But see how you are using breastfeeding to try and shame me? THAT’S the horrendous lactivist attitude we are talking about.
No, you hate lactivists which is why you hate me.
Pfff, don’t make the mistake that you are important enough in my life for me to hate you. You are a troll and a general horrible person, but it’s all based on what you have been saying here, not because you are a lactivist.
I agree. Seeing other people breastfeed is important. However, many moms need more than just a passing look in order to breastfeed themselves.
Have you not yet figured out that formula mimics breastfeeding, but breastfeeding does not mimic formula feeding? Learning how to prepare a bottle of formula can be accomplished by watching a video, reading a pamphlet, or watching someone else do it. Oftentimes, breastfeeding requires more effort than that.
“Oftentimes, breastfeeding requires more effort than that.”
Somehow we humans are the only animals that need lactation professionals. But I know the reason. It’s not that we don’t see enough other people breastfeed. It’s that we humans are mammals just like any other mammals, and lactation as a process is subject to a lot of failures. When lactation fails in animals the young just die. That’s how it was for all of human history too. But humans don’t want their babies to die, and have the means to stop it. When lactation fails (as it frequently does) lactation consultants tell women that they were doing it wrong and then sell their services to “fix” the woman and her supposed failures.
Do explain what that effort includes, since in a prior post you explicitly stated that the combination peer education, formal education (breastfeeding classes), and self-education (reading books and literature on breastfeeding) was still insufficient for a mom-to-be. Tell me, should all women be required to receive MDs before they are allowed to get pregnant?
Yes, I have said that an evening breastfeeding class, reading a book and buying a pump are not a good way to prepare for breastfeeding.
You still haven’t said what IS a good way of preparing for breastfeeding.
Yes, because if I suggested a series of La Leche League meetings, reading Breast Intentions, or following an online group such as Breastfeeding USA you would scoff.
Breast Intentions? As in, the book by the Alpha Parent? The blogger who recognizes no acceptable reason to not breastfeed, insists that if a mom feels bad when she’s told that her formula-fed baby will be developmentally-delayed, perpetually ill, and a sociopath it’s because mom knows this is her fault, and not because people are being both wrong and unkind? Who posted the following on her blog, mocking formula feeders who dare to say things like, and I quote, “Not every woman can breastfeed,” “Correlation does not imply causation,” and offering “sob stories” of how hard it was to breastfeed? http://www.thealphaparent.com/2013/01/how-to-spot-defensive-formula-feeder.html
Or the LLL. Hmmm. I belonged to my local chapter for a while, despite that particularly nasty leader. I left after one too many moms with babies who had classic FTT going on (one kid dropped from the 70-something percentile to the FIFTH) got horrendously bad advice. In such cases, all the members and leaders would say is “those doctors don’t know everything!” “Don’t let them force formula on you!” “If the pediatrician says her weight is a problem, find another pediatrician!”). I should add that all their meetings were on weekday mornings, so moms who worked a job with standard hours couldn’t attend, and–bonus!–they met at the local hospital, so that your kids could be exposed to all sorts of flu-y goodness. I also remember the mom of preemie twins who posted on the local LLL FB page a day after her crash C-section d/t a maternal infection. She was writing while pumping on a hospital bathroom floor, and crying while she typed because the nurses kept telling her that if she didn’t “hurry up and make milk” it would be her fault if her babies died. Hadn’t really slept or eaten in the last 24 hours, had been hooked up to the pump for most of it, and all the nurses AND this group could come up with was “if you try harder, you’ll make enough milk.” Not one person, yours truly excepted, said “what the hell are you doing sitting on a bathroom floor while post-op and pumping, you will do yourself and your babies no favors doing this, now go eat a square meal and sleep for 3-4 hours before trying to pump again.”
I was not familiar with Breastfeeding USA until you mentioned it, so I looked it up. A quote pulled at random from their website: “You’ll see that your decision to breastfeed will mean a lot more than just the easiest way to feed, or good health or saving money. It will mean that you are able to enjoy the deep and special and lasting attachment that happens to you and your babe when you are a breastfeeding pair.” Ah, then. Good to know that non-breastfeeding moms won’t have that deep, special, lasting attachment. Again, I guess we’d better just expose those kids to death, or take them away from their biological moms to give to moms who can lactate better and therefore, by definition, are better moms.
Right cause apologists have their own unique “truth”.
What about the time honoured method of having your mum help?
Is that only OK if she meets your definition of “Pro breastfeeding”?
That’s what I did.
Whacked the kids on the boob, fed them when they were hungry, asked my mum (who BF three children) if I had any queries. She was the one who told me not to bother with breast pads because she never leaked (she was right, I didn’t either) and to just alternate sides each feed rather than offering both breasts.
This idea that breastfeeding is both perfectly natural and normal and simultaneously something that is so difficult that women can only do it after reading books and online discussions and watching videos and going to weekly support groups to learn how to avoid “booby traps” and feed in the “correct” manner.
The idea that someone who has apparently never breastfed feels able to be the arbiter of what women need to be able to successfully breastfeed is very odd.
and most moms will also need more than seeing someone else prepare formula to know how to use it.
Except that you OPPOSE women being given pamphlet beforehand. You would probably also oppose women being given the links to approved formula feeding video beforehand as well.
Weird, then, how and when am I supposed to learn about breastfeeding? If it can’t be taught by pamphlet, videos and such, then why is everyone making me waste my time by giving me stupid breastfeeding pamphlet?
(and all the help I’ve been given by previously breastfeeding mom was: Put the mouth on the nipple, it’s SO MUCH EASIER THAN FORMULA)
Azuran, you are just not very good at predicting what I support and what I oppose.
I’m only reading what you are writing, if what we are interpreting is not what you are meaning to say, that’s because you have horrible writing skill and fail horribly at explaining yourself.
Well, I certainly hope that you do start reading my comments, preferably with an awareness of your own preconceived notions about breastfeeding.
and pray tell what are my preconceived notions? You seem to be forgetting that I’m actually planning on breastfeeding my baby
Actually, no. Many questions that are important for safely preparing formula, such as whether or not it’s safe to use tap water, vary highly by location and require consultation with a pediatrician (which is why informed consent is pretty damn important here). At best, the can will tell you the appropriate ratio of water to powder, and maybe tell you how long prepared formula can be kept at room temperature or in the refrigerator. And no, most people haven’t prepared a bottle of formula before. In fact, I’d be surprised if most people in Western countries have taken care of an infant before having their own baby. Heck, my husband has two siblings who were born when he was old enough to shoulder some responsibility for taking care of them as babies and he needed a complete refresher when our first was born.
You do realize that we are talking about an informational booklet, right? So you can just skip the parts that don’t apply to you personally. Or is that just too fucking difficult?
Should they also provide information about how to safely prepare your own infant formula to every mother?
Are you talking about homemade formula? Oh…I see where you’re going with this. Since commercially prepared formula is okay, why shouldn’t we also tell moms how to make it out of raw milk in their home kitchen? You’re getting ready to compare formula to junk food.
Nope. I’m saying that preparing your own infant formula is an option that is available to parents. So is banked milk and cross nursing. The “gold standard” is breastfeeding. No other option is in its class. You are suggesting that commercial infant feeding is important to discuss. I’m wondering how many other less favored options all parents should routinely learn about from healthcare providers.
Banked milk is reserved for preemies. Informal milk sharing is fucking ridiculous, given the risks, when infant formula is readily available. I’ll say this, Anna. Natural is not the “gold standard.” It’s the fucking minimum required for survival of our species. Many of exist today because we have learned how to do better than what our genetics afford us. I am a severe asthmatic. Without my medications, I would die. I know that probably doesn’t matter to someone like you who assumes that people like me are flawed and therefore unfit to survive, but that’s the reality for many of us. I’m not eager to go back to subsistence level “natural” living.
– Banked milk is not reserved for preemies in my area.
– Wetnursing has been done for eons. It most definitely can be safer than commercial infant formula which has known risks.
– I don’t think I mentioned anything about “natural”. Are you confusing me with someone else?
– gold standard is a term used when one option stands out among all others.
The only reason that you view breastmilk as preferable is because it is the biological default, in other words, “normal.” The studies demonstrate the breastmilk does not “stand out,” over formula. It has miniscule measurable benefits, hardly enough to quantify it as a “gold standard.” Are you really so stupid that you don’t understand that wet nursing was a thing because there was no other option available? Never mind – I already know the answer to that. I guess the risk of passing on HIV is no biggie.
No. You are mistaken. I do not view breastmilk as preferable simply because it is natural, normal, or biological.
What ‘risks’ of commercial formula? You keep going on about the risks of formula yet you consistently fail to give evidence-based examples.
So enough of the BS. What risks does PROPERLY PREPARED formula in a 1st world country have?
I’ll wait. Science or GTFO.
There are known risks to properly prepared commercial infant formula. I would expect every perinatal healthcare worker to be aware of that fact.
No, stop dodging the question.
YOU were the one who said there are risks to formula. The burden of proof is therefore on you to list those risks and back that up with the studies that back up your claim.
I’m not going to give you evidence that the moon is not made of cream cheese either. Some people deny climate change. Some people deny the risks of formula. It would be absolutely a waste of time to address denialism. It is not rational.
In other words, you have nothing. That’s what I’m concluding by your refusal to back up what you’ve been saying.
It’s one thing to SAY something has risks. Because you can say whatever you want. It’s quite another to actually have evidence where risk exists.
Clearly you are incapable of seeing that even breastfeeding has risks, some of them more severe than the (non-existent because you haven’t even listed any for us to discuss) risks of formula.
Breastfeeding carries risks of:
– Drugs/diseases being passed to baby through the breastmilk (Like opiods, which can cause respiratory depression in babies, or HIV)
– Readmission to hospital for dehydration/hyponatremia.
– Weight loss due to insufficient supply.
And those were 3 I thought of off the top of my head.
So even your ‘gold standard’ of feeding carries risks, but you’re so entrenched in your ideals that you can’t even acknowledge that fact. That it might not be as ‘perfect’ as you’ve been led to believe.
My advice, go away. No one here is going to be swayed by your lactivist propaganda and you just make yourself look stupider with every post.
Yes, I am well aware that you are irrationally wary of breastfeeding.
Such as?
And people worry that I might be a healthcare provider. Oh, well. I’m hungry. You all know more about my views than I do, so I doubt I’ll be missed.
Or maybe you could consider the fact that most healthcare worker don’t give a fuck as an indication that it really doesn’t matter.
“- gold standard is a term used when one option stands out among all others.
Well, then the gold standard is commercial formula. Fewer readmissions and deaths from jaundice, dehydration, hypernatremia, hypoglycemia and failure to thrive.
Dr Kitty’s infantile colic management plan is ALL about informing parents of options that evidence has shown won’t help resolve the problem.
When it comes to infantile colic, where the evidence is that nothing except time really works, I’ll tell everyone that…and then say that some people find white noise, swaddling, massage, warm baths, drives in the car, over the counter colic remedies, vibration, baby carriers, rocking, walking and singing to help, and by all means they can feel free to try anything that isn’t actively harmful and if they find it helps, great.
I’ll also say that if the crying becomes overwhelming the best treatment is to put the baby down in a safe place and to leave the room for long enough to pull themselves together, and if that seems like it is going to me more than half an hour to make sure that another adult comes to help.
Because the issue with colic isn’t that there is something wrong with the baby, there isn’t, the issue is that the parents struggle to cope with their apparently distressed and inconsolable baby and feel helpless.
The risks of colic is to parental mental health and of harm coming to the baby from someone “snapping”.
Having a list of things to try can make parents feel less helpless. Advising them to put the baby down and walk away is not a generally advised child care strategy for infants, but I’d rather they do that than shake the baby.
That’s seriously scary. I agree with you, “When it comes to infantile colic, where the evidence is that nothing except time really works,…Advising them to put the baby down and walk away is not a generally advised child care strategy for infants, but I’d rather they do that than shake the baby.”
I think you missed the point though.
How often do HCPs talk to parents about “suboptimal” or “less favoured” options- all the time.
We tell them about safe co-sleeping, but recommend against it.
We tell them pacifiers reduce SIDS but are recommended against in EBF infants.
We tell them about swaddling when current recommendations are against it.
We tell them about all the reflux treatments,even though none are proven to work.
We talk about CIO and sleep training if their baby doesn’t sleep.
Why?
Because not all babies appear to have read all of the current guidelines and evidence and some appear to have missed an important software update and are working off now outdated advice.
New parents will try anything to get babies to sleep and eat. Sometimes what works isn’t current best practice.
I’m not suggesting people rub whiskey on a teething baby’s gums, or take them in a car without a proper car seat or anything actively dangerous, but I’m pragmatic enough to realise that sometimes the “best” advice isn’t working.
I certainly hope that when the evidence is conclusive, when there is a standard, that all providers share that information clearly AND allow for denial or choice on the part of the parent. I also hope that all providers try very hard to recognize their own bias and not influence parents based on their own choices and denial.
You still haven’t decided how you would find out parental wants and needs yet.
Any thoughts how you would do that without imposing any of your own bias?
No, sweetie, we are talking about YOUR bias and how you need to work on not imposing your beliefs on your patients. I haven’t said one word about having any hypothetical patients.
Nah, that’s what you’re talking about.
I’m still waiting for you to answer my question.
Once again,
You felt what I suggested was off.
What is your proposed alternative?
If you don’t want to imagine yourself as a HCP, fine.
How would you, as a potential patient, like your doctor or midwife to discover your wants and needs regarding infant feeding? What phrasing would you like them to use?
This is not a difficult question.
You agreed HCPs should ask this question when you agreed comprehensive information on infant feeding should be provided to women who want or need it.
HCPS have to ask a question to identify those women.
Anna, what is the question you would like them to ask?
What would make it sound right to you?
“Dr” Kitty, you are not a very good listener are you? Is that why I seem threatening to you? A random internet poster is probably not the best source for you to work out your issues. Just sayin.
Why would they talk about CIO if the baby is sleeping well? Why would they recommend against “safe” co-sleeping? Why would they bring up swaddling or reflux treatments that do not work?
Yea, I mean, it’s such a waste of time to teach CPR in baby sitting class. The vast majority of baby sitters are never going to have to do CPR.
They can just look it up when they need it.
Apples::Oranges
Hey, a baby is MUCH more likely to need formula than CPR. Yet you advocate against giving any info on formula before it’s actively needed.
Please explain the difference
“Don’t bother your pretty little head about that, honey. We’ll explain that to you if we think you need to know.”
Your words, not mine.
