I hate the AAP

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really all about the culture of safety-ism for children. Because we live in a society with a lacking social safety net, lawsuits are typically how damages are handled. The AAP is just recommending doctors to say the safest thing so they can’t be sued. In reality, this is not what it looks like on the ground.

I had a baby in 2017 and in 2020. Both times. I brought my own formula to the hospital just in case. With my youngest, I offered some because his latch was a little funky. The nurse was like “you didn’t need to bring that.” Also, both babies went to the nursery for a few hours. It was offered to me. On the website, it says that they room in. But in reality they don’t want you falling asleep holding the baby.

My pediatrician recommended supplementing with no hesitation. When the pediatrician asks where the baby slept, I just didn’t mention that it was mostly in my arms. No doctor is going to recommend cosleeping but moms do what works.

I wish there was some way to reach out to pregnant women and urge them to ignore the culture of safetyism from their first child. It would save so many women from immense mental suffering. I went through it with my first. He wanted nothing to do with the bassinet, so I just didn’t sleep. Raging postpartum anxiety that lasted for years impacted us both.

Parents do drop babies more often in baby-friendly hospitals. It is a thing that happens. Babies get injured because of this.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-newborns-falls-idUSKCN1OX1WF

yes but it isnt solely dropped from breastfeeding. Also if they would make sidecar cribs to the bed, it would be easier. If there was more nursing staff so the ratio was 1:4, meaning if its 1 baby plus 1 mother then they only have two rooms. Or having a separate nurse for mom and baby, with mother ratio being 1:4 mothers and infants being 1:2.

The nursery option wasnt great either. In 2008 ratios of nurses to infants in the nursery was 1:8. 8 infants....newborns who need feeding, burping, rocking, diaper changes, temp checks, bilirubin checks, etc. No thank you.

It does not matter if the specific mother was breastfeeding. The policies are justified based on increasing breastfeeding. In reality it is a cost cutting measure and the victims are new mothers and babies. The AAP should get seriously slammed for this. Sorry you don't like the nursery but to me it is worth babies not getting skull fractures and developing seizures. Our country really, really hates women and babies, JFC.

Just because a hospital cuts costs and blames breastfeeding support doesn’t make actual breastfeeding support the problem. They could increase nursing staff, upgrade the equipment, add home-visits and “blame” breastfeeding support for that.

It's a breastfeeding support initiative. Make all the excuses you want, lactivism has become a cultist, misogynist religion. I think breastfeeding is a great choice when it is a choice, not when women are harangued into doing it for benefits that continue to be exaggerated by organizations like the AAP.

I am super pro breastfeeding for those who want to, but if the AAP would focus on the really important things PP suggested (more nurses per mother/infant, more nurses in the nursery, shorter hours for medical staff, etc.) instead of making all the outcomes about whether people breastfeed or not it would be better for breastfeeding moms AND formula feeding moms. I bet you'd get more people willing to try breastfeeding if they weren't so miserably stressed anyway.

Heyo, all those things cost money. Much better to act like changing the mothers' behavior is the start and end of early childhood wellbeing. After all, women's labor is free to the system! I also have long believed that public health focuses on breastfeeding because they KNOW that new mothers are a susceptible audience. Nothing to do with the actual costs and benefits of interventions; they just know that women can be pressured.

I just don’t understand WHY, I guess. What is the super important health benefit that EVERYONE has to breastfeed for 2+ years, in a developed country where we have clean water and baby formula? The last I looked into this (years ago), the only benefit that was outside of controlling for factors like family income, day care/non day care, education, etc. was a small reduction on a population - not even individual - level basis in ear infections and diarrhea. And that pumped and stored milk loses even those small benefits. Is that really worth all the hand wringing that new moms do about BFing?

The reccomendation isn’t that everyone has to nurse for two years. It’s that people who want to nurse past one, whose babies want to nurse last one, should be supported in doing so.

Also the benefits after one year primarily are a reduced cancer risk for the mother. I feel like that should matter.

Being pregnant and giving birth also reduces your risk of breast and ovarian cancer, but you don’t see these organizations telling women to get pregnant and have kids if they don’t want to. Birth control use also reduces BC risk and is a lot less invasive on your life.

They’re not saying to nurse if you don’t want to either— they’re saying if you and your infant want to nurse past one year, you should be supported in that choice by your pediatrician and your workplace. That’s what “mutually desired” means in the recommendation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really all about the culture of safety-ism for children. Because we live in a society with a lacking social safety net, lawsuits are typically how damages are handled. The AAP is just recommending doctors to say the safest thing so they can’t be sued. In reality, this is not what it looks like on the ground.

I had a baby in 2017 and in 2020. Both times. I brought my own formula to the hospital just in case. With my youngest, I offered some because his latch was a little funky. The nurse was like “you didn’t need to bring that.” Also, both babies went to the nursery for a few hours. It was offered to me. On the website, it says that they room in. But in reality they don’t want you falling asleep holding the baby.

My pediatrician recommended supplementing with no hesitation. When the pediatrician asks where the baby slept, I just didn’t mention that it was mostly in my arms. No doctor is going to recommend cosleeping but moms do what works.

I wish there was some way to reach out to pregnant women and urge them to ignore the culture of safetyism from their first child. It would save so many women from immense mental suffering. I went through it with my first. He wanted nothing to do with the bassinet, so I just didn’t sleep. Raging postpartum anxiety that lasted for years impacted us both.

Parents do drop babies more often in baby-friendly hospitals. It is a thing that happens. Babies get injured because of this.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-newborns-falls-idUSKCN1OX1WF

yes but it isnt solely dropped from breastfeeding. Also if they would make sidecar cribs to the bed, it would be easier. If there was more nursing staff so the ratio was 1:4, meaning if its 1 baby plus 1 mother then they only have two rooms. Or having a separate nurse for mom and baby, with mother ratio being 1:4 mothers and infants being 1:2.