The NICU visit was by far the most useful thing my OB arranged for us before our son was born. They told us everything about what to expect during his stay there and it made us much calmer about the whole thing. You are wrong. At the slimest chance of your child getting to the NICU they tell you everything about it.
At the slimest chance of you formula feeding your baby…
Maybe you need to reread my post? If you need the NICU they tell you about it. If you need formula, they tell you about it. They do not routinely tell parents details about the NICU in my area.
no, you said they do not tell you about the NICU. I happen to have the experience that at the 1% chance you need the NICU they tell you everything about it. The rate of inadequate breastmilk production is about 5% so yes, they should be giving information about formula feeding to pretty much everybody.
Again, try not to tell me what I believe. I think the NICU should be discussed, individually, when a concern arises. I think that formula should be discussed, individually, when a concern arises. I think “I do not want to breastfeed” is a legitimate concern which would warrant a discussion about infant formula.
If you could just get passed this bias that all lactivists are horrid, there would be a lot less misunderstanding. 🙂
That is not adequate-it’s misleading and paternalistic. Consider a surgical procedure-gallbladder surgery for example, seeing as though I’ve had it done personally. When I gave consent for that procedure, the doctor discussed all the risks and benefits, including the risks of infection, surgical mishap like the wrong duct being located, leakage of bile, peritonitis, admission to ICU for serious issues and death. I sincerely hoped that none of these risks happened and I wouldn’t need admission or further treatment, but to make a truly informed balanced decision that suited me and my health, I needed to be able to weigh up risks and benefits and make choices. This refusal to discuss formula feeding at all, and ignoring one huge sector of infant feeding in the hope that if you don’t tell mums then that will force them to breast feed is contemptuous, dismissive, paternalistic, and unethical.
I have not yet had a concern about my gallbladder. No doctor has explained the surgery to me. I’m cool with that. I think it is appropriate to wait until there is a concern before they take the time to share the details. Do you agree?
I do not see the benefit to telling every pregnant mom about feeding with infant formula. It would be (at best) a waste of healthcare providers time and energy.
Except that we are discussing infant feeding and NICU. Which means that the woman is generally either pregnant or trying to be. A baby is going to happen.
True, it’s a waste of time to talk about BF, formula or NICU to someone who isn’t pregnant or not actively trying to be unless she is looking up those things herself. But when you are on your way to have a baby, those things should be explained.
A more apt comparison would be my step dad, who is borderline diabetic. His doctor took the time to explain how his disease could progress, the various treatments he could need in the future, how he might need to take insulin some day, how it works and what to expect in the future in general.
Using your logic, the doctor should have just told him: Here, take those pills, we’ll talk more when you’ll actually be a real diabetic.
Nope. I do not think it is necessary or advisable to discuss infant formula with pregnant mothers.
Then you are nothing but an idiot
I disagree. You are missing the point-at the time I needed information about my gallbladder, my surgeon provided it in a balanced way. At the time mothers need information about infant feeding, they should be given it, in the same balanced way, including the various methods and modalities with risks and benefits of each. You appear to be suggesting withholding information and drip feeding it to mothers, and only discussing other methods when one fails. That is inappropriate and paternalistic, and that type of behaviour in health care professionals would be considered unacceptable.
I think you are the one missing the point. Mothers should be given information about infant formula use, when they need it.
And they need it when they are pregnant, so why are they only being provided with information about breast feeding?
Breastfeeding is appropriately the default. At risk of being misinterpreted and flamed, infants have a right to be breastfed. Health providers should respect that right. If an issue reveals itself, then a balanced discussion of breastmilk substitutes is called for.
Wow. Well, at least we’ve finally gotten you to say it.
Say what? That breastfeeding actually matters. I think I’ve been saying it all along.
You have said that you aren’t actually against formula. I’ve never really believed that, and now I know that I was correct in my assessment.
I most definitely have never said that formula is “close” to breastmilk, that formula should be promoted or that hospitals should indiscriminately hand out formula or information about formula to parents.
Women have a right to make choices that suit them, and health providers must respect that right, even if we don’t personally agree with their choice. It is well established in law-it’s called autonomy. By not providing information on available choices, and balanced guidance about risks and benefits, you are acting against personal autonomy. As an ethical practitioner, I cannot and will not do that.
In my own field, I think that every baby who is miscarried should have an autopsy because that is the most informative examination we can do to find out why the baby died. Do I do an autopsy if the parents refuse, because I think I know better than them, and I know that it doesn’t matter that I’m overriding their personal choice because in the end it’ll get us some useful evidence? Of course I don’t. The examination is discussed, pros and cons, advice and support given as they need it, then we abide by their informed decision. Your way totally negates any informed decision making by parents and it is unethical.
This is not my first rodeo. I am well aware that apologists have the misconception that lactivists neither know what autonomy is nor value it.
I think that when, medically, one option is favored, creating arbitrary choices is confusing and unnecessary. Again, if a patient has concerns about the favored option, questions should be fielded.
You have just stated above that it is appropriate to not provide information about alternatives. That is a perfect demonstration of your contempt for individual autonomy.
Right. In the specific case where there is a “gold standard” options are unnecessary and confusing.
And again you are demonstrating your contempt for individual decision making. How dare you dismiss this absolute right to information and guidance? How patronising to imply that women will be confused by getting this information. Have you no insight at all to how patronising and paternalistic you sound? Thank heavens the medical profession generally has moved on from this attitude. It’s offensive, dismissive and unethical.
No, with Anna and her ilk, their fear is that if women are presented with factual information about formula feeding (how to prepare, how to sterilize bottles etc) weak-minded wimmen will be swayed by how much ‘easier’ formula is to use and choose to formula feed instead of breastfeeding *gasps and clutches pearls*
Thus to them, providing info about formula feeding or even *gasp* providing formula in hospitals actually undermines breastfeeding.
God forbid women are actually treated like human beings capable of deciding what’s best for THEM and their family when presented with ALL information.
Like I said, don’t let my actual views discourage you from making up fictions.
If I’m making up fictions, then WHY is presenting women with information on formula feeding ALONGSIDE breastfeeding info not a good idea?
I certainly do not feel as if I am being patronizing or paternalistic. I just do not agree with you that you should impose your belief that infant formula is perfectly fine on mothers. That sounds patronizing and paternalistic to me.
Anna, if there is a problem and the baby is being suboptimally fed, is it appropriate, in your opinion, to advise women that continuing to exclusively breastfeed their baby risks brain damage and death, while supplementing with formula will almost certainly prevent that?
If women in that situation aren’t told about all of their options and their babies come to harm as a result their HCPs would be found guilty of negligent malpractice.
You can’t withhold information from patients just because you think that they will make the “wrong” choice.
What’s not fine about it? It’s safe, nutritious, common, and convenient. Breastfeeding is great, but formula is hardly bad, unless you depend on convincing mothers to pay you to tell them the opposite.
I am imposing nothing on nobody. I am stating that women have a legally enshrined choice, and they should be given the information they need to make the choice suitable for them. I have no bias or conflict of interest one way or the other. What I do believe in is the principle of informed consent.
Well, it seems to me that you are imposing your beliefs on others.
You can feel whatever you wish, but your feelings have no relevance to actual facts. Fact: Infant formula is “perfectly fine” food for babies. In some cases, it is superior to breastmilk.
Nope. Formula is not “perfectly fine”. Formula is a perfectly legitimate substitute when breastmilk is not available. Formula and breastfeeding are not EVEN choices. Choosing not to breastfeed increases the odds than a child will get sick, in the short term, in the long term, with a non-serious illness or with a life-threatening illness. If mothers are aware of the increased risks (which are measurable, but modest) and decides to make an informed decision to formula feed anyway, that is her right and I would support it.
If a mother believes the hype that formula is “perfectly fine” because of propaganda from the formula industry and bloggers like Tuteur, I take issue with that.
Yes, there are very unusual circumstances that make breastmilk more risky than infant formula. However, I STILL support a mother’s informed decision to breastfeed despite the increased risk. I’m guessing many of you here are not as willing to respect a mother’s decision to accept such risk.
Unusual circumstances include, but are not limited to, smoking marijuana, having untreated tuberculosis, being treated with cancer fighting chemotherapy, taking a cocktail of prescribed medications, and having a child with galactosemia.
Formula apologists tend to deny any risk at all to formula feeding and exaggerate the risk of even the most trivial issue on breastfeeding safety. It is bias, pure and simple.
Breast feeding a child with galactosaemia will inevitably lead to brain damage, intellectual disability and an early death.
Any woman who insisted on continuing to breastfeed a galactosaemic infant against medical advice would be guilty of child abuse.
For a galactosaemic infant breastfeeding is in no way, shape or form beneficial.
That was not a sensible inclusion on your list.
So since there is a risk that a very small number of children might have galactosemia, all children should be denied the opportunity to breastfeed? Is that supposed to make sense?
Nobody said that.
Dear G-d in heaven, no.
Lady, I BF my own kids, and you seem to having reading comprehension issues.
You just wrote that you supported a mother’s right to continue to breast feed, even in the rare situations where most HCPs would feel that the risks clearly outweighed the benefits.
You then gave a list of situations most of us would shrug and say “sure, keep breastfeeding if you really want” and stuck galactosaemia in there too.
You said you would support the mother of a galactosaemic infant if she wanted to breastfeed against medical advice.
I told you why that might be something you would want to reconsider.
I said nothing about the benefits of BF in general, just that specifically, in the case of galactosaemia, it would be such a monumentally bad idea that most courts would classify it as child abuse.
This is what you wrote, in case you should choose to change it later:
“Yes, there are very unusual circumstances that make breastmilk more risky than infant formula. However, I STILL support a mother’s informed decision to breastfeed despite the increased risk. I’m guessing many of you here are not as willing to respect a mother’s decision to accept such risk.
Unusual circumstances include, but are not limited to, smoking marijuana, having untreated tuberculosis, being treated with cancer fighting chemotherapy, taking a cocktail of prescribed medications, and having a child with galactosemia.
Formula apologists tend to deny any risk at all to formula feeding and exaggerate the risk of even the most trivial issue on breastfeeding safety. It is bias, pure and simple.”
So, basically you accuse us of bias, risk denial of formula and risk exaggeration of breastfeeding and then minimise the very evident risks of breastfeeding in one of your own examples, before going completely bonkers in your response.
For some reason I’m thinking of flies in Chardonnay…
You put galactosaemia in a list with all the other situations in which you would support a mother’s right to BF.
You didn’t treat it differently.
I merely suggested you ought to, mostly because I think you had cut and pasted that list from somewhere and didn’t actuallly know anything about galactosaemia and that now you have done a frantic Google search and are scrabbling around for some sort of explanation which doesn’t make you look dumb as a box of hammers.
I think you may have hit on the example that will make the clownfish run away. Will she start deleting posts soon?
To paraphase Anna ‘what’s a few dead/poisoned/permanently injured babies so long as their right to breastfeed was not impeded’.
I don’t think so. I think I have acknowledged that there are times when breastfeeding becomes more risky than formula feeding. How is that bonkers or attempting to minimize the level of risk?
Oh, no, Kitty. I do not have reading comprehension issues, you have some heavy duty bias. Yes, I support a mothers right to formula feed even though the risks clearly outweigh the benefits. Similarly, I support a mothers right to breastfeed when she has a history of substance use, is taking a medication that is L4, or other situations where the odds are not on her side. Last I knew marijuana is L5. Would I separate a mother from her child or force her to stop breastfeeding (assuming I had the power) because she was smoking? No. Do I think that smoking marijuana and breastfeeding is more risky than formula feeding? Yes, I do.However, I respect that mothers choice every bit as I respect the choice of the mother who formula feeds by choice.
That scenario is quite a bit different from an infant with galactosemia, don’t you think? For you to even suggest that I would trivialize the relevance of galactosemia on an infant’s ability to breastfeed speaks volumes about how entrenched you out in the anti-lactivism camp and is not even a little bit representative of my views.
All you have said is that children who are formula fed are more ‘at risk’ of illness than those who are breastfed.
This is where I point out that all studies comparing the health of breastfed vs formula fed infants are full of confounding variables, such as whether or not said children attend a daycare (in which case, formula fed or breastfed they are still FAR more likely to contract illness) and the only study that’s remotely credible found only a 10% reduction in colds and diarrheal illnesses in the first year of life. That’s NOT a moderate reduction.
And how is she supposed to make that informed decision if you won’t give her information on formula beforehand?
What’s your formal training in breastfeeding research? Do you have a college degree? Do you have a graduate degree? Do you have a nursing or medical degree?
How many children have you breastfed?
How many tears in a bottle of gin?
Anna, may I ask you something, from breastfeeding advocate to breastfeeding advocate? Why do you keep coming back here again and again. You don’t agree with what Dr. Tuteur or any other person here says, so just ignore it.
And if you want to come back again and again, why don’t you answer the questions you are asked? Like providing links to studies that prove your way of thinking? Or just replying to the questions Dr. Tuteur asked you?
People here can and do provide links to studies for everything they say.
You don’t sound much like an advocate. You sound like a lying apologist pretending to be an advocate.
If YOU are an advocate, I trust that you will put your money where your mouth is and “prove” that breastfeeding matters. I won’t hold my breath.
I have to point out that you have yet to prove that breastfeeding matters yourself. You didn’t post any kind of compelling evidence so far.
So I guess that mean that you ARENT a breasfeeding advocate.
You damned FORMULA APOLOGIST!!!
I guess I have to hang around here longer to work out the lexicon.
well, following what you have said, if you don’t talk about the risks of formula, you are a formula apologist. We have asked you many times to name those risks and link proof of them. You haven’t.
Which makes you a stinking formula apologist.
Azuran – why don’t you look for some screen shots of all the links that I’ve already provided. I’ll wait.
Seriously, if you are a REAL lactivist, and not a stinking formula apologist, you will post them again right here, because by now, those link are probably lost in this really long joke of a discussion. And any REAL lactivist wouldn’t hesitate to post their breastfeeding supporting link and info about risks of formula every single time they are asked to. As a real lactivist, you want that information to be out there, on the front page, so everyone can easily access it.
Go ahead, I’ll wait.
Unless you are really a formula apologist!
Azuran – all those ridiculous screen shots that you posted comparing them to each other, none of which proved that I hold any of the views that you allege that I do, were what led to the joke of a discussion.
Not once have you made even the slightest attempt to treat my opinions with an iota of respect. Only once were you able to express an inkling of understanding of what I have actually said. You are not here to discuss infant feeding. You are here only to bash people for having opinions different from your own.
Sure, I could cower like N and let you and your ilk corrupt the internet with your lies and mistruths, but you know, when people don’t challenge others for being egotistical, bad things happen. Sometimes one has to stick one’s neck out and say enough is enough. Sometimes making waves is the right thing to do.
I have alleged you said exactly what was in those quotes, which are things you did say, as proven by the screenshot of your own comments.
I have never claimed that you said other things, you made that up with your bad reading skills.
I don’t respect your opinions because they are not worth respecting and you haven’t been able to provide any kind of proof as to why I should respect them. Opinions are not required to be respected, especially opinions that degrade others.
And if you want to make waves, you are in the wrong place. Nobody here has a positive impression of you, no one cares about what you have to say, no one is listening to you. You are having as much
Still waiting for you to prove yourself as a real breastfeeding advocate and not a formula apologist BTW
It makes no sense whatsoever to go back through a thread and post screenshots of previous posts and use that as evidence that the post were made. It makes even less sense that you took screenshots of the screenshots to compare them to the screenshots to “really” prove that the screenshots exist. That is totally and entirely on you. Nothing whatsoever to do with me. Anyone can make random screenshots of random posts. It is pointless.
That said, you made two deliberate and malicious allegations. 1) You said that you had evidence that I did say what Ken S alleged (see pic) and 2) You alleged that I denied having written the posts that you randomly screenshot. I have patently denied both allegations, repeatedly.
Despite that, you refuse to acknowledge your wrong doing and you keep repeating the lies. There is a special place in hell for people who spread misinformation online. For the love of Pete, p https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6160e5b7016e8441942b94c8342303888ba85c9d8ca7ff08add32e54cb7d25de.png lease stop. Enough is enough.
Ken quoted you, he alleged you wrote those quotes, which you did. I posted evidence that you indeed wrote those quotes and nothing else.
You are the one who is mistaken in Ken’s allegation. You are accusing him of pretending that you said those things you are underlining. But he never claimed that you said those thing. I never claimed that you said those things either and I never said I had proof that you did. From the begining, everyone here except for you was talking about the quotes that Ken posted and nothing else. You were just wrong in your assumption of what we were talking about.
You just couldn’t follow the conversation and understand the meaning of ‘quotes’
Good luck in the ‘special place in hell’ ‘Miss’ ‘there are risks to formula’
Oh, stop. You and I both know that Ken attributed some unpleasant sentiments to me and had nothing to back it up.
Yea he did, your own comments. That’s where he got his unpleasant sentiments towards you.
You made all kind of coments, he read those comments, and they game him a bad impression of you.
And that’s totally legit. Just get over it.
Anna Perch re Azuran’s “Just get over it.”
Don’t. Don’t “get over it.”
Why don’t you try to figure out why you rub so many of the folks who comment on this website the wrong way?
You complain about being misinterpreted. Do you ever wonder why that is?
You are guilty of everything that you accuse those who disagree with you doing. Re-read your own comments.
Box of Salt you said previously that lactivists are evil trolls that should be silenced. Could you explain to me why you said that? I’m guessing that it is because you think that they have a hidden agenda to ban breastmilk substitutes from the world. I’m curious. Are you really concerned about that? How could substitutes be “banned”? People have found ways to nourish babies without breastfeeding throughout all of history. Do you think that could ever stop? The lactivist agenda to mandate breastfeeding by banning alternatives is a really bad idea. I think you are right about that.
Who exactly do you represent? Who are you challenging for? I am guessing from your repeated silence when confronted that you’ve never been pregnant, never breastfed a child, never experienced being unable to breastfeed a child and I am highly suspicious that you aren’t even female. Why are you here? I think most of us that frequent this forum have had more than enough of being lectured by patriarchal, misogynist, unempathetical idiots. I could (maybe) understand if you were one of these ‘barefoot and pregnant’ NCBers but you’re not even that, are you? You’re not even defending a world-view that makes you feel better about your own situation, or that challenges your place in the world as a ‘super-momma’. You’re just some troll, probably sat eating Doritos in his mummy’s basement whilst arguing with a bunch of strangers on the Internet. Get a life!
Yes, yours follows in a long line of random guesses about me and my opinions. As usual, I find them humorous.
I also think that your guesses reveal your biases.
Not biases. I have asked you outright on more than one occasion how many babies you’ve breastfed and you’ve dodged the question every time. I have also questioned your gender more than once and you have consistently dodged that question too. How can you have any clue how women actually feel about the very subjects you continue to opine on, if you have never been on the rough edge of a lactaction consultant who simply will not listen to your lived experience? You have literally no idea what you’re talking about. You can’t even provide us with links to back up your theorising. So no evidence nor anecdotal lived experience. I expect yet another dodge to the questions I have posed above. How many babies have you breastfed? How many midwives and lactaction consultants have you personally been involved with?
Seriously, what bearing does my gender or breastfeeding experience have on whether of not this page is about bashing lactivism?
You are yet again dodging a direct question and offering a strawman.
Weird, I don’t see any lactivist being bashed here. I only see you, a formula apologist.
D E N I A L
I still haven’t seen any link about the risks of formula.
If anything, you are in denial of your formula apologists way
Could you please stop dodging and answer my questions please.
Perhaps, if you could convince me that it matters, in any way. to the discussion, I may answer, but no. I do not see the relevance and, frankly, it is rude for you to keep badgering me about it. It is not of your business.
Well I will keep making the same assumptions I’ve been making above. It’s rude of you to parachute in here and tell women what to do with their damn breasts frankly, particularly when you don’t have any of your own. I think you’re the last person on this thread who should be lecturing others about their manners.
Anna Perch “it is rude for you to keep badgering me about it. It is not of your business”
Then stop pretending to be a “breastfeeding advocate,” because how mothers feed their children is not your business.
He’s never going to respond. I think he just has a breastfeeding fetish and gets off on it under the semi-legitimate guise of talking about ‘infants rights’ on the internet.
You are right Marian. If I do not answer every random, invasive personal question that I am asked online, then I am, um, what were the words, scum, I think. Cruel? Jackass, asshole, ignorant, disdainful, unworthy. I suppose you would be pleased if I silenced myself? Am I the first person online that this group has bullied into submission? Do you limit your contempt for me to just my online presence, or do you agree with others that my entire existence is so pathetic that I would be better off dead?
What exactly do you mean with “silenced”?
Dear Anna (who is dragging our shared first name into the dirt), you’ve been spouting a lot of random, fairly self-contradictory BS for a good while now, dodging any questions pointing this out, jumping from one flat-out stupid point to another, and no one has even told you to shut up, much less called for banning or otherwise silencing you. So playing the victim is not going to work, very sorry to wreck that hope.
The questions asked are not irrelevant and personal, they’re pretty essential questions of your qualification about the topic you’re so obviously ignorant of. Since pretty much everyone on this forum has freely stated information of a similar kind, the only remaining conclusion is that you’re talking out of your ass to people who have heaps of first hand experience with what you’re only imagining.
To the person commenting as “Anna Perch”
My contempt for your online presence is not limited.
I sincerely hope you have better personal relationships in real life.
This comment (this reply to maidmarian555 – and yes Anna, I took a screenshot) suggests you are commenting only to provoke reactions from others.
Yet, I am concerned that you post “my entire existence is so pathetic that I would be better off dead.”
GET HELP.
Watch out, Drama Llama time!
– cannot post evidence that safely prepared formula has risks despite repeatedly claiming it does
– cannot understand the basics of informed consent to healthcare
– cannot understand that women are intelligent enough to make their own decisions about their bodies
Gets challenged about the above… Uh-Oh must start making veiled references to death and suicide! Waaaahmmbulance around anyone?
Your ‘opinions’ aren’t worthy of respect when they are blatantly contradicted by FACTS.
Especially Luckily, your opinions about autonomy and consent matter not ONE IOTA to people outside your direct life, because law and ethics dictate better behaviour. (A shame for the poor people in your life though).
Come to think of it Melanie, I think you are making some good sense. Consent and autonomy really don’t matter one iota. What matters is that each mother understands the facts and makes an informed choice. The internet has plenty of readily available sources that explain in detail what the facts are and there are plenty of discussion boards with the the words “evidence based” and “science” in them. It is easy to recognize them as sources of facts. Thank you for your generous concern about the poor people who have had the misfortune of being part of my life.
Maybe I need to take your advice to heart and drink the Kool Aid. Obviously, I am unfit to walk this world. Do you have any advice about the best way to commit suicide. I wouldn’t want you to be disappointed that if I don’t do it right?
You really are a broken toy.
Do a flip!
Oh no, I believe autonomy and consent matter very MUCH.
I’m saying YOUR ‘opinion’ on those issues (that informed consent isn’t necessary, that people shouldn’t have the autonomy to decide for themselves about their medical treatment, they should get offered only a gold standard and nothing else) doesn’t matter one iota 🙂
“Anna Perch”
Please log off the internet and seek help from real, live people.
Azuran. You are a liar. That has already been documented.
You have proven, repeatedly, that you have zero ability to state accurately what I have or have not already said. Your intent is to slander me by attributing random BS to me. I do not own that. You do. I am only responsible for my own comments.
Everything that you post needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
I have actually proven that I am totally capable to state accuratelly what you have said. I provided screenshot to those quotes. I never pretended that you said what you are accusing me of. That’s your own misunderstanding of the conversation.
Formula apologist
You are incorrigible. You deliberately and maliciously falsely represented what I said. You know it. I know it. Apologize or shut up about it. Lying is bad enough. Repeating the lie makes it worse.
you apologise or shut up about it. From the begining, it was always about the quotes Ken made, they were quotes, directly from you, you said those things.
You are only making your own case worse.
For the love of Pete, if you have any integrity, just apologize.
If YOU have any integrity, you’ll post about those risks of formula.
How can anyone be expected to believe that there is truth to the myriad stories here about how horrid lactivists all are, if you are not at all trustworthy?
How can anyone be expected to believe that there is truth in anything that you have to say?
You have not proven yourself to be trustworthy at all.
You call yourself a breastfeeding advocate, but truly, you are a formula apologist.
And honestly, even IF we were all a bunch of untrustworthy liars, why should that exempt you actually posting proof to your claims? If anything, it would show yourself as being above us.
I am rubber, you are glue?
My dad is stronger than yours?
That’s not the way it works. That’s not the way any of this works.
Well, I gotta hand it to you all, I can be fairly dogged, but I’ve got nothing on any of you. Bash away. Bash away. Bash away all.
Yes actually, it’s the way it works. You made the claim that formula has risks. It’s your job to provide proof.
And from your own comments, breastfeeding advocate who don’t provide proof that formula has risks are not breastfeeding advocate, they are formula apologist.
If this makes no sense to you, it’s because YOU make no sense.
“Anna Perch”
Is this comment going for (no longer relevant) pop culture, or Clement Clark Moore?
Like tears in the rain.
Galactosemia? GALACTOSEMIA?!
You would seriously support a mother’s decision to breastfeed her child even though breastfeeding that child *will* kill him or her?!
If the kid’s dead in a couple of weeks due to consumption of breastmilk, what sort of long- or short-term negative health consequences, exactly, is that breastmilk preventing?
Come on, just a 75% chance of death! A one in four chance of survival isn’t bad. What’s a little liver or brain damage?
I remember clown fish once said she wasn’t a lactivist for moms but for the babies. Yeah, right. . .
For the love of Pete…
We are not imposing belief, we are giving out balanced information to help women decide what is best for them
Of course you don’t think you are patronising or paternalistic, because you think you are right. And you can’t imagine another perspective.
Actual medical care providers don’t have that luxury-they have to respect the thoughts, feelings and wishes of their patients.
You are in a far easier situation-added to which, if breastfeeding you have encouraged fails, you can just blame the mother for being hopeless.
Nexplanon is the gold standard birth control. The data are clear: 99.95% effective, and not just in some populations, in ALL populations. So Nexplanon it is for any and every woman asking for birth control! Providing info on other options is unnecessary and confusing. Besides, at the risk of being misinterpreted and flamed, male partners have a right to have their women on Nexplanon.
I’m not sure what Nexplanon is, but I don’t think you understand the concept of gold standard care.
Oh dear, you don’t know what Nexplanon is? Are you a female sexually active with a male? Are you using any form of contraception? I will be very sad if you aren’t using Nexplanon! It’s the gold standard. No other form of contraception is more effective or safer. It should be the only option.
Is it? So most doctors recommend it as the first option?
No, we routinely discuss a number of options. Many women choose something different.
You haven’t heard of Nexplanon?
And you have access to the internet, where the information you seek is at your fingertips, and yet you apparently found it too hard to access.
But hey, formula feeding women can Google how to make up a bottle or whatever.
See, the thing is, breastfeeding is not “gold standard” in developed countries in the same way that vaccinations are “gold standard” routine care. The benefits in full-term infants are not immense, and there can be significant drawbacks for individual families. It is, therefore, astoundingly paternalistic to deny women sufficient information for them to choose between feeding methods.
The risks of not breastfeeding are greater in developing countries (ie countries with poor water sources), true. However, developed countries tolerate less risk, so the discrepancy is really a red herring. Developed countries insist on wearing seat belts, insist on water, air and other environmental testing, and insist on recall of any slightly dangerous toy or infant product. Compared to other risks that developed countries worry about, the risks of infant formula are significant, not dismissible. I agree. It is astounding to deny women sufficient information to assess feeding methods.
Um, no, it is not a “red herring” to point out the vast difference in breastfeeding benefits between developed and developing countries, because if the benefits are fairly marginal then the detriments are likelier to outweigh those benefits.
I love how you think. So from now on I’m not going to offer choice and option. Everyone gets the gold standard: Go see a specialist.
You get a specialist consult, you get a specialist consult, everybody gets a specialist consult!!!!
My life just got so much easier
“I think that when, medically, one option is favored, creating arbitrary choices is confusing and unnecessary.”
You are seriously just WRONG and incredibly misinformed. Both legally and ethically it doesn’t MATTER what the options are and which is ‘medically’ preferred, the patient needs to know ALL the options and the risks and benefits of BOTH.
EG: Giving Anti-D for rhesus negative women with sensitising events is clearly the ‘medically favoured’ option. Does that mean informing the woman of the reason for the shot and giving her the choice to receive it or not is “confusing and unnecessary”?
Vaccinating in general is the medically favoured option. Do we not give people a choice? do we not even DISCUSS the possibility of not vaccinating because it is “confusing and unnecsseasy”
How misogynist ARE you to think that women knowing formula exists and has to be prepared in a sterile manner etc will “confuse” them anyway?
Sure. Patients have a right to know about every so-called CAM option available.