The nursery option wasnt great either. In 2008 ratios of nurses to infants in the nursery was 1:8. 8 infants....newborns who need feeding, burping, rocking, diaper changes, temp checks, bilirubin checks, etc. No thank you.

It does not matter if the specific mother was breastfeeding. The policies are justified based on increasing breastfeeding. In reality it is a cost cutting measure and the victims are new mothers and babies. The AAP should get seriously slammed for this. Sorry you don't like the nursery but to me it is worth babies not getting skull fractures and developing seizures. Our country really, really hates women and babies, JFC.

Just because a hospital cuts costs and blames breastfeeding support doesn’t make actual breastfeeding support the problem. They could increase nursing staff, upgrade the equipment, add home-visits and “blame” breastfeeding support for that.

It's a breastfeeding support initiative. Make all the excuses you want, lactivism has become a cultist, misogynist religion. I think breastfeeding is a great choice when it is a choice, not when women are harangued into doing it for benefits that continue to be exaggerated by organizations like the AAP.

I am super pro breastfeeding for those who want to, but if the AAP would focus on the really important things PP suggested (more nurses per mother/infant, more nurses in the nursery, shorter hours for medical staff, etc.) instead of making all the outcomes about whether people breastfeed or not it would be better for breastfeeding moms AND formula feeding moms. I bet you'd get more people willing to try breastfeeding if they weren't so miserably stressed anyway.

Heyo, all those things cost money. Much better to act like changing the mothers' behavior is the start and end of early childhood wellbeing. After all, women's labor is free to the system! I also have long believed that public health focuses on breastfeeding because they KNOW that new mothers are a susceptible audience. Nothing to do with the actual costs and benefits of interventions; they just know that women can be pressured.

I just don’t understand WHY, I guess. What is the super important health benefit that EVERYONE has to breastfeed for 2+ years, in a developed country where we have clean water and baby formula? The last I looked into this (years ago), the only benefit that was outside of controlling for factors like family income, day care/non day care, education, etc. was a small reduction on a population - not even individual - level basis in ear infections and diarrhea. And that pumped and stored milk loses even those small benefits. Is that really worth all the hand wringing that new moms do about BFing?

The reccomendation isn’t that everyone has to nurse for two years. It’s that people who want to nurse past one, whose babies want to nurse last one, should be supported in doing so.

Also the benefits after one year primarily are a reduced cancer risk for the mother. I feel like that should matter.

Being pregnant and giving birth also reduces your risk of breast and ovarian cancer, but you don’t see these organizations telling women to get pregnant and have kids if they don’t want to. Birth control use also reduces BC risk and is a lot less invasive on your life.

Nobody is telling women to nurse longer than a year!!!!!!!
What part of “mutually desired” don’t you understand.

They are just saying that women who WANT to do so should be supported.
Pointing out the health benefits is not a instruction to do it just information to help women and others weigh costs and benefits.

Women who want to nurse longer than s year SHOULD be supported instead of having to deal with all the judgement crap they now deal with. I don’t understand how this can be problematic. This is probably the least problematic statement in the whole document. Totally supports women’s choice without and prescriptives.

[Anonymous]

“ Third, the World Health Organization has asked the AAP to match their positions on breastfeeding. Unfortunately, this results in painting with too broad a brush.”

I honestly think this is part of it. WHO is very zealous on the BF issue. The recent discussion in the US of the reality of so many families needing formula and a focus on supporting families in getting it so they can feed their babies likely spurred a push on the AAP to issue something stronger that is pro BF. And the ping standing AAP recc of 1 year was a very noticeable deviation from the WHO 2+ year push.

What is valuable in countries with unsafe water though is not the same thing as in those with safe water. Why this cannot be acknowledged more in BF discussions is beyond me.

[Anonymous]

^ “long” standing not “ping”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“ Third, the World Health Organization has asked the AAP to match their positions on breastfeeding. Unfortunately, this results in painting with too broad a brush.”

I honestly think this is part of it. WHO is very zealous on the BF issue. The recent discussion in the US of the reality of so many families needing formula and a focus on supporting families in getting it so they can feed their babies likely spurred a push on the AAP to issue something stronger that is pro BF. And the ping standing AAP recc of 1 year was a very noticeable deviation from the WHO 2+ year push.

What is valuable in countries with unsafe water though is not the same thing as in those with safe water. Why this cannot be acknowledged more in BF discussions is beyond me.

I would not be so fast to characterize the United States as being a bastion of safe drinking water, unless you’ve never heard of a place called Flint, Michigan? Or is giving infants lead-contaminated water good with you as long as they’re already poor?

In the normal course of events I would be more worried about the safety of the formula in the United States than the safety of the water. The Abbott cholorbactor contamination is of course now famous but before that Similac was being recalled because it was contaminated with beetles. I would certainly expect that if the AAP were to consider recommending formula they would have to take that into account as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really all about the culture of safety-ism for children. Because we live in a society with a lacking social safety net, lawsuits are typically how damages are handled. The AAP is just recommending doctors to say the safest thing so they can’t be sued. In reality, this is not what it looks like on the ground.

I had a baby in 2017 and in 2020. Both times. I brought my own formula to the hospital just in case. With my youngest, I offered some because his latch was a little funky. The nurse was like “you didn’t need to bring that.” Also, both babies went to the nursery for a few hours. It was offered to me. On the website, it says that they room in. But in reality they don’t want you falling asleep holding the baby.

My pediatrician recommended supplementing with no hesitation. When the pediatrician asks where the baby slept, I just didn’t mention that it was mostly in my arms. No doctor is going to recommend cosleeping but moms do what works.

I wish there was some way to reach out to pregnant women and urge them to ignore the culture of safetyism from their first child. It would save so many women from immense mental suffering. I went through it with my first. He wanted nothing to do with the bassinet, so I just didn’t sleep. Raging postpartum anxiety that lasted for years impacted us both.

Parents do drop babies more often in baby-friendly hospitals. It is a thing that happens. Babies get injured because of this.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-newborns-falls-idUSKCN1OX1WF

yes but it isnt solely dropped from breastfeeding. Also if they would make sidecar cribs to the bed, it would be easier. If there was more nursing staff so the ratio was 1:4, meaning if its 1 baby plus 1 mother then they only have two rooms. Or having a separate nurse for mom and baby, with mother ratio being 1:4 mothers and infants being 1:2.

The nursery option wasnt great either. In 2008 ratios of nurses to infants in the nursery was 1:8. 8 infants....newborns who need feeding, burping, rocking, diaper changes, temp checks, bilirubin checks, etc. No thank you.

It does not matter if the specific mother was breastfeeding. The policies are justified based on increasing breastfeeding. In reality it is a cost cutting measure and the victims are new mothers and babies. The AAP should get seriously slammed for this. Sorry you don't like the nursery but to me it is worth babies not getting skull fractures and developing seizures. Our country really, really hates women and babies, JFC.

Just because a hospital cuts costs and blames breastfeeding support doesn’t make actual breastfeeding support the problem. They could increase nursing staff, upgrade the equipment, add home-visits and “blame” breastfeeding support for that.

It's a breastfeeding support initiative. Make all the excuses you want, lactivism has become a cultist, misogynist religion. I think breastfeeding is a great choice when it is a choice, not when women are harangued into doing it for benefits that continue to be exaggerated by organizations like the AAP.

I am super pro breastfeeding for those who want to, but if the AAP would focus on the really important things PP suggested (more nurses per mother/infant, more nurses in the nursery, shorter hours for medical staff, etc.) instead of making all the outcomes about whether people breastfeed or not it would be better for breastfeeding moms AND formula feeding moms. I bet you'd get more people willing to try breastfeeding if they weren't so miserably stressed anyway.

Heyo, all those things cost money. Much better to act like changing the mothers' behavior is the start and end of early childhood wellbeing. After all, women's labor is free to the system! I also have long believed that public health focuses on breastfeeding because they KNOW that new mothers are a susceptible audience. Nothing to do with the actual costs and benefits of interventions; they just know that women can be pressured.

I just don’t understand WHY, I guess. What is the super important health benefit that EVERYONE has to breastfeed for 2+ years, in a developed country where we have clean water and baby formula? The last I looked into this (years ago), the only benefit that was outside of controlling for factors like family income, day care/non day care, education, etc. was a small reduction on a population - not even individual - level basis in ear infections and diarrhea. And that pumped and stored milk loses even those small benefits. Is that really worth all the hand wringing that new moms do about BFing?

The reccomendation isn’t that everyone has to nurse for two years. It’s that people who want to nurse past one, whose babies want to nurse last one, should be supported in doing so.

Also the benefits after one year primarily are a reduced cancer risk for the mother. I feel like that should matter.

Being pregnant and giving birth also reduces your risk of breast and ovarian cancer, but you don’t see these organizations telling women to get pregnant and have kids if they don’t want to. Birth control use also reduces BC risk and is a lot less invasive on your life.

They’re not saying to nurse if you don’t want to either— they’re saying if you and your infant want to nurse past one year, you should be supported in that choice by your pediatrician and your workplace. That’s what “mutually desired” means in the recommendation.

More lies. The new guidelines do not say anything about nursing for one year. They say, and I quote:
"The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends exclusive breastfeeding for approximately 6 months after birth. Furthermore, the AAP supports continued breastfeeding, along with appropriate complementary foods introduced at about 6 months, as long as mutually desired by mother and child for 2 years or beyond."

The old guidelines said:
"The American Academy of Pediatrics reaffirms its recommendation of exclusive breastfeeding for about 6 months, followed by continued breastfeeding as complementary foods are introduced, with continuation of breastfeeding for 1 year or longer as mutually desired by mother and infant."

Where it previously recommended continued breastfeeding "for 1 year or longer", it now "supports" (wtf does that mean, is the AAP paying women for their time? No, they are just trying to use another word for recommending) breastfeeding for two years and beyond. If you are being generous you could say the AAP is reducing its "recommendation" from 1 year to 6 months, but nowhere else in the document does it indicate that, rather they are doubling down on all the previous recommendations including numerous ones that are based on flimsy evidence and/or have been shown to actually harm women and babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really all about the culture of safety-ism for children. Because we live in a society with a lacking social safety net, lawsuits are typically how damages are handled. The AAP is just recommending doctors to say the safest thing so they can’t be sued. In reality, this is not what it looks like on the ground.

I had a baby in 2017 and in 2020. Both times. I brought my own formula to the hospital just in case. With my youngest, I offered some because his latch was a little funky. The nurse was like “you didn’t need to bring that.” Also, both babies went to the nursery for a few hours. It was offered to me. On the website, it says that they room in. But in reality they don’t want you falling asleep holding the baby.

My pediatrician recommended supplementing with no hesitation. When the pediatrician asks where the baby slept, I just didn’t mention that it was mostly in my arms. No doctor is going to recommend cosleeping but moms do what works.

I wish there was some way to reach out to pregnant women and urge them to ignore the culture of safetyism from their first child. It would save so many women from immense mental suffering. I went through it with my first. He wanted nothing to do with the bassinet, so I just didn’t sleep. Raging postpartum anxiety that lasted for years impacted us both.