What purpose could it possibly serve to tell patients details about suboptimal treatments?
exactly
So you just contradicted yourself. Make up your mind. Do mothers deserve information about formula feeding or do patients not deserve information about “CAM?”
No, bub. I did not contradict myself. You are being difficult. I think parents’ right to infant formula information is as valid as parents’ right to CAM information. Evidence based treatment and breastfeeding (which is evidence based) should be offered by doctors. CAM and infant formula (which is not preferred) should be accommodated, respectfully.
And you have been told, repeatedly, that your opinion as it applies to offering information on treatment is wrong.
If a million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing.
Pretty much exactly how I feel about lactavism.
What evidence? Formula is fine and can prevent or alleviate serious problems for mothers. You’re part of the reason that mothers who struggle with breastfeeding (due to medical issues, pain, low output, exhaustion, &c.) face harassment and shame — you are determined to portray their completely healthy and appropriate choices as selfish/harmful/unnatural.
Honestly, you are the reason, not me.
What kind of crap is that? I’m not the one slyly degrading formula and mothers who use it. I’m not the one accusing mothers who can’t breastfeed of denying their children the “right to be breastfed.” You’re the one doing these things.
Are you paying attention? No one is degraded moms for using formula, but YOU are degraded those who advocate for breastfeeding!
That’s just a flat out lie, Anna. You’re lying about me because you’re the one out to humiliate those who can’t or don’t breastfeed exclusively. I haven’t said one word to degrade mothers who do. How sick are you?
That’s rich.
It’s also true. I challenge you to find one sentence I’ve said to degrade breastfeeders. Really, show me one! Try showing me that you’re not a liar as well as an anti-mother ideologue.
OK – show me anything where I either lied or presented as an anti-mother ideologue. Two can play at this game.
I gave up after a while, but these and other comments are based on the false premise that formula is dangerous. They drip with the implication that mothers who use formula are harming their children. Your repeated claims to support mothers’ feeding choices ring very hollow. What I hear is that a mothers who can’t breastfeed exclusively have failed, they’re unable to be an optimal mother, and you’re just graciously consenting to letting them harm their children because, poor mothers, they’re just too weak or their bodies are defective.
Your turn.
Anna has the monopoly on intepreting her remarks. Anyone who uses the clear meaning of what she writes as a guide to what she thinks will, according to her, be sadly misdirected.
Or will she just say you’ve taken her out of context?
Hun, anyone can infer whatever they want from my remarks, however, I am not responsible for their inferences.
Amazingly prescient.
These are all inferences that you made. They are not representative of my views. These are exactly the type of misrepresentation that I expect from a typical formula apologist.
“formula is dangerous” ” mothers who use formula are harming their children” “mothers who can’t breastfeed exclusively have failed” “they’re unable to be an optimal mother” “poor mothers, they’re just too weak or their bodies are defective”
She’s quoting you. If those things are not your views, then don’t say those things.
You are a real blockhead, aren’t you. Please find the alleged posts from me that were quoted.
With pleasure: I’m going to stop at 3, are you going to say that you didn’t write those?
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/0ae36ff84bd61a0fe3e8ad316bfdc6268a61c43e20c3b75727416d536e273847.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c8620ddc71be1d581c71246a9174f8eadbcadb8ddd9a66ec5448782a9de1320b.png https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/1925311707290f74d2bb2bbaf075174a2951c0219cf5575623b0ea3538f683d2.png
Actually, I can’t make out any words from those images, but I am certain that they do not contain the alleged quotes. Nice try.
Click on the image.. It will enlarge.
PS they do contain the quotes.
Alternatively, as an objective source, you could verify that the quotes either do or do not match the allegations.
Fine. I’ll try to enlarge them just so that I can come back and call you a liar. I KNOW that I never wrote the words quoted.
Seriously, just freaking scroll down if you must, 2 of the comments you made that were quoted are literally less than 20 comments down.
Liar.
What is wrong with you? I never said those things and the screenshots do NOT contain the alleged quotes. Seriously.
Here is a direct link to one of them
https://disqus.com/home/discussion/skepticalob/lactivists_abuse_their_power_as_health_providers/#comment-3033748635
Still claim that wasn’t you?
You are a bald faced liar.
Are you familiar with the concept of projection at all?
Nobody is suggesting you wrote Ken’s last paragraph, that is clearly Ken’s response to what you said.
The direct quotes of yours are against the grey bars in his post and in Azuran’s screenshots.
No one is lying. Really.
You are a bully and a gas lighter and a liar. If the quotes were not being attributed to me, then what was the whole charade about providing screen shots as evidence that I had said them?
They were referring to the ACTUAL quotes Ken made, the ones with the grey bars in the post.
You are the ONLY one here who didn’t understand that.
I didn’t understand that? What are you talking about? If KEN was the one who believes the crap in his post then why are you holding me accountable for the sentiments? And what about the whole screen shot charade? It was all a rouse to show that I was denying my previous posts? Don’t you think that was uncalled for? https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6160e5b7016e8441942b94c8342303888ba85c9d8ca7ff08add32e54cb7d25de.png
It was no ruse. We were talking about quotes, and you denied writing those quotes. So, as intelligent people, when you said you didn’t write the quotes, we looked at the quotes, not at the part that wasn’t a quote and that no one accused you of writing.
Why are we holding you accountable? Because you are part of the problem. Like I said earlier. If you went on and on and on about calling someone fat, and she started feeling self conscious about her weight, you think it has nothing to do with you?
It’s the same thing. You are going around and around and around telling everyone that it matters whether or not you BF, that formula is suboptimal, that Breast is best, talking about ‘risks’ of formula. And then when people who don’t breastfeed feel bad about it, you think it has nothing to do with you? That you don’t have any part of responsibility in their feelings?
What do you mean it was not a ruse? How did you expect to find screenshots of things that you knew I had never said? I hardly think it could be considered “intelligent” to read a comment that says I did not say THIS and then find a different comment to respond to. All that effort you put in to proving that I was denying my comments – just because you have disdain for me because I am a lactivist. Pathetic.
Someone quoted you, you said you never said that, we showed you the quotes. As simple as that. How did you expect us to understand your logic of accusing him of quoting you wrongly on something he didn’t even quote?
Again, I actually have a disdain for you from your own comments on here. Not because you are a lactivist. You could be founder of fed is best at that point and I’d still think you are an asshole.
Give it up Azuran. You and your ilk make nasty stuff up about lactivists all.the.time it is what you do.
Oh yea, nasty stuff. Asking for formula feeder to not be shamed is really mean.
How dare we ask that mother be given adequate info on both breastfeeding and formula so they can make their own decision like grown women. That is so despicable of us.
You are not in a position to be judging other, Az, after your shenagins today.
There was never any shenanigans. It was just you who made a mistake because of your lack of reading comprehension skills. Not my fault you can’t own up to it.
Azuran, you have proven yourself to be untrustworthy and unkind. Given your attitude toward those who have differing opinions from you, I’d say you’re a hypocrite, too. You know what you did. It is all spelled out in black and white.
Oh because you think that YOU are kind? Ha
I know what I did: I posted screenshots of actual quotes made by you.
And you made a total fool of yourself over it because you have poor reading comprehension skills and couldn’t figure out that ‘quote’ meant ‘quote’
Why don’t you show me some screen shots of all those times I purported to be kind. Eyeroll. You can post them next to the shot of me calling formula poison and formula feeding subpar mothers.
Yes, I know that you have worked very hard today to prove that I am a fool. No doubt you are feeling self-righteous.
Oh so you admit that you are an asshole. Well we agree on that at lease.
Please, I have no merit, you are basically doing all the work in proving yourself to be a fool.
I’m sure you can find screen shots to back up your assertion. 😉
don’t need to. people only need to read any of your comments
I wish I had the balls to treat you the way you treat others.
I only treat you that way. Because you’re an asshole
Hey Anna Perch,
I now have a screen shot that shows you have no interest in being kind.
How are you feeling? Still self-righteous>
There are two ways to attribute quotes.
One uses quotation marks (“…”) and one insets type:
So that the quotes appear like so.
The screen shots showed that you had said the statements which Ken attributed to you in the initial inset portion of his post.
His last paragraph was his interpretation of those comments, and was clearly not a direct quote or intended to be read as such.
Everyone else seems to find this straightforward, so either you have a major reading comprehension issue, can’t bear to admit that you are wrong or are just hoping someone,somewhere will see your posts and agree with you, I don’t know.
Is this a language issue?
A dyslexia issue?
An education issue?
Kitty – you know darn well that nothing in those screenshots justified the comments that Ken S made. The fact that the lot of you went along with the charade says a lot about how seriously to take anything you say about what “lactivists” have said or done. It can reasonably be considered fiction. Even the “evidence” is fiction. Going on living the lie.
Yea, this is all just a giant conspiracy made against you by people on the internet who have never met one another and who live in different countries.
You know, all this could just go away and we would all just graciously accept your apology if you just owned up to the fact that you just fucked up.
Right. You didn’t make a bizillion screen shots today to prove to me that I said something that I never did. That was my imagination.
Hey, someone quoted you and you said you never said those things. I showed you the comments that where quoted.
Again, not my fault that for some obscure reason, when we talked about stuff you did say and that where quoted, you though we where talking about some other stuff that wasn’t a quote and that no one pretended was a quote.
It is seriously difficult to believe you will not apologize for your error.
It wasn’t my error. It was yours. Ken quoted you, I talked about those quotes, and you somehow though I meant something else. Your mistake.
Sure, Azuran. It was perfectly innocent for you to assume and accuse me of denying I’d said things that I had said. Dream on. Your ridiculous posts comparing screenshots of the same thing was perfectly reasonable. You weren’t behaving like an obnoxious troll. (That’s sarcasm)
It was indeed 100% innocent.
Ken quoted you, I pointed out that he quoted you, you disagreed for some reason because you apparently don’t know what a quote is, so I showed you the quotes and where they where from. There was 0 lie in anything that I said.
I like you calling me unreasonable, I mean look at you, you are still here for some reason.
No, it wasn’t and you know it. You were being deliberately malicious and still have not yet apologized.
I like how you get mad that when we try to figure out your intent, but you have no problem trying to put intent on what I do.
It was 100% innocent and I know it.
I will never apologize for having better reading comprehension than you 😉
Azuran – you cannot have it both ways. You and many others here routinely make derogatory comments about my intents. Not once have any of you expressed a concern. Personally, I think it is in bad form.
However, the obnoxiousness and repetition of your screen shots was above and beyond question. It is abundantly clear that you had malintent and you are being smug about it.
I think it is telling that despite how malicious your actions today were, and despite my repeated attempts to make it clear to you, you are convinced that you have done nothing wrong.
Don’t you see the irony in that. You bash lactivists all.the.time for not acknowledging that occasionally their well intented support is not received favorably. It seems to me that you are not only a liar, but also a hypocrite.
When you are cruel to others but feign innocence, you let yourself off the hook. I am holding you to your own standards. You are a “jerk” (your word not mine) and lack integrity.
Here you go again, complaining that we are making derogaroty comments about your intents, while doing derogatory comments about my own. Can’t have it both way honey.
You are also very repetitive, you know.
You have been cruel to many people on this blog, have you apologised?
Have you proven yourself to not be a formula apologist yet? Because I’m still waiting for you to actively support breastfeeding by posting about the risks of formula
Other than calling you out about your cruelty, which is factual, not derogatory, I can only think of one post that I wrote that could possibly be considered “cruel”. As far as I know, it went completely unnoticed, probably, because nastiness is the norm here. After all, lactivist bashing is the energy that fuels the discussion. Wouldn’t you agree?
FTR, I am not going to agree with you the stating “formula has risks” or “breastfeeding is important” are “cruel”.
actually, at this point, 99% of this discussion is you wasting your time arguing with me. And you aren’t a lactivist, since you refuse to post proof of the risks of formula (which makes you a formula apologist according to your own words)
Which means this discussion isn’t really about bashing lactivists at all, since there are not lactivist involved in it.
Kitty – seriously, drop it. I never denied that the screen shotted posts were mine. The fact that you keep asserting that I did is disingenuous and uncalled for.
Duh, yes. I still claim that I never said ANY OF THIS:
“formula is dangerous” ” mothers who use formula are harming their children” “mothers who can’t breastfeed exclusively have failed” “they’re unable to be an optimal mother” “poor mothers, they’re just too weak or their bodies are defective”
And, NO, none of those quotes are in the screenshots.
…….and where did you even get those? Those have never been the quotes anyone has been talking about
Don’t play stupid. Those WERE the quotes in question. The fact that you are maliciously lying AGAIN is not surprising.
Don’t feign innocense. It’s unbecoming. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/361006a3957e3f11bc0ba3087abaf374f41be74a4ec2b60e9889235a854af071.png
I’ll refer you to the picture I’ve just posted, explaining your poor reading comprehension skills
Not my fault that when someone post quotes of you, and someone also refers to those https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5d3e7d77d641f61797d571e56db4a092c1500daa32be2350621d577d505c7a2f.png ‘quotes’ you think we are talking about the only part of the post that WEREN’T quotes.
Actually no, I’ll just put it back there, you can’t be trusted to find it.
Don’t try to backtrack. You are a malicious liar.
I’m not backtracking. This is 100% the quotes that EVERYONE here has been talking about from the beginning
Again, lying. Show me the evidence that I DENIED saying anything in the screenshots. You are vicious, aren’t you.
You said you could provide evidence that I had made certain quotes. Screen shots of other things that I said are completely meaningless and are a complete waste of space. Of course, now you are on some crazy tangent that I have denied ownership of the quotes in the screenshots. Seriously, what is wrong with you people?
And from the beginning, I have been talking about those quotes and nothing else. Those have been the alleged quotes from the very beginning.
For some reason, you just decided that after someone quoted you and I pointed out that he was quoting you, you decided I wasn’t talking about the actual quotes when I said quotes.
A decent human being would simply apologize. You said you could provide evidence that I was quoted accurately. You said that I need to be responsible for what I write. You have not provided any evidence. Instead you have dug your heals in and made a small lie a big one.
I have denied the quotes attributed to me.
I have not denied the quotes in the screenshots.
Give it up.
Just apologize.
Except that you were quoted accurately.
Ken never wrote that nor pretended that this part of the text was a quote from you. You wrote that, it was never refereed as a quote from you from any of us.
Seriously?? I was not quoted!!! You are just going to repeat the lie until it becomes truth? Where has that been done before?
Despite the fact that I never said or implied anything of the sort, Ken S attributed these to me: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6160e5b7016e8441942b94c8342303888ba85c9d8ca7ff08add32e54cb7d25de.png
No he didn’t.