Parents do drop babies more often in baby-friendly hospitals. It is a thing that happens. Babies get injured because of this.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-newborns-falls-idUSKCN1OX1WF

yes but it isnt solely dropped from breastfeeding. Also if they would make sidecar cribs to the bed, it would be easier. If there was more nursing staff so the ratio was 1:4, meaning if its 1 baby plus 1 mother then they only have two rooms. Or having a separate nurse for mom and baby, with mother ratio being 1:4 mothers and infants being 1:2.

The nursery option wasnt great either. In 2008 ratios of nurses to infants in the nursery was 1:8. 8 infants....newborns who need feeding, burping, rocking, diaper changes, temp checks, bilirubin checks, etc. No thank you.

It does not matter if the specific mother was breastfeeding. The policies are justified based on increasing breastfeeding. In reality it is a cost cutting measure and the victims are new mothers and babies. The AAP should get seriously slammed for this. Sorry you don't like the nursery but to me it is worth babies not getting skull fractures and developing seizures. Our country really, really hates women and babies, JFC.

Just because a hospital cuts costs and blames breastfeeding support doesn’t make actual breastfeeding support the problem. They could increase nursing staff, upgrade the equipment, add home-visits and “blame” breastfeeding support for that.

It's a breastfeeding support initiative. Make all the excuses you want, lactivism has become a cultist, misogynist religion. I think breastfeeding is a great choice when it is a choice, not when women are harangued into doing it for benefits that continue to be exaggerated by organizations like the AAP.

I am super pro breastfeeding for those who want to, but if the AAP would focus on the really important things PP suggested (more nurses per mother/infant, more nurses in the nursery, shorter hours for medical staff, etc.) instead of making all the outcomes about whether people breastfeed or not it would be better for breastfeeding moms AND formula feeding moms. I bet you'd get more people willing to try breastfeeding if they weren't so miserably stressed anyway.

Heyo, all those things cost money. Much better to act like changing the mothers' behavior is the start and end of early childhood wellbeing. After all, women's labor is free to the system! I also have long believed that public health focuses on breastfeeding because they KNOW that new mothers are a susceptible audience. Nothing to do with the actual costs and benefits of interventions; they just know that women can be pressured.

I just don’t understand WHY, I guess. What is the super important health benefit that EVERYONE has to breastfeed for 2+ years, in a developed country where we have clean water and baby formula? The last I looked into this (years ago), the only benefit that was outside of controlling for factors like family income, day care/non day care, education, etc. was a small reduction on a population - not even individual - level basis in ear infections and diarrhea. And that pumped and stored milk loses even those small benefits. Is that really worth all the hand wringing that new moms do about BFing?

The reccomendation isn’t that everyone has to nurse for two years. It’s that people who want to nurse past one, whose babies want to nurse last one, should be supported in doing so.

Also the benefits after one year primarily are a reduced cancer risk for the mother. I feel like that should matter.

Being pregnant and giving birth also reduces your risk of breast and ovarian cancer, but you don’t see these organizations telling women to get pregnant and have kids if they don’t want to. Birth control use also reduces BC risk and is a lot less invasive on your life.

They’re not saying to nurse if you don’t want to either— they’re saying if you and your infant want to nurse past one year, you should be supported in that choice by your pediatrician and your workplace. That’s what “mutually desired” means in the recommendation.

More lies. The new guidelines do not say anything about nursing for one year. They say, and I quote:
"The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends exclusive breastfeeding for approximately 6 months after birth. Furthermore, the AAP supports continued breastfeeding, along with appropriate complementary foods introduced at about 6 months, as long as mutually desired by mother and child for 2 years or beyond."

The old guidelines said:
"The American Academy of Pediatrics reaffirms its recommendation of exclusive breastfeeding for about 6 months, followed by continued breastfeeding as complementary foods are introduced, with continuation of breastfeeding for 1 year or longer as mutually desired by mother and infant."

Where it previously recommended continued breastfeeding "for 1 year or longer", it now "supports" (wtf does that mean, is the AAP paying women for their time? No, they are just trying to use another word for recommending) breastfeeding for two years and beyond. If you are being generous you could say the AAP is reducing its "recommendation" from 1 year to 6 months, but nowhere else in the document does it indicate that, rather they are doubling down on all the previous recommendations including numerous ones that are based on flimsy evidence and/or have been shown to actually harm women and babies.

If you read your own quotes, it will help. If breastfeeding is not something you want, which it clearly isn’t, then these recommendations are not about you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really all about the culture of safety-ism for children. Because we live in a society with a lacking social safety net, lawsuits are typically how damages are handled. The AAP is just recommending doctors to say the safest thing so they can’t be sued. In reality, this is not what it looks like on the ground.

I had a baby in 2017 and in 2020. Both times. I brought my own formula to the hospital just in case. With my youngest, I offered some because his latch was a little funky. The nurse was like “you didn’t need to bring that.” Also, both babies went to the nursery for a few hours. It was offered to me. On the website, it says that they room in. But in reality they don’t want you falling asleep holding the baby.

My pediatrician recommended supplementing with no hesitation. When the pediatrician asks where the baby slept, I just didn’t mention that it was mostly in my arms. No doctor is going to recommend cosleeping but moms do what works.

I wish there was some way to reach out to pregnant women and urge them to ignore the culture of safetyism from their first child. It would save so many women from immense mental suffering. I went through it with my first. He wanted nothing to do with the bassinet, so I just didn’t sleep. Raging postpartum anxiety that lasted for years impacted us both.