He’s describing a hidden premise that is often touted by lactivits (that formula is harmful) and explained how your comments are making him feel.
He never said you said those things.
Again: Bad reading comprehension skills.
Azuran – you are a liar, as evidenced by your posts on this thread. Stating that lactivists have a “hidden premise” as explained by Ken S, is pure BS, apologist lies, fiction. He did not mention any “feelings”. He made up a story line in order to disparage lactivism and maintain the faulty idea that formula is risk-free.
None of what he said has any basis in fact. I never said anything like that – and just as you have accused me, relentlessly, of saying bogus crap, he is creating fiction, lying, misrepresenting the “premise” of lactivism. Your screen shot charade was cruel and vindictive.
The fact that you don’t see it or don’t mean it doesn’t mean it’s not there.
Again with your ‘formula apologist’ You can deny it all you want. but using the world apologist has the undertone that formula has to be excused for something and that those who use formula are doing something wrong that require an apology.
Many people have felt shamed by lactivist, and it’s not actually a minority. And saying that ‘it’s not what they meant to say’ is not a proper excuse nor a solution to the problem. Regardless of how you meant it, the word you used caused someone else pain. If you want your message to be better received, then it’s your job to find a way to spread your message without hurting others.
These are the ONLY quotes that I denied and despite your assertions otherwise, nothing in any of your screenshots provides evidence that I said them. You have lied. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/15931c067b6d5440be7042daf0483ca7a685c9e7aa88203914b2a5921b7664d9.png
Hey Azuran, don’t you think Anna is another person who should go to the argument clinic?
You said that – no I didn’t – yes you did- no, you are a liar, I didn’t – yes you did, and I’m not a liar because you did – …
She can not undo what she has said by telling people who quote her liars…
N – would you care to explain why you think that mothers who do not breastfeed are abject failures? Why you call them bad mothers? Why you think that formula is dangerous? Or even why you think that formula should be available only by prescription?
You are a liar, Mike Stevens. Those images absolutely do not contain the quotes that I was accused of. I suppose I should not be surprised. Lies are what this entire discussion is based on. Despicable. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/8de57561d377251cd65f43c1a3cc79f8e08cf67cd56716cfc8aad7e3fb69408b.png
I know you are just playing stupid. BUT FINE:
Here a screenshot of the quote RIGHT NEXT TO WHAT YOU SAID
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/4aa05424c489e76e40255b996f32a40f36f70cd9595ada0b37524cf7f1b9ec72.png
You are a liar.
And what exactly am I lying about?
Ken wrote quotes of you
You said it wasn’t representative of your views.
I said ”She’s quoting you”
I’ve provided both Ken’s quotes of you, and your original comments.
You wrote those things.
Look, I don’t know what your gig is, but you seem to have lost your grip on reality and I don’t say that lightly.
I never said ANY OF THIS:
“formula is dangerous” ” mothers who use formula are harming their children” “mothers who can’t breastfeed exclusively have failed” “they’re unable to be an optimal mother” “poor mothers, they’re just too weak or their bodies are defective”
And, NO, none of those quotes are in the screenshots.
I never said you said any of those things. The quotes we are all talking about are the quotes that Ken did.
You have a reading comprehension problem.
Here’s another illustration to make the points more simple for you: https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/5d3e7d77d641f61797d571e56db4a092c1500daa32be2350621d577d505c7a2f.png
I know this is going to be difficult for you to understand, but I will say it as clearly as I can. You can not provide screenshots of quotes that DO NOT EXIST. You can stop trying.
Again with your reading comprehension skills. Really.
In this screenshot, I am actually quoting myself (and I support that I have written this post) and Ken, (and I’m Sure ken also agrees that this is his post, if not, he can feel free to tell me he never wrote this post)
Now in Ken’s post, he put quotes of you (the ones in the big red circle at the top of the screen)
THOSE are the quotes he made.
I’ve also provided multiple screenshots of your comments that Ken has quoted.
Neither me, nor ken have ever pretended that you wrote : “formula is dangerous” ” mothers who use formula are harming their
children” “mothers who can’t breastfeed exclusively have failed”
“they’re unable to be an optimal mother” “poor mothers, they’re just too
weak or their bodies are defective”
We never said you did, you just can’t follow a proper conversation it seems
Where is there any evidence that I denied the content in the screen shoots? Are you going to make that up, too?
Really, I’m trying to explain to you that this is all a misunderstanding due to your own lack of reading skills.
FROM THE BEGINNING, whenever ANYONE in this conversation (excluding you) was talking about quotes, we where talking about Ken’s quotes. I’ve already posted those quotes multiple times, from the beginning, we were always talking about those.
From the beginning, the quotes you have been accused of writing have
ALWAYS been those quotes. (and not the other part of the text, that
wasn’t a quote)
So yea, you technically did deny writing the quotes that we where claiming you wrote, as illustrated here.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/81527cf0754bdbc2b328685e53ff6fb1293abcc96a7cc418f8207ca53f43a688.png
In your mind, that’s not the quotes we were talking about. Because you were too dumb to follow a conversation and understand that when we talked about your quotes, we were actually talking about your quotes. But from the very beginning, it has ALWAYS been about those quotes.
(sorry we weren’t able to dumb ourselves to your level and understand that ‘quotes’ doesn’t mean ‘quotes’ in your world)
I’m NOT buying it. You are maliciously framing me and attributing quotes to me that I did not say. That you are acting as if the screenshots are evidence! Again, that ONLY quotes that I denied saying are listed here. NONE of the screenshots contain any of them. Sharing screen shots and pretending that I have denied the content in the screen shoots is MORE lying.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/15931c067b6d5440be7042daf0483ca7a685c9e7aa88203914b2a5921b7664d9.png
and yet nobody ever quoted there nor accused you of writing these. Which is why none of the screenshots contain them. I never claimed you said those things, I never claimed you were quoted as saying those things and nobody quoted you as saying those things.
Like I said, you just misunderstood the whole things because when we were talking about Ken’s quote, you actually didn’t think we were talking about Ken’s quote, but about some random thing you made up.
Azuran – you a a malicious liar and a bully. If you knew that I did not say them, then why did you pretend to provide screen shots of me saying them?
Ok, let’s go through this again.
Ken quoted you, then explained how your comments made him fell.
You accused him of not accurately representing your view.
I pointed out that he had quoted you to highligh your views, and when I said ‘quotes’ I was referring to the actual quotes he made.
Then, because you are an idiot and couldn’t figure out that we were talking about the actual quotes when we were talking about quotes, you went off on a rampage about how you never said those things.
At what point were we supposed to understand that when you were saying you never said those ‘quotes’ you were not talking about the actual quotes but about a part of the text that WASN’T A FREAKING QUOTE
Azuran – Ken lied. You said that you could provide screen shots that proved he did not. Your screen shots provided no such evidence, but you continue on with a charade that they have. You may sit up on your high horse pretending to be holier than thou because I assert that “breastfeeding matters”, but what you have done is hateful. And you know it.
Where did ken lie?
He provided quotes from you, then said how it MADE HIM FEEL.
She’s really fond of gaslighting, isn’t she?
Click on them, it will zoom them
Lies, lies, lies.
Ken provided direct quotes. Azuran has screen shots.
You are spreading lies.
The very phrase “formula apologist” says it all.
Yes. I’ve learned today that the stories apologists tell online about how evil the lactivists are is, in all likelihood, a work of fiction – just as I’ve witnessed here today.
So, do you have any examples of me degrading breastfeeding mothers?
Ken S. You created a rouse about how I would not take credit for my own statements. Even for the internet that was low.
That’s great. Do you have any examples of me degrading breastfeeding or mothers who choose to breastfeed?
Ken S, as I have said, ad nauseum, you are untrustworthy. You make up fiction to suit your agenda. If you claim not to have degraded a breastfeeding mother, I would not believe you. You lie.
Screenshot please
Actually, that’s funny. LOL.
Well, you haven’t posted any screenshot, so why should I believe a nasty formula apologist like you?
Funny?
Post them.
We’re not holding our breath, either.
So you do not have any examples to support the accusation you made against me.
And I’m the liar?
Hey, you didn’t have examples to support your allegations against me – so yes, you are the liar. That IS your lie.
I listed a whole raft of them. You’ve seen it.
Anyway, do you have any examples to support your accusation against me, or just more evasion?
Is this the twilight zone? You never provided any evidence whatsoever to justify your allegations. Here they are again. It seems that you have somehow forgotten what you accused me of. Its probably just denial. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/6160e5b7016e8441942b94c8342303888ba85c9d8ca7ff08add32e54cb7d25de.png
Alright, you can deny it, but I saw your message loud and clear. If you refuse to acknowledge it, that’s fine. How about your claim?
You just said that you acknowledged it.
So you continue with lies and evasion. OK, I think you’ve made my point for me. Thanks!
Tell us about the risks of formula feeding.
Ask N.
Formula apologist!!!!!
congrats, you have fulfilled another lactivist stereotype: Pretend that those who where hurt by lactivim are faking it.
Way to be supportive Anna
Dearie – Misrepresenting what other people say is par for the course here.
“No one is degraded moms for using formula, but YOU are degraded those who advocate for breastfeeding!”
Where have I heard this line of reasoning before? Oh yeah “Racism isn’t the problem, it’s REVERSE racism that’s the problem” and “Misogyny isn’t a problem, it’s that Men’s Rights are not respected”.
To be fair I don’t think the clownfish is at all sly in her disdain for formula and those foolish/misguided/lazy/ignorant enough to use it.
You are the one vilifying breastfeeding helpers which discourages people from seeking breastfeeding support.
“Vilifying breastfeeding helpers?” No, I’m criticizing you, individually, for your words and actions here.
Exactly. A “breastfeeding helper” offers support to mothers wanting to breastfeed, perhaps by showing them more effective positions, perhaps by sharing their own breastfeeding experiences, perhaps by helping out with other chores/duties to allow the mothers to breastfeed more easily.
Notice how this sort of help has NOTHING to do with exalting the almighty powers of breastmilk, nor with the denigration of formula. And “helpers” who push the issue when the baby is clearly not thriving or the mother is in bad shape are no longer helpers, but toxic.
Who has said anything about “exalting the almighty powers of breastmilk” or “the denigration of formula”?Are you talking about support or support?
You are the one calling people who don’t call breastmilk superior to being anti-breastfeeding and formula apologist.
The very term ‘formula apologist’ has the undertone that formula needs to be excused for something, that it’s less good and needs forgiveness. It is denigrating formula.
Yes, I have said something along the lines of breastmilk being superior to infant formula, probably not my exact words. I more likely said that breastfeeding matters and formula feeding has known risks.
Hey, I’ll use any term that you prefer. How would you like to be addressed as a person who denies the importance of breastfeeding? Pro-FF? An insurgent? A denialist? A defender? A pleader? An obstructionist?
An apologist is a relatively neutral term for a person who “who offers an argument in defense of something controversial.”
I’m a supporter of ALL mothers. That’s what I am.
Breast is not always best. Both have risks and benefits.
You brand breast as best because you only look at the benefits of breastmilk and the ‘risks’ of formula (which you still actually have to provide any sort of link to), but really, when you look at the overall picture, It’s just not the case.
Many babies are being hospitalised for hypoglycemia, icterus or dehydratation because of breastfeeding. Are you counting those in your evaluation of what is best?
“Breast is best” is a marketing tool for infant formula. Nope, there are no “benefits” to breastfeeding. It is neutral.
Hell, I’d put my shuddering aside and try to help another mother who asked me.
Well, that would be a welcome change, to be held accountable only for what I have actually written. No time to start like the present, eh?
Do most pediatricians these days ask parents if they will be vaccinating or not? I would find that odd if they do.
Of course they do – it requires informed consent. But that’s clearly a concept you know nothing about.
Or are you a believer in the ‘ninja nurses’ meme who secretly stab children with needles in the night without consent?
Never even heard of them.
As someone who has miscarried, thank you. I wanted tests done to find out why, and if not the why, then at least to hopefully contribute to the general understanding of miscarriage. Unfortunately, the nurse didn’t even offer that as an option and ignored me.
I’m sorry to hear that-where I work (UK), any woman who miscarries in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy usually has a pathology examination of the miscarried tissues, its routine really. If it was a very early pregnancy, we rarely see an intact embryo or tiny fetus, but after about 10-12 weeks gestation, we begin to see the very tiny ones-they are about 6 cm long at 13 weeks. If we see a separate fetus, then we need written consent to examine. Often, in the very early losses, we don’t find the definite cause of the miscarriage-sadly about 1 in 5 pregnancies ends in miscarriage. But even negative findings can be useful-for example, I can exclude infection, or a molar pregnancy.
And also, it can provide reassurance. Women will blame themselves very readily if they miscarry-they think ‘I shouldn’t have had that glass of wine’, or ‘I shouldn’t have done yoga’, and it is never anything like this. I once had a mum who was convinced that she had caused her miscarriage-she had a toddler and she used to give him a ‘fairground ride’ by sitting him on her lap and bouncing down the stairs on her bottom. She was absolutely convinced she’d shaken the baby loose. At least we can set minds at rest from this angle.
With more women opting for expectant management or medical management of early miscarriage, I think fewer women are going to have the opportunity for pathological examinations.
In my experience few women want to save pads or lift tissue out of a toilet so that they can have it examined, even if they are advised that this is an option.
One of the reasons I, personally, would prefer to have any future miscarriage surgically managed is that there would be an opportunity for pathological examination (as well as better pain management and a quicker resolution of the miscarriage).
When women are being advised about miscarriage management I think a lot of emphasis is put on “being at home” and “privacy” and “letting nature take its course” and not so much on the fact that you may be forgoing finding out why it happened.
Women are advised of all three options- medical, surgical and expectant- which they choose will depend on many factors, and previous experiences. I think, however, that surgical manegement is increasingly being seen as a less desirable option, partly because it is more resource intensive.
Yes, expectant management is a bit of a worry. If the woman miscarries at home, the onus is on her to bring the tissue back to the hospital-this is mostly going to be decidua, blood clot and some placental tissue only especially if the miscarriage is really early. But it means fishing it from the toilet, or scraping it from underwear and I can’t see a lot of women wanting to do that.
But we are going to miss diagnoses like molar pregnancy. Most hydatidiform moles are picked up on histology these days, rather than the ‘uterus large for dates’ clinical presentation in the past. All miscarried tissue is examined in our hospital (unless the mother refuses that-but that’s extremely rare). We’ve audited our moles and the vast majority were picked up only on histology with no clinical suspicions beforehand. And the incidence of hydatidiform moles is considerably higher in our region than the textbooks say, simply because we examine all of the products.
10 weeks from LMP, and the nurse confirmed that yes, the ~2 inch blob which I asked about was the fetus; then she tipped it into the toilet and flushed. I’m still angry, but I’m glad that it’s routine over there and that you find answers for people and provide that reassurance that they haven’t done anything wrong.
INFANTS HAVE A RIGHT TO BE *FED*
There, fixed it for you, you horrible horrible person
Infants not only have a right to be fed, they have a right to be breastfed. No one should interfere with the mother-baby dyad’s right to breastfeed.
Are you informing the police/government/DHS every time you meet a formula feeding mother then? Because apparently it’s against human rights?
Why on earth would a mother have to be reported for not breastfeeding? As I have already said, numerous times, the mother has the right not to breastfeed.
Uh, that contradicts “Infants not only have a right to be fed, they have a right to be breastfed.” In your mind, then, an infant’s rights are being violated when he/she is not breastfed.
But you said a baby has a right to be breastfed…
If a woman does not wish to breastfeed, the logical conclusion from your statements is that her child’s rights have been violated.
Saying that a mother has a right to breast feed if she wishes, and that a baby has a right to be breastfed if their mother wishes to breastfeed is a position most of the posters here would not disagree with.
Saying that a decision not to breastfeed is a violation of your child’s rights would be one most of us would disagree with.
It is OK with me if you, and others. disagree with me. and others. that the child has the right to breastfeed. I still believe it is the child’s right.
It seems that we agree that the child’s right to breastfeed ends at the mothers right to bodily autonomy.
Curiously, someone here, recently, accused me of not thinking that people read about breastfeeding outside this protected sphere. The right of the child to breastfeed is easily googled and pretty much concludes that Lactivists recognize the right of the child to breastfeed AND the right of the mother to bodily autonomy. If you exited the sphere occasionally, I think that you would find that lactivism is not the enemy.
Nope, it definitely is the enemy.
See too many women in tears because of their perceived failure and babies with FTT because of a dogged determination not to give even an ounce of formula to think anything else.
Dr Kitty – who is responsible for telling mothers to breastfeed “at all cost”? It is NOT lactivists. Lactivists advocate for breastfeeding. They are not a bunch of shrews with an irrational agenda or ideology. The fact the Tuteur has created a stereotype does not make it reality based. Any mother who has the mistaken idea that breastfeeding is essential to getting the “good mother” sticker needs to have some sense knocked into her ( gently and respectfully, of course). Joining into her delusion that “they” told her breastfeeding is a requirement and formula is “evil” makes YOU complicit. Breastfeeding IS important. You do not have to throw the proverbial baby out with the bath water. Formula is a legitimate substitute. It is NOT a moral issue.
Man you sure contradict yourself none stop.
She’s not getting messages from the ether.
She’s being told by midwives, lactation consultants, health visitors and breast feeding support group members exactly the same things you are saying here.
Breastfeeding is Normal.
Breastfeeding is the default.
Breastmilk is so much more than food.
Breastfeeding is the best choice for your baby.
Formula is a poor substitute for breastmilk.
Babies have a right to be breastfed.
Very few women are truly unable to breastfeed.
Formula has risks.
The real life effect of saying those statements to someone who is unable to breastfeed is to make her feel like a failure.
It isn’t a delusion if she has actually been told that formula is poison and that by not continuing to breast feed she will cause her child irreparable harm.
Maybe you and your online lactavist friends don’t that, but yes, some people do. Implying that a woman has to be mentally ill to actually believe that anyone would ever say such things is low.
No – I can’t agree with you. Stating the breastmilk is more than food is a simple fact. When people like you contort that into BS about how breastfeeding moms are better than formula feeding moms, THEN if because a problem.
The message that breastfeeding matters is not being directed at moms who did not breastfeed! Again, that is a problem exacerbated by people like you. The message that breastfeeding matter IS directed at future moms and professionals such as yourself.
It is simply awful that you are deflecting a message directed at YOU, the provider, and telling mothers that it is all about making them “feel bad”. Wake up! Pay attention! Take responsibility for yourself! Lactivism is not the problem, apologism is.
Nope.
You’re not worth the effort to respond to.
Anna needs to be right, and wants to have everyone agree with her and like her for it.
Tricky.
Ah, but you just did. 😉
And that right there says it all.
You’re a troll. An obnoxious, self-righteous troll who only comes around here to stir up people, knowing full well that there are several commenters on this blog who have had very negative experiences when seeking help to try and breastfeed.
You spout all the lactivist propaganda, refuse to hear anything contrary to it and frequently fail at reading comprehension. You put words in our mouths and then deny the crap you’ve been spewing.
I’m done with you. You offer no reasonable discussion so hello block list. I’m going to enjoy the quiet.
Chi, the moment that I said I value breastfeeding, you pegged me as an obnoxious, self-righteous troll.
“Lactivism is not the problem, apologism is.”
“Racism isn’t the problem, REVERSE racism is”
“Misogyny isn’t the problem, bitches are”
If not lactivist, how would you label the LLL leader who told me the reason I wasn’t producing enough was that maybe I didn’t want my baby?
Or the hospital IBCLC who said that I should ignore the pediatrician’s request to supplement with formula due to DD’s weight loss and dehydration, because if I FF her then we wouldn’t bond properly, and she’d be sick all the time? Or the nurses who said the same thing?
LLL Leaders are volunteers who offer to help any mom that wants to breastfeed. As with many human interactions, misunderstanding occur. What one person heard and what the other person said are often two completely different things. All you have to do is read replies to my comments to get a grasp of the issue.
Hey, if some nurses or a lactation specialist give out bad information, that does not mean that lactivism is a bad thing.
Can you imagine if I were to collect the lowest common denominator posts here and demand that every Tuteur follower offer me a justification? That is essentially what you are doing to me.
Nope. I’m saying that the actual, official material says as much. These aren’t rogue instructors or IBCLCs. That LLL leader had to call me back after I summarized everything I was doing, and said, “All I can find in my resources is that if you’re doing everything you say you are and your milk isn’t coming in, it’s probably psychological. Was your daughter planned? Were you happy to be pregnant?”
Yes. Apologists like to make up stuff about lactivists. It is what you do.
Right. If a breastfeeding mom is given a hard time by a jackass, she’s given a hard time by a jackass. If a formula-feeding mom (or struggling breastfeeding) mom is given a hard time by a jackass, she’s lying and it never happened.
You were asking for it, Keeper. After reading the boob admirer’s response to your own (or was it Empress’?) experience with depression made worse by breastfeeding, you still tried to talk to her as if she were a human being. Did you really expect ratinality and honesty from a pair of boobs? Because that’s what the thing is.
So, you admit that many here have been jackasses? Thanks for the support.
Many here? Nope. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen someone criticize someone here for breastfeeding when there wasn’t a medical indication against it–see galactosemia, or a total intolerance for mom’s milk, that sort of thing. I think I speak for most here when I say that if a woman wants to breastfeed and it’s working for her and baby, she should go for it, and should be provided with a support system to aid her with that. If someone gave a breastfeeding mom a hard time, they’d be as likely to be told to knock it off around here as if they said that formula feeding parents are doing something wrong by formula feeding as such.
There are plenty of obnoxious people of any stripe out there, both those who criticize moms for breastfeeding in public and those who walk up to total strangers who are bottle-feeding a baby and make rude comments about that. My beef is that you say that if a formula-feeding mom is given a hard time, it never happened, but if a breastfeeding mom is, then her word is to be accepted as holy writ.
Deny it all you want. You bash lactivists. It is what you do. (Well, when you are not bashing others for having the gall to believe things that you do not).
You have an unusual relationship with reality. You said, ” If someone gave a breastfeeding mom a hard time, they’d be as likely to be told to knock it off “. That flies in the fact of your objective which is to slander and ridicule lactivism.
Goalpost-moving. I said that I don’t believe I’ve ever seen someone criticize a *breastfeeding mom,* not a lactivist. A mom who’s breastfeeding her kid and that’s working out for the both of them but who gets criticized for doing so is an entirely different critter from a lactivist who walks up to a random bottle-feeding caregiver to make rude comments, or a lactivist who tells a new mom that if she gives her baby formula after her baby starts losing weight and gets dehydrated her baby won’t bond with her. Cruel people are deserving of criticism when they are cruel. Moms who are minding their own business and feeding their baby an appropriate food, be it breast or bottle, are not.
Look, as you are aware, you, liberally and deceitfully use, language in order to create an illusion that lactivism is a bad thing. One of your many deceitful tactics is to create an illusion that apologists respect people who breastfeeding and people who formula equally and that lactivists do not. That is a bunch of hooey and you are savvy enough to be acutely aware of your under handed efforts.
Nobody, not me, not you, not apologists, not lactivists, nobody has wavering respect for mothers who breastfeed or mothers who formula feed. Get over it. Open you eyes. Stop being so weaselly. It is a non-issue.
Don’t bother inventing fictionally “evidence” and “screen shots” to deny it. I think we have had enough of that ridiculousness today.
Lactivists assert that breastfeeding matters. Apologists deny it. That is the real conflict.
Apologists make unnecessary rude derogatory comments about lactivists all.the.time. It is what they do. It is what YOU do.
I have no doubt that your assertion that “lactivists approach random moms” is just another example of apologist fantasy just like the fantastical posts and comments that I have allegedly made.
Yes, cruel people are deserving of criticism. YOU are cruel and I am calling you out for it.
Nobody here is being a jackass to formula feeding or breastfeeding mother regarding their feeding choices.
….well except for you.
Really Az, you have the kahoonas to call me a jackass after your antics today. Get real.
ka·hu·na
kəˈho͞onə/
noun
(in Hawaii) a wise man or shaman.
NORTH AMERICANinformal
an important person; the person in charge.
“one big kahuna runs the whole show”
NORTH AMERICANinformal
(in surfing) a very large wave.
co·jo·nes
kəˈhōˌnāz,-ˌnās/
noun
NORTH AMERICANinformal
a man’s testicles.
courage; guts.
“he does not have the cojones to kill a flea”
Ah, interesting. I’ve learned two new words.
But She has problems with words I think. You know, She also thinks combo-feeding is not a real word, whereas formula apologist is. Is it? I never heard it, besides her using it all the time.
“In the clearing stands a boxer
And a fighter by his trade
And he carriers the reminders
Of ev’ry glove that laid him down
Or cut him till he cried out
In his anger and his shame
“I am leaving, I am leaving”
But the fighter still remains.”
-Paul Simon
Ok, now I know for sure that I am not a lactivist, even if I am a LLL Leader. What this LLL Leader and that IBCLC told you is absolutely not ok! If there is weight loss, formula is needed! And even if that would interfere with bonding, hey bonding can be repeated later on. And it would be easier, more satisfying, to bond with a healthy, happy, not hungry baby, than with a starving dehydrated baby.
“All I can find in my resources is, that if you’re doing everything you say you are and your milk isn’t coming in, you should supplement with formula. You know, some woman just can’t produce enough milk. It exists. It’s ok.” Would have been a bit better as a reply.
I have read you posts N. You admitted previously that you are a lactivist. From what I have gathered from your post that means that you have no regard for personal autonomy. You think that that mothers who formula feed are bad mothers. You think that formula is poison and that babies should never be formula fed not even if they have galactosemia. Not only that but you insist that every mother can breastfeed, if she just tries hard enough.
Now, I’m sure that you will deny all of this, because, after all you are a lactivist, but if you do not want to be quoted, then you shouldn’t post.
Are you having a stroke?
Isn’t that what you were hoping for? That I would just drop dead. You’ve been quite clear that I am a waste of human life.
Spare us the drama. No one wants you to drop dead. We simply want you to stop self-righteously prattling misiformation and judgments based on ignorance.
Quite so.
Honey, if you’re having thoughts of self-harm, please call a hotline or your doctor to get some help. And if you’re losing sleep over what people are saying, stop posting. Howevermuch people loathe what you’re posting, no one actually wants you dead.
Oh, woe is you. People who disagree with you must wish you dead, obviously. *eyeroll*
I must admit that I did not read every single word you wrote here. Because, you know, I have a real life. And no time to read too much of such stupid discussions.
But: most of the things you now say I said, you said them. You wrote them. That is why people can quote you and not me.
That is the problem with written words. They are not “lost” as easily as spoken words.
Again, any “evidence” provided by apologist can and should be scrutinized. It is likely to be fiction.
In other words, Keeper is lying because what she’s saying doesn’t fit the boob admirer’s preconceived notions.
You’re the worst kind of scum.
Still failing at recognizing my intent. Give it up.
I recognize your intent just fine. You aren’t as sly as you fancy yourself. I am just seeing you as the hopeless cause that you are. The others here also recognize your intent but they still think you can be helped. Ah well, everyone has the right to try and help a pair of boobs, although rationality, compassion and so on are so beyond their (your reach).
In other words, you have a completely myopic worldview and have zero ability to respect others. Got it.
I have a few labels, but none are as polite as lactivist
Says the shrew promoting vapid ideology with zero facts.
It’s just weasel words, really. If you actually think a baby has a right to be breastfed, that means you think it has a right to receive the bodily fluids of someone else. If you don’t actually think this, which the claim that the right ends at the mother’s bodily automony suggests, then you don’t really think a baby has a right to be breastfed (unless you’re suggesting a baby has a right to be breastfed by someone other than her mother, I suppose). You just think it has a right to be breastfed in certain circumstances, which is something quite different: you don’t actually think it has a right to be breastfed per se.
Kind of like when people mimsy around claiming to believe in the rights of pregnant women to bodily automony and the rights of a foetus to life. Eventually, there will be a conflict, and you have to put one above the other.
Exactly. “Eventually, there will be a conflict, and you have to put one above the other.” The baby’s right to be breastfed ends at the mother’s right to bodily autonomy. It is a balance.
So, saying that the baby has a right to be breastfed has no bearing on the right of the mother not to breastfeed. Her right supersedes the baby’s.
Regardless, that dyad’s right to breastfeed without interference from outside influences IS an important concept. When a provider or blogger dismisses the importance of breastfeeding due to their own bias, that is a violation of the baby’s right to breastfeed.
Your first two paragraphs mean you don’t actually think the baby has a right to breastfeed, and your last one about the dyad has no relation to anything I wrote. Presumably in there as some kind of distraction tactic.
As I wrote elsewhere, if you don’t think the mother (or some other woman I suppose) should be forced to breastfeed a baby, you don’t think a baby has a right to be breastfed. Weasel words and obfuscation.