Parents do drop babies more often in baby-friendly hospitals. It is a thing that happens. Babies get injured because of this.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-newborns-falls-idUSKCN1OX1WF

yes but it isnt solely dropped from breastfeeding. Also if they would make sidecar cribs to the bed, it would be easier. If there was more nursing staff so the ratio was 1:4, meaning if its 1 baby plus 1 mother then they only have two rooms. Or having a separate nurse for mom and baby, with mother ratio being 1:4 mothers and infants being 1:2.

The nursery option wasnt great either. In 2008 ratios of nurses to infants in the nursery was 1:8. 8 infants....newborns who need feeding, burping, rocking, diaper changes, temp checks, bilirubin checks, etc. No thank you.

It does not matter if the specific mother was breastfeeding. The policies are justified based on increasing breastfeeding. In reality it is a cost cutting measure and the victims are new mothers and babies. The AAP should get seriously slammed for this. Sorry you don't like the nursery but to me it is worth babies not getting skull fractures and developing seizures. Our country really, really hates women and babies, JFC.

Just because a hospital cuts costs and blames breastfeeding support doesn’t make actual breastfeeding support the problem. They could increase nursing staff, upgrade the equipment, add home-visits and “blame” breastfeeding support for that.

It's a breastfeeding support initiative. Make all the excuses you want, lactivism has become a cultist, misogynist religion. I think breastfeeding is a great choice when it is a choice, not when women are harangued into doing it for benefits that continue to be exaggerated by organizations like the AAP.

I am super pro breastfeeding for those who want to, but if the AAP would focus on the really important things PP suggested (more nurses per mother/infant, more nurses in the nursery, shorter hours for medical staff, etc.) instead of making all the outcomes about whether people breastfeed or not it would be better for breastfeeding moms AND formula feeding moms. I bet you'd get more people willing to try breastfeeding if they weren't so miserably stressed anyway.

At least according to the CDC, trying breastfeeding isn’t really the issue. 83% of mothers try. 60% of mothers stop before they wanted to, many citing a lack of supportive policies at hospitals, doctors, and workplaces. I think it’s that 60% the AAP is trying to get at here.

How do you know the 60% stopped earlier than they “wanted to”? The “wanting to for X time” is a product of the notion that women need to have “breastfeeding goals” before they have all the information about breastfeeding. Most women stop because it’s harder than advertised and formula is easier, end of story. Others stop because they never produce enough.

Odom EC, Li R, Scanlon KS, Perrine CG, Grummer-Strawn L. Reasons for earlier than desired cessation of breastfeedingexternal icon. Pediatrics. 2013;131(3):e726–732. Accessed August 24, 2021

“Earlier than desired” typically means “before they wanted to”

My point is that they had no basis to know how long they wanted to BF before they did it. This is as stupid as thinking birth plans should dictate c-section rates. Women find out breastfeeding is hard/painful/exhausting or the baby needs more, and they realize “hey, now I know why formula was invented!”

The methodology wasn’t to ask people before they started nursing, you seem to have made that up. They were surveyed each month and when they reported cessation of breastfeeding, asked if they wanted to continue longer. So if they “just realized why formula was invented!” they would not have reported that they wanted to continue longer…

What were the actual survey questions? And of course women are going to say they wanted to BF longer due to all the messaging. Of course I wanted BF to be the magical experience (falsely) sold to me: blissful, easy, bonding. But it was not. It was an exhausting grind and I never made enough milk and it added an incredible amount of stress and discomfort to new motherhood. There’s no way I could have known that in advance. And if you’d ask me when we started using formula if I “wanted” to continue to exclusively breastfeed sure, I might have said yes, because the ideal would be great.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really all about the culture of safety-ism for children. Because we live in a society with a lacking social safety net, lawsuits are typically how damages are handled. The AAP is just recommending doctors to say the safest thing so they can’t be sued. In reality, this is not what it looks like on the ground.

I had a baby in 2017 and in 2020. Both times. I brought my own formula to the hospital just in case. With my youngest, I offered some because his latch was a little funky. The nurse was like “you didn’t need to bring that.” Also, both babies went to the nursery for a few hours. It was offered to me. On the website, it says that they room in. But in reality they don’t want you falling asleep holding the baby.

My pediatrician recommended supplementing with no hesitation. When the pediatrician asks where the baby slept, I just didn’t mention that it was mostly in my arms. No doctor is going to recommend cosleeping but moms do what works.

I wish there was some way to reach out to pregnant women and urge them to ignore the culture of safetyism from their first child. It would save so many women from immense mental suffering. I went through it with my first. He wanted nothing to do with the bassinet, so I just didn’t sleep. Raging postpartum anxiety that lasted for years impacted us both.

Parents do drop babies more often in baby-friendly hospitals. It is a thing that happens. Babies get injured because of this.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-newborns-falls-idUSKCN1OX1WF

yes but it isnt solely dropped from breastfeeding. Also if they would make sidecar cribs to the bed, it would be easier. If there was more nursing staff so the ratio was 1:4, meaning if its 1 baby plus 1 mother then they only have two rooms. Or having a separate nurse for mom and baby, with mother ratio being 1:4 mothers and infants being 1:2.

The nursery option wasnt great either. In 2008 ratios of nurses to infants in the nursery was 1:8. 8 infants....newborns who need feeding, burping, rocking, diaper changes, temp checks, bilirubin checks, etc. No thank you.

It does not matter if the specific mother was breastfeeding. The policies are justified based on increasing breastfeeding. In reality it is a cost cutting measure and the victims are new mothers and babies. The AAP should get seriously slammed for this. Sorry you don't like the nursery but to me it is worth babies not getting skull fractures and developing seizures. Our country really, really hates women and babies, JFC.