A baby has no more right to be breastfed than it has a right to have a sibling.
No, infants don’t have a right to be breastfed. They have a right to be given safe, appropriate nutrition in appropriate quantities to keep them healthy and growing. The second sentence of this post is COMPLETELY irrelevant, as no one on here is advocating for interfering with the mother-baby dyad’s breastfeeding.
Are you kidding me??? Tuteur and many here have absolutely no regard for the mother-baby dyad’s right to breastfeed!! Do you read anything that is posted?
Obviously, I, and many others, disagree with your assertion that breastfeeding is not a human right.
Ah, yes. That must be why Dr. Tuteur (and various of the regular commenters) breastfed all of her babies. And I think mothers absolutely have the RIGHT to breastfeed–if they so choose. The infant has no right to receive breastmilk, however, as long as he/she is (again) being fed appropriate food in appropriate amounts.
You know when I think babies’ rights are being violated? When they’re being starved because some lactivist has convinced the babies’ mothers that only breastfeeding will do.
I know you do not read my posts, Heidi, you just characterize me as a stereotypical lactivist, however, if you had read my posts you would know that I do not think having breastfed means that you are pro-BF.
You are a stereotyplical lactivist. Why do you object to being characterised that way?
I am a lactivist, yes. However, I do not fit the stereotype held here about what a lactivist is. If you had the kahoonas, you could prove it to yourself by reading my posts instead of replies to my posts.
I do read all your posts. They are tedious, ignorant, lazy and self-serving. They show that you care nothing for anything but the fantasy of a ‘mother baby dyad’.
Actually, Anna, you EMBODY the stereotype held here about what a lactivist is. Every shaming, duplicious, sordid part of it.
You ARE it, Anna.
No, I don’t, that is pretty much my point.
You don’t HAVE a point. You also don’t have a heart, empathy, and cognitive ability, it would seem. But you think yourself sooo different because you think you aren’a the bully that you are.
Yup, right into the stereotype here you jump.
Look, you buddies here have proven that they have lost grip on reality.
Your reality? You don’t know what reality means, your head is buried way too deep into your boobs.
Yes yes you love to make assertions without any facts to back them just as much as you like to ignore others questions to you when you know they’ve managed to box you into a corner. You’re disingenuous and simply not smart enough to do what you’re doing here but not smart enough to see it. Or no I can be generous and say maybe you aren’t THAT stupid you’re just that much of a true believer, which makes you blind. And the fact that your belief can’t stand up to very much scrutiny at all (why you ignore questions and make assertions without requisite facts to back the hem up) and you know it (why you use those tactics. It allows you to stay here and tell yourself how smart you are and how great a debater you are when you don’t appear to be that intelligent and are truly a very poor debater). So if you want to stick around how about you start actually addressing peoples points (one of the points in this post you will deliberately ignore)
It’s revealing how fast you go from the ‘baby’s right to be breastfed’ to your real hobbyhorse, the ‘mother baby dyad’.
So you don’t count adopting parents, you don’t count women without breasts due to surgery, you don’t count male same sex couples, and no doubt many more, as real parents. Just because a set of lactating breasts isn’t lurking around.
It’s not about love, or care, or responsibility, is it, as far as you are concerned? Pure ideology.
Have I said anything at all about same sex couples or adoptive parents? You have a rigid idea of what a lactivist is and you are imposing that onto me. I do not own that, you do.
You don’t own much, do you?
Not much responsibility taken by you for the natural and inevitable outcomes of your proselytising for breastfeeding. Baby gets poisoned by chemo drugs? Bad luck on the baby, says Anna. Baby goes hungry because exhausted mother can’t breastfeed and won’t formula feed because she thinks you know best when you say it is ‘suboptimal’? Bad luck on the baby for having a hopeless mother, says Anna.
You are exactly like those horrible people who encourage women to ignore doctors’ advice about needing a cs-what’s a few dead or damaged babies so long as your ideology remains untainted.
Huh? That doesn’t even make sense.
You said that every baby had a right to be breastfed. Given that dads and adoptive moms can’t generally breastfeed, their adoption or care for the baby is a violation of the baby’s rights, per your standard.
I get the feeling that you are one who has never ventured outside this little echo chamber.
If this was an echo chamber, you would have been banned after your first comment.
Really? I assumed that banning is not an option here.
Because it’s not an echo chamber
Nope.
Dr Tuteur bans, but usually only for uncalled for gross profanity, threatening behaviour, sock puppetry and editing posts to give an untruthful impression of a conversation.
Her general policy is to give critics enough rope to hang themselves in the comments.
It certainly seems to be working with you, since you can hardly be said to be making arguments likely to change hearts or minds.
Ha, ha, ha. Classic lies.
How many heart or minds have you changed, oh generous one?
Anyone swayed by Anna Perch’s eloquent and compassionate rhethorics, raise your hand!
Ever the apologist, still no clue.
At this point you appear to have gone from trollery to a moebius strip of self pitying psycholgical defence mechanisms.
I did try to be nice.
Anna, may I suggest that you sit and have a hard think about what your continued willingness to come here says about you?
Contrary to what you may think, it doesn’t suggest someone with a strong intellectual argument, high intelligence and good self esteem.
Kitty – there was not time at which you “tried to be nice”. Don’t kid yourself.
I assumed you added galacatosaemia to your list from ignorance, rather than being someone who would actually prefer a child to be breastfed and disabled over formula fed and healthy.
I copied and pasted GMC guidance on informed consent rather than just calling you out for your utter disdain for patient autonomy.
I asked you to clarify when I thought I may have misinterpreted something you said in an overly harsh light.
I asked, politely, although repeatedly, for you to answer a very simple question- which you still haven’t done.
I have no more time or energy to waste on you. You and your opinions simply aren’t worthy of further consideration- you have failed to make any compelling argument for them and your behaviour here has not made me feel that you are worth listening or responding to.
Nothing you have said so far makes me have any interest in hearing your further opinions.
Best of luck in your future endeavours, I hope you find a field other than lactavism in which your talents can be appreciated and where you can’t harm women or babies.
Consider this the last interaction between us.
Kitty – you have alleged that you were “being kind” previously. The fact that you are misrepresenting what I said about galactosemia is evidence that you never were.
I concede that the post in which I brought it up originally was less than clear, but I followed it up with a clarification that you choose to disregard. Kind people do not make false statement about what others have said or not said.
You CHOOSE to believe that I am ignorant about the severity of galactosemia because you want to believe that I am an obnoxious jerk. Ironically, that choice makes you the obnoxious jerk.
Someone who claims that depression is “red herring” used to excuse a mother from breastfeeding is an obnoxious jerk.
you are still here, aren’t you? That’s very definitive proof that Dr. Tuteur has a VERY long rope.
Haha. We’re actually keeping you around for entertainment. Sort of a guilty pleasure, watching someone embarrass themselves voluntarily.
So: Dance, monkey, dance!
Oh, I started off my parenting journey WELL outside this echo chamber. I wanted nothing more than to have a natural, unmedicated, vaginal birth, and picked a supportive provider for that. I wanted nothing more than to breastfeed to at least two years or so, and hired a pediatrician who was quite supportive of that–indeed, she breastfed her own kid for about that long! I spent a lot of time reading about breastfeeding, checking out latch techniques, talking to other successfully breastfeeding moms, and so on.
Then I had to have a C-section, and my milk barely trickled in at day 10, and all anyone would tell me was that I didn’t try hard enough or love my baby enough. It’s nice to say, as the Alpha Parent does, that I should just ignore such people. Perhaps I should have. But when you have no support system, are totally exhausted, your baby won’t stop screaming, and you’re stuck between on the one hand, the risks of dehydration, and on the other, professionals who tell you that just a drop of formula will ruin your child’s attachment to you forever, you aren’t functioning quite at your emotional best.
Ah, I see.
So I assume you think that babies whose biological mothers can’t raise them should be left to die of exposure, a la ancient Sparta or Rome? I mean, it’s virtually impossible for an adoptive mom to induce sufficient lactation to provide for a baby’s every need…guess those adopted babies are so screwed from birth we should just let them die.
Perhaps an informal poll? Commenters who were adopted: do you think that you should have been left to die since your birth moms couldn’t care for you for whatever reason and your adoptive moms couldn’t breastfeed you? Or should your birth mom have been imprisoned and shackled to a bed for two years so you could breastfeed on demand and bond with her, and then you could get separated from her and be placed with an adoptive family?
Or, here’s a better idea: since babies have a right to be breastfed, they should be removed from those biological mothers who can’t breastfeed for whatever reason (time, pain, low supply, availability, radical mastectomy due to breast cancer, whatever) and given to moms who lactate easily.
Yeah, that’s the ticket.
Well, you know what they say about assuming.
And dying of sepsis is the ‘default’ result of appendicitis. Are you saying that it should be considered the ‘natural’ course of action and other options should not be talked about unless the patient asks about them himself?
Because you are saying that we should only bring up breastmilk because it’s the ‘default’ choice.
Um, no. I think I have been clear. I think that if the preferred treatment for appendicitis is surgery, doctors should clearly state that surgery is preferred. However, a patient’s choice to accept the risk of an alternate intervention should be respected.
Similarly, I think that breastfeeding should clearly be stated as preferred AND a mother’s choice to accept the risk of formula feeding should be respected.
You, on the other hand, think that women need to be protected from the truth because breastfeeding is incompatible with Western living and they should be protected from the truth about formula because it might make them feel “bad” or “guilty” therefore we should all just deny the evidence and pretend that formula is perfectly fine. That is patronizing!
No, I think women should be told the risks and benefits of both formula and breastfeeding (and hell, you can also add combo feeding in there) and be able to make her own choice.
Which she can’t do when idiots like you want to prevent them from receiving this information.
Breastfeeding and supplementing with formula is BREASTFEEDING, you don’t need to invent a special word for it.
But it isn’t included in breastfeeding success rates because it isn’t exclusive breastfeeding.
I’ve said this before, why the obsession with exclusive breastfeeding? It makes no sense, but there is. Breastfeeding stats are generally listed as exclusive, and you have to dig real hard to find the “breastfed some but supplemented with other stuff,” which could be formula but could even introduced to solid food.
” why the obsession with exclusive breastfeeding? It makes no sense” Of course it makes no sense to you! You don’t even believe that there is a noteworthy difference between breastfeeding and formula feeding. If one does not accept that breastfeeding matters, then I do not see how one can understand lactivism. It is the premise that under scores the whole effort.
As I have tried many times (in vain apparently) to say, you do not have to agree that breastfeeding matters, you can believe anything that you want to, BUT if you try to make sense of lactivism without understanding that it hinges on the belief that objectively and pragmatically breastfeeding matters, it leads to derision.
And you just won’t understand all the contradiction you are saying and how it affects other.
You say ‘breast is best’ ‘breastfeeding matters’ ‘breastfeeding is important’ ‘breastfeeding is a human right of the baby’ ‘There is a noteworthy difference between breastfeeding and formula feeding’
You say this is what lactivism is all about.
And then you wonder why formula feeding moms are feeling shamed and feel like they need permission to stop breastfeeding.
You can’t claim that one option is better, and support one option as the preferable option, but then say ‘but do whatever you want’ and think that you are not making people feel shame about their choice.
Yes, yes!! You HAVE been listening. I have said all those things and I do wonder how others link it to shame. My only explanation thus far is to guess that they are reading something into it that is not there. Please – enlighten me.
You don’t understand how others link it to shame because you have a total lack of empathy and no ability to understand the feelings of others.
You are saying again and again and again that breastfeeding is better, and you wonder why those who don’t breastfeed feel they are less good after hearing you tell them over and over again that what they are doing is ‘suboptical’ and not the best option? What are you, stupid?
Oh, drat. Right back to prejudice. So close…
It’s not prejudice, it’s based on everything that you have written.
What is it that you fail to understand:
When you tell people their choice is less good or suboptimal, they feel they are less good or suboptimal.
If you keep calling someone ugly, they will feel ugly
If you keep calling someone fat, they will feel fat
If you keep calling someone stupid, they will feel stupid
How is that rocket science?
YOU were the one who claimed that combo feeding is breastfeeding.
However, breastfeeding cheerleaders are the ones who don’t count it that way.
Do you think that women who don’t breastfeed exclusively for 6 months are failures? Doesn’t matter if it is formula or weaning with cereal, if you haven’t breastfed exclusively for 6 months, you are not included in the breastfeeding stats as a success.
Anna Perch “If one does not accept that breastfeeding matters”
Matters for what?
This is the one thing you have yet to clarify. You couldn’t explain what you meant by “breastfeeding matters” back in was it September? on the Science Based Medicine blog, and you have not yet come out with an explanation on this blog, either, in spite of your periodic reappearances in comment sections.
Please, please explain why you think “breastfeeding matters.”
What does it matter for?
Who does it matter to?
One of my massive bugbears when I had my son was that despite the fact he was combo-fed from day 1, every single damn midwife that wrote on our notes said he was EBF. He was NOT EBF and I kept making that point but there was not even a box on the paperwork for them to tick that indicated he was combo-fed. It drives me insane, combo-feeders are repeatedly treated as a group by all infant feeding literature and support like we do not exist. I could get both info and support on breastfeeding or formula feeding but not combo-feeding (which incidentally on an anecdotal level is what most mums I know do). The best ‘support’ I got was basically cheerleading from HCPs who were all like ‘oh yes, that’s the best of both worlds’ but God forbid you ask for any in-depth info such as ‘what’s the maximum/minimum amount of formula I should give my clusterfeeding all-day-munching son in the evening when I need some sleep?’ I just got told to ‘keep doing what I was doing’ which was not very comforting when he started slipping down the centiles weight-wise.
I didn’t invent a word. Combo-feeding is a word widely used in any baby feeding circle
It is a word invented by formula apologists to create divisiveness in the discussion. Supplementing is a more neutral and accurate term.
I fail to see what isn’t neutral or even dividing in using ‘combo’
Combo basically means ‘both’. If anything, without any preference for one or another
If anything, ‘supplementing’ is less neutral, as it has the connotation that something is deficient and something else is needed to address this deficiency
Why can’t they be called breastfeeders?
They are both breastfeeders and formula feeders. If anything, they are the one who need the most support, because they are doing twice as much.
What I find weird is that while you say it matters if a baby is FF or BF, you said it doesn’t matter if a baby is combo fed VS exclusively BF.
So………..100% BM is equal to 50/50, and equal to 1%BM and 99% formula, But 100% formula is less good?