Just because a hospital cuts costs and blames breastfeeding support doesn’t make actual breastfeeding support the problem. They could increase nursing staff, upgrade the equipment, add home-visits and “blame” breastfeeding support for that.

It's a breastfeeding support initiative. Make all the excuses you want, lactivism has become a cultist, misogynist religion. I think breastfeeding is a great choice when it is a choice, not when women are harangued into doing it for benefits that continue to be exaggerated by organizations like the AAP.

I am super pro breastfeeding for those who want to, but if the AAP would focus on the really important things PP suggested (more nurses per mother/infant, more nurses in the nursery, shorter hours for medical staff, etc.) instead of making all the outcomes about whether people breastfeed or not it would be better for breastfeeding moms AND formula feeding moms. I bet you'd get more people willing to try breastfeeding if they weren't so miserably stressed anyway.

Heyo, all those things cost money. Much better to act like changing the mothers' behavior is the start and end of early childhood wellbeing. After all, women's labor is free to the system! I also have long believed that public health focuses on breastfeeding because they KNOW that new mothers are a susceptible audience. Nothing to do with the actual costs and benefits of interventions; they just know that women can be pressured.

I just don’t understand WHY, I guess. What is the super important health benefit that EVERYONE has to breastfeed for 2+ years, in a developed country where we have clean water and baby formula? The last I looked into this (years ago), the only benefit that was outside of controlling for factors like family income, day care/non day care, education, etc. was a small reduction on a population - not even individual - level basis in ear infections and diarrhea. And that pumped and stored milk loses even those small benefits. Is that really worth all the hand wringing that new moms do about BFing?

The reccomendation isn’t that everyone has to nurse for two years. It’s that people who want to nurse past one, whose babies want to nurse last one, should be supported in doing so.

Also the benefits after one year primarily are a reduced cancer risk for the mother. I feel like that should matter.

Being pregnant and giving birth also reduces your risk of breast and ovarian cancer, but you don’t see these organizations telling women to get pregnant and have kids if they don’t want to. Birth control use also reduces BC risk and is a lot less invasive on your life.

They’re not saying to nurse if you don’t want to either— they’re saying if you and your infant want to nurse past one year, you should be supported in that choice by your pediatrician and your workplace. That’s what “mutually desired” means in the recommendation.

Why is there no recommendation that pediatricians and workplaces support other feeding choices? Other feeding choices can involve a lot of time or be less common, like a vegan diet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:“ Third, the World Health Organization has asked the AAP to match their positions on breastfeeding. Unfortunately, this results in painting with too broad a brush.”

I honestly think this is part of it. WHO is very zealous on the BF issue. The recent discussion in the US of the reality of so many families needing formula and a focus on supporting families in getting it so they can feed their babies likely spurred a push on the AAP to issue something stronger that is pro BF. And the ping standing AAP recc of 1 year was a very noticeable deviation from the WHO 2+ year push.

What is valuable in countries with unsafe water though is not the same thing as in those with safe water. Why this cannot be acknowledged more in BF discussions is beyond me.

fetishization of maternity as a locus of public health expert control.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really all about the culture of safety-ism for children. Because we live in a society with a lacking social safety net, lawsuits are typically how damages are handled. The AAP is just recommending doctors to say the safest thing so they can’t be sued. In reality, this is not what it looks like on the ground.

I had a baby in 2017 and in 2020. Both times. I brought my own formula to the hospital just in case. With my youngest, I offered some because his latch was a little funky. The nurse was like “you didn’t need to bring that.” Also, both babies went to the nursery for a few hours. It was offered to me. On the website, it says that they room in. But in reality they don’t want you falling asleep holding the baby.

My pediatrician recommended supplementing with no hesitation. When the pediatrician asks where the baby slept, I just didn’t mention that it was mostly in my arms. No doctor is going to recommend cosleeping but moms do what works.

I wish there was some way to reach out to pregnant women and urge them to ignore the culture of safetyism from their first child. It would save so many women from immense mental suffering. I went through it with my first. He wanted nothing to do with the bassinet, so I just didn’t sleep. Raging postpartum anxiety that lasted for years impacted us both.

Parents do drop babies more often in baby-friendly hospitals. It is a thing that happens. Babies get injured because of this.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-newborns-falls-idUSKCN1OX1WF

yes but it isnt solely dropped from breastfeeding. Also if they would make sidecar cribs to the bed, it would be easier. If there was more nursing staff so the ratio was 1:4, meaning if its 1 baby plus 1 mother then they only have two rooms. Or having a separate nurse for mom and baby, with mother ratio being 1:4 mothers and infants being 1:2.

The nursery option wasnt great either. In 2008 ratios of nurses to infants in the nursery was 1:8. 8 infants....newborns who need feeding, burping, rocking, diaper changes, temp checks, bilirubin checks, etc. No thank you.

It does not matter if the specific mother was breastfeeding. The policies are justified based on increasing breastfeeding. In reality it is a cost cutting measure and the victims are new mothers and babies. The AAP should get seriously slammed for this. Sorry you don't like the nursery but to me it is worth babies not getting skull fractures and developing seizures. Our country really, really hates women and babies, JFC.

Just because a hospital cuts costs and blames breastfeeding support doesn’t make actual breastfeeding support the problem. They could increase nursing staff, upgrade the equipment, add home-visits and “blame” breastfeeding support for that.

It's a breastfeeding support initiative. Make all the excuses you want, lactivism has become a cultist, misogynist religion. I think breastfeeding is a great choice when it is a choice, not when women are harangued into doing it for benefits that continue to be exaggerated by organizations like the AAP.

I am super pro breastfeeding for those who want to, but if the AAP would focus on the really important things PP suggested (more nurses per mother/infant, more nurses in the nursery, shorter hours for medical staff, etc.) instead of making all the outcomes about whether people breastfeed or not it would be better for breastfeeding moms AND formula feeding moms. I bet you'd get more people willing to try breastfeeding if they weren't so miserably stressed anyway.

Heyo, all those things cost money. Much better to act like changing the mothers' behavior is the start and end of early childhood wellbeing. After all, women's labor is free to the system! I also have long believed that public health focuses on breastfeeding because they KNOW that new mothers are a susceptible audience. Nothing to do with the actual costs and benefits of interventions; they just know that women can be pressured.

I just don’t understand WHY, I guess. What is the super important health benefit that EVERYONE has to breastfeed for 2+ years, in a developed country where we have clean water and baby formula? The last I looked into this (years ago), the only benefit that was outside of controlling for factors like family income, day care/non day care, education, etc. was a small reduction on a population - not even individual - level basis in ear infections and diarrhea. And that pumped and stored milk loses even those small benefits. Is that really worth all the hand wringing that new moms do about BFing?

The reccomendation isn’t that everyone has to nurse for two years. It’s that people who want to nurse past one, whose babies want to nurse last one, should be supported in doing so.

Also the benefits after one year primarily are a reduced cancer risk for the mother. I feel like that should matter.

Being pregnant and giving birth also reduces your risk of breast and ovarian cancer, but you don’t see these organizations telling women to get pregnant and have kids if they don’t want to. Birth control use also reduces BC risk and is a lot less invasive on your life.

They’re not saying to nurse if you don’t want to either— they’re saying if you and your infant want to nurse past one year, you should be supported in that choice by your pediatrician and your workplace. That’s what “mutually desired” means in the recommendation.

More lies. The new guidelines do not say anything about nursing for one year. They say, and I quote:
"The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends exclusive breastfeeding for approximately 6 months after birth. Furthermore, the AAP supports continued breastfeeding, along with appropriate complementary foods introduced at about 6 months, as long as mutually desired by mother and child for 2 years or beyond."

The old guidelines said:
"The American Academy of Pediatrics reaffirms its recommendation of exclusive breastfeeding for about 6 months, followed by continued breastfeeding as complementary foods are introduced, with continuation of breastfeeding for 1 year or longer as mutually desired by mother and infant."

Where it previously recommended continued breastfeeding "for 1 year or longer", it now "supports" (wtf does that mean, is the AAP paying women for their time? No, they are just trying to use another word for recommending) breastfeeding for two years and beyond. If you are being generous you could say the AAP is reducing its "recommendation" from 1 year to 6 months, but nowhere else in the document does it indicate that, rather they are doubling down on all the previous recommendations including numerous ones that are based on flimsy evidence and/or have been shown to actually harm women and babies.

If you read your own quotes, it will help. If breastfeeding is not something you want, which it clearly isn’t, then these recommendations are not about you.

What a mother "wants" is often defined by what they think is good for their child. Many of us follow recommendations because we want what is best for our children. We power through the exhaustion and discomfort. Too bad the evidence for the recommendations suck.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really all about the culture of safety-ism for children. Because we live in a society with a lacking social safety net, lawsuits are typically how damages are handled. The AAP is just recommending doctors to say the safest thing so they can’t be sued. In reality, this is not what it looks like on the ground.

I had a baby in 2017 and in 2020. Both times. I brought my own formula to the hospital just in case. With my youngest, I offered some because his latch was a little funky. The nurse was like “you didn’t need to bring that.” Also, both babies went to the nursery for a few hours. It was offered to me. On the website, it says that they room in. But in reality they don’t want you falling asleep holding the baby.

My pediatrician recommended supplementing with no hesitation. When the pediatrician asks where the baby slept, I just didn’t mention that it was mostly in my arms. No doctor is going to recommend cosleeping but moms do what works.

I wish there was some way to reach out to pregnant women and urge them to ignore the culture of safetyism from their first child. It would save so many women from immense mental suffering. I went through it with my first. He wanted nothing to do with the bassinet, so I just didn’t sleep. Raging postpartum anxiety that lasted for years impacted us both.

Parents do drop babies more often in baby-friendly hospitals. It is a thing that happens. Babies get injured because of this.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-newborns-falls-idUSKCN1OX1WF

yes but it isnt solely dropped from breastfeeding. Also if they would make sidecar cribs to the bed, it would be easier. If there was more nursing staff so the ratio was 1:4, meaning if its 1 baby plus 1 mother then they only have two rooms. Or having a separate nurse for mom and baby, with mother ratio being 1:4 mothers and infants being 1:2.

The nursery option wasnt great either. In 2008 ratios of nurses to infants in the nursery was 1:8. 8 infants....newborns who need feeding, burping, rocking, diaper changes, temp checks, bilirubin checks, etc. No thank you.

It does not matter if the specific mother was breastfeeding. The policies are justified based on increasing breastfeeding. In reality it is a cost cutting measure and the victims are new mothers and babies. The AAP should get seriously slammed for this. Sorry you don't like the nursery but to me it is worth babies not getting skull fractures and developing seizures. Our country really, really hates women and babies, JFC.

Just because a hospital cuts costs and blames breastfeeding support doesn’t make actual breastfeeding support the problem. They could increase nursing staff, upgrade the equipment, add home-visits and “blame” breastfeeding support for that.

It's a breastfeeding support initiative. Make all the excuses you want, lactivism has become a cultist, misogynist religion. I think breastfeeding is a great choice when it is a choice, not when women are harangued into doing it for benefits that continue to be exaggerated by organizations like the AAP.