So……either it all doesn’t matter. Or formula is so evil that 1 drop will negatively affect a baby, but BM is so magical that 1 drop will cure any negative effect of any amount of formula?
magic boob milk, my daughter had a few meals worth when i was engorged, so she’s taken care of even though she’s been on formula ever since?
Yes, she will thrive now in a very different way. You will see. There will be glitter and sparkles all around her. And she will not only be an Empress, but a goddess. You will see. The day will come. Because every drop is magic you know…
Yea, who would have thought. At birth, just put 1 drop of breastmilk under the tongue and your baby will be perfectly healthy for the rest of his life
lol isn’t that funny though? It’s like she’s a booby dick tater. People who can be trusted to make the ‘right’ decision can know about formula so they can deride it but others who are inadequate in their beliefs may not be informed of it because they may make a different choice. The WRONG choice. This girl is p stupid I don’t know why you guys even bother responding to her as though you can convince her. She is a True Believer and there is nothing you can say, ever, to convince her that something she believes may not be correct.
It’s a waste of time guys give it up.
Oh I 100% know that she’s an idiot and that I’m never going to convince her of anything. I just enjoy making her waste her time and allow her to make a fool of herself.
Ahh. Sorry scuse me. Reading that mess it is like the weirdest slow motion train wreck of all time
Much entertainment value though.
It’s seriously strange it’s…not sure how to describe it even
Nope. Nobody ever has a right to anyone else’s bodily fluids.
I respect your right to disagree with me (and others) who recognize breastfeeding as a human right.
And yet you have claimed elsewhere to think the baby’s right to breastfeed ends at the mother’s desire not to, so in fact maybe we don’t. I don’t respect your right to logic fails though, I’m afraid.
More making up fiction. It is all you ever do here, isn’t it.
Liar liar pants on fire.
Yeah, I’m not gonna take any “you said this elsewhere” crap too seriously.
It was on this actual thread…
Your point?
That you said it, and that your claim to think a baby has a right to be breastfed is incompatible with your claim to think that right ends at the mother’s choice not to. One of them has to take precedence in the event of a conflict. Given that you apparently think that’s the mother, you don’t actually think a baby has a right to be breastfed.
I do not care what you THINK I said and I am not interested in your assertions.
And yet you continue to reply. Anyway, your claim that you believe a baby has the right to be breastfed is incompatible with your claim that you think this right ends if the mother does not wish to breastfeed. It is, has always been and always will be meaningless weasel words, because if you don’t think anyone should be obliged to provide breastmilk to a baby, as you have said, then you don’t think a baby has a right to be breastfed. None of these things are what I think, they are what I know.
Wriggle wriggle.
You are not paying attention are you.
Oh, I’ve paid more than enough to be able to skewer you.
You said it there 😉 https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ac28d23045faea6a43503c0e4f705fc312453b47ed791b87d7a4d814a9a94362.png
Only a complete lack of critical thinking and empathy could possibly be blinding you to the inherent misogyny of this statement.
i think this has been apparent to most of us for quite some time. Our Brookie has more empathy.
You might as well say a husband has a human right to have sex with his wife, no matter how she feels.
Nobody has a right to force another person to provide them with her body.
Being adequately and safely fed is a human right. Being consistently loved and cared for by someone–ideally but not necessarily a parent–from day 1 is a human right. Getting medical care when you need it… also a human right.
Being breastfed, however, is not.
Why would a pregnant woman need infant formula?
I said clearly that pregnant women needed information about formula feeding, in the same way they are given information about breast feeding. I’m not advocating stocking the larder at conception, I’m advocating for unbiased, evidence based information to be given and for discussion about choices from the outset. Your way seems to be refusal to provide any advice or any information, or any support other than breast feeding. And if that fails, then provide some more information. That is not appropriate.
It is perfectly appropriate to provide information about a medical decision that it the “gold standard” without providing any information about possible alternatives. Likewise, it is appropriate to answer any questions posed by the patient.
I sincerely hope you are not a health care professional, as that is so far from the truth. It is NEVER appropriate to withhold information about alternatives and not discuss these with the patient.
What purpose could it possibly serve to tell patients details about suboptimal treatments?
Because that may not have the same priorities, wants or needs as you, and may make different choices, based on these wants,needs and priorities and it is their right to do so and for you to give them enough information so that they can make a an informed choice.
I have patients who decide not to take medication I feel would be in their best interest, or who pursue surgical treatments that are probably not going to give them a better outcome than conservative treatment. Or who WON’T go for surgery when it is likely to be very helpful. That is their right.
I think you might be reading something into my posts that is not there. If a doctor says, “I’m going to prescribe this for your condition” and the patient says, “OK”. Then I do not see an issue.
I don’t think the doctor has to go into a monologue about why the first recommendation is that particular prescription. For example, Synthroid or its generic for a thyroid issue. How many alternatives should a “good” doctor offer?
Doctors should encourage questions and answer them.
I was going to say something much longer, but I think I’ll say that I am glad you aren’t a health care provider.
I don’t think you would be good at it.
😉
Actually, Anna is a pretty good illustration of the way modern medical ethics by real professionals work versus the way lactivists and certain other alternative and pseudo-professionals work.
Actual medical professionals are expected to respect autonomy and understand that people may have different priorities, desires and fears. Different people may make different choices in the same situation, and as long as they all have a full understanding of the consequences, none are wrong.
Pseudoprofessionals tend to hit this intersection and take a sharp turn in one of two ways. Some decide that patient feelings are more important than actual facts, whatever you want goes and it’s all going to be fine as long as you think happy thoughts. And some, like Anna, believe that everyone must share her goals and priorities, and everyone who doesn’t is just wrong.
True.
That’s what truly holistic, individualised care is about.
Knowing that whatever the protocol or guideline says, there will always be exceptions where the usual course of action isn’t the best one in this particular situation, and that it is ultimately the patient, not the professional who makes that call.
Doctors spend a lot of time learning this- the “art” of medicine is about how you apply the science.
To lactavists, the breastfeeding hammer is the only tool in the toolbox and all the world is a nail.
“Anna is a pretty good illustration of the way modern medical ethics by real professionals work versus the way lactivists and certain other alternative and pseudo-professionals work.”
Exactly. Anna thinks she should be able to invent her own definition of informed consent that goes like this: I’ll *inform* you of what you’ll be choosing and I’ll bully you until you *consent*.
“Pseudoprofessionals tend to hit this intersection and take a sharp turn in one of two ways. Some decide that patient feelings are more important than actual facts, whatever you want goes and it’s all going to be fine as long as you think happy thoughts. And some, like Anna, believe that everyone must share her goals and priorities, and everyone who doesn’t is just wrong.”
This is it in a nutshell!
And what you think is wrong.
“What purpose could it possibly serve to tell patients details about suboptimal treatments?”
Because a patient may find a “suboptimal” treatment exactly right for them.
Birth control is one example. Nexplanon is the optimal birth control. There can be no debate. There are loads of data about effectiveness and Nexplanon is the gold standard. It’s 99.95% perfect. Therefore doctors should only offer information on Nexplanon, no? And that’s all they should prescribe. Only if Nexplanon is inserted and fails should they discuss other methods. Sounds good, right?
it’s MANDATORY to tell patients about all treatments, regardless of wether you (and only you) think they are suboptimal or not.
INFORMED CONSENT
Since when is formula a “suboptimal treatment”? It’s food. It has disadvantages and advantages compared with breastfeeding.
Yes, formula is food. Breastfeeding is more than food. Formula feeding instead of breastfeeding is suboptimal.
Breastmilk is food. Not medicine. Not magic. You’re talking about reducing the risk of NEC in preemies, I will agree that it is superior to formula. Otherwise–nope.
Clearly you are in denial about what breastmilk is.
Have you found a way to properly identify who was and who wasn’t exclusively breastfed?
Because otherwise, you are the one who is in denial
Clearly, it’s the only way for some mothers to develop relationship with their children since they can’t offer true love, devotion, and learning the basics of life. Poor women, to depend solely on a bodily function to be mothers at all.
Again- what phrasing would you like to use to determine a woman’s wants and needs regarding information about infant feeding?
probably that only abusive parents use formula and its okay to be driven to the brink because baby is the only one who matters
Just to note that after the dust settled, this (and the initial phrasing just above) was the question Anna was 100% unable to even try to answer.
Formula feeding is NOT suboptimal. Mothers who formula feed are NOT suboptimal. Breastfeeding mothers are NOT superior.
There is so much more to being a mother than how you feed your child.
Why can you not see that? Why must you contribute to the stress that new mothers undergo by telling them that they are “suboptimal” because they may not want to breast feed? Or be able to?
Advocate for breast feeding all you wish. But why use words like suboptimal?
And before you say it-yes, that is what you are doing. When you say that formula feeding is suboptimal compared to breast feeding, who do you think will take this to heart?
“When you say that formula feeding is suboptimal compared to breast feeding, who do you think will take this to heart?”
Oh, she wants them to take it to heart. That’s the goal of any bully.
Hey, you are the one who has just suggested that those who use formula a lesser people. I think that is ridiculous.
What you are saying is suggesting the exact same thing. That mothers who don’t breastfeed are lesser mother. You just refuse to see it.
But when you say ‘breastfeeding should be the norm’ ‘a baby has a human right to be breastfeed’ ‘breastfeeding is important’ it has the undertone that those who breastfeed are better than those who don’t.
You being too dense to see it doesn’t mean it’s not still the case.
You love that page out of the Fundamentalist playbook don’t you? Pick and pick at some tiny detail or make something up that sounds kind of like what you said but not really. Then when the person conversing with you gets mad call them bitter. Bless your heart!
Nice manipulative reply. No, you may not have said those exact words, but you are quite aware that the tone & content of your posts suggests that you do think that.
I feel sorry for you. You aren’t even good at spouting this garbage.
So that they know how and why they shouldn’t fall for the first internet quack page they’re reading once they get out of the office and google what you said?
Duh.
It is NOT UP TO YOU. You don’t get to decide what’s optimal or suboptimal for a woman’s situation. You may believe breast milk contains rainbow unicorn farts that the baby MUST have, but medical decisions are between the woman and her pediatrician.
Actually, no it isn’t.
This is from the GMC (UK medical regulator) guidance on consent and information sharing:
“7. The exchange of information between doctor and patient is central to good decision-making. How much information you share with patients will vary, depending on their individual circumstances. You should tailor your approach to discussions with patients according to:
a. their needs, wishes and priorities
b. their level of knowledge about, and understanding of, their condition, prognosis and the treatment options
c. the nature of their condition
d. the complexity of the treatment, and
e. the nature and level of risk associated with the investigation or treatment.
8. You should not make assumptions about:
a. the information a patient might want or need
b. the clinical or other factors a patient might consider significant, or
c. a patient’s level of knowledge or understanding of what is proposed.
9. You must give patients the information they want or need about:
a. the diagnosis and prognosis
b. any uncertainties about the diagnosis or prognosis, including options for further investigations
c. options for treating or managing the condition, including the option not to treat
d. the purpose of any proposed investigation or treatment and what it will involve
e. the potential benefits, risks and burdens, and the likelihood of success, for each option; this should include information, if available, about whether the benefits or risks are affected by which organisation or doctor is chosen to provide care
f. whether a proposed investigation or treatment is part of a research programme or is an innovative treatment designed specifically for their benefit4
g. the people who will be mainly responsible for and involved in their care, what their roles are, and to what extent students may be involved
h. their right to refuse to take part in teaching or research
i. their right to seek a second opinion
j. any bills they will have to pay
k. any conflicts of interest that you, or your organisation, may have
l. any treatments that you believe have greater potential benefit for the patient than those you or your organisation can offer.
10. You should explore these matters with patients, listen to their concerns, ask for and respect their views, and encourage them to ask questions.
11. You should check whether patients have understood the information they have been given, and whether or not they would like more information before making a decision. You must make it clear that they can change their mind about a decision at any time.”
It absolutely is NOT appropriate to decide that patients don’t want or need to know information without actually asking.
Frankly, I’m not seeing how that contradicts what I’ve said.
So, HCPs should actually have a conversation with pregnant women in which they say “we only provide breastfeeding information by default, but we are aware that not all women breastfeed – what are your thoughts about infant feeding and what Would you like to know?”
Because that is what the GMC guidelines suggest should happen.
NOT waiting until the patient herself asks for information or for a breastfeeding problem to occur.
No. That doesn’t sound right. It’s off.
Why is that off?
You’ve said you don’t think every woman should get information about formula feeding.
You agreed with the GMC advice that information should be tailored to the individual wants and needs of the patient.
I’ve suggested a simple conversation a HCP could have to determine whether a woman does indeed want or need advice about formula feeding.
What is off to you?
Give me an example of how a HCP could find out what a woman wants or needs to know about infant feeding that you would find acceptable.
This has to be a question that can apply to every woman. You can’t make any assumptions about her wants or needs or plans.
What form of wording would you choose?
You are the one that’s off
That’s because you don’t like the idea of giving women truly informed consent. It sounds off to you.
It is NOT.
The gold standard for acute appendicitis is appendectomy. We recently had a patient who opted NOT for surgery and for conservative management with antibiotics, knowing the full risks of sepsis and death. they CHOSE a non “gold standard” option because they desired to. ALL options must be provided to patients. ALL.
NEVER just one.
You clearly have NO IDEA how informed consent works. Do some reading and stop embarrassing yourself repeatedly.
It is difficult for me to imagine that the doctor did not say, something like, “You have appendicitis. Let’s prepare for surgery” to which the patient said something like, “No I refuse to have surgery. What other options do a have?”
I would be surprised if the doctor said “Well, most people opt for surgery, but non-surgical antibiotics is an option, too. Which do you prefer?”
It is a principle enshrined in law. There is well known legal ruling that if a person is capacitous, meaning that they have the mental capacity to make informed decisions about their healthcare, then they can choose to ignore medical advice even if the doctor believes that their choice may be harmful. The case involved a man who had gangrene in his leg and he decided that he didn’t want amputation even though he knew it might kill him ( it’s called the re C case’) There is another case confirming the patients right to choose a path of action against medical care-Kerri Woolterton was a woman who took an overdose to commit suicide-she made a ‘living will’ stating that she refused any form of treatment but she didn’t want to die alone so she went to hospital. As she was deemed to be capacitous, the doctors had to stand by and do nothing. Treating her against her written wishes was considered to be unlawful.
So then you support that any women with breech, twins or who had a previous c-section should all be told that they HAVE to have a c-section and not told about any other option? A trial of labour she not be proposed, talked about or discussed?