I am super pro breastfeeding for those who want to, but if the AAP would focus on the really important things PP suggested (more nurses per mother/infant, more nurses in the nursery, shorter hours for medical staff, etc.) instead of making all the outcomes about whether people breastfeed or not it would be better for breastfeeding moms AND formula feeding moms. I bet you'd get more people willing to try breastfeeding if they weren't so miserably stressed anyway.

Heyo, all those things cost money. Much better to act like changing the mothers' behavior is the start and end of early childhood wellbeing. After all, women's labor is free to the system! I also have long believed that public health focuses on breastfeeding because they KNOW that new mothers are a susceptible audience. Nothing to do with the actual costs and benefits of interventions; they just know that women can be pressured.

I just don’t understand WHY, I guess. What is the super important health benefit that EVERYONE has to breastfeed for 2+ years, in a developed country where we have clean water and baby formula? The last I looked into this (years ago), the only benefit that was outside of controlling for factors like family income, day care/non day care, education, etc. was a small reduction on a population - not even individual - level basis in ear infections and diarrhea. And that pumped and stored milk loses even those small benefits. Is that really worth all the hand wringing that new moms do about BFing?

The reccomendation isn’t that everyone has to nurse for two years. It’s that people who want to nurse past one, whose babies want to nurse last one, should be supported in doing so.

Also the benefits after one year primarily are a reduced cancer risk for the mother. I feel like that should matter.

Being pregnant and giving birth also reduces your risk of breast and ovarian cancer, but you don’t see these organizations telling women to get pregnant and have kids if they don’t want to. Birth control use also reduces BC risk and is a lot less invasive on your life.

They’re not saying to nurse if you don’t want to either— they’re saying if you and your infant want to nurse past one year, you should be supported in that choice by your pediatrician and your workplace. That’s what “mutually desired” means in the recommendation.

Why is there no recommendation that pediatricians and workplaces support other feeding choices? Other feeding choices can involve a lot of time or be less common, like a vegan diet.

+1 great question

The whole "mutually desired" thing is a smokescreen to pretend they aren't strongly pushing one feeding choice over others. They are liars just like so many posters on this thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really all about the culture of safety-ism for children. Because we live in a society with a lacking social safety net, lawsuits are typically how damages are handled. The AAP is just recommending doctors to say the safest thing so they can’t be sued. In reality, this is not what it looks like on the ground.

I had a baby in 2017 and in 2020. Both times. I brought my own formula to the hospital just in case. With my youngest, I offered some because his latch was a little funky. The nurse was like “you didn’t need to bring that.” Also, both babies went to the nursery for a few hours. It was offered to me. On the website, it says that they room in. But in reality they don’t want you falling asleep holding the baby.

My pediatrician recommended supplementing with no hesitation. When the pediatrician asks where the baby slept, I just didn’t mention that it was mostly in my arms. No doctor is going to recommend cosleeping but moms do what works.

I wish there was some way to reach out to pregnant women and urge them to ignore the culture of safetyism from their first child. It would save so many women from immense mental suffering. I went through it with my first. He wanted nothing to do with the bassinet, so I just didn’t sleep. Raging postpartum anxiety that lasted for years impacted us both.

Parents do drop babies more often in baby-friendly hospitals. It is a thing that happens. Babies get injured because of this.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-newborns-falls-idUSKCN1OX1WF

yes but it isnt solely dropped from breastfeeding. Also if they would make sidecar cribs to the bed, it would be easier. If there was more nursing staff so the ratio was 1:4, meaning if its 1 baby plus 1 mother then they only have two rooms. Or having a separate nurse for mom and baby, with mother ratio being 1:4 mothers and infants being 1:2.

The nursery option wasnt great either. In 2008 ratios of nurses to infants in the nursery was 1:8. 8 infants....newborns who need feeding, burping, rocking, diaper changes, temp checks, bilirubin checks, etc. No thank you.

It does not matter if the specific mother was breastfeeding. The policies are justified based on increasing breastfeeding. In reality it is a cost cutting measure and the victims are new mothers and babies. The AAP should get seriously slammed for this. Sorry you don't like the nursery but to me it is worth babies not getting skull fractures and developing seizures. Our country really, really hates women and babies, JFC.

Just because a hospital cuts costs and blames breastfeeding support doesn’t make actual breastfeeding support the problem. They could increase nursing staff, upgrade the equipment, add home-visits and “blame” breastfeeding support for that.

It's a breastfeeding support initiative. Make all the excuses you want, lactivism has become a cultist, misogynist religion. I think breastfeeding is a great choice when it is a choice, not when women are harangued into doing it for benefits that continue to be exaggerated by organizations like the AAP.

I am super pro breastfeeding for those who want to, but if the AAP would focus on the really important things PP suggested (more nurses per mother/infant, more nurses in the nursery, shorter hours for medical staff, etc.) instead of making all the outcomes about whether people breastfeed or not it would be better for breastfeeding moms AND formula feeding moms. I bet you'd get more people willing to try breastfeeding if they weren't so miserably stressed anyway.

At least according to the CDC, trying breastfeeding isn’t really the issue. 83% of mothers try. 60% of mothers stop before they wanted to, many citing a lack of supportive policies at hospitals, doctors, and workplaces. I think it’s that 60% the AAP is trying to get at here.

How do you know the 60% stopped earlier than they “wanted to”? The “wanting to for X time” is a product of the notion that women need to have “breastfeeding goals” before they have all the information about breastfeeding. Most women stop because it’s harder than advertised and formula is easier, end of story. Others stop because they never produce enough.

Odom EC, Li R, Scanlon KS, Perrine CG, Grummer-Strawn L. Reasons for earlier than desired cessation of breastfeedingexternal icon. Pediatrics. 2013;131(3):e726–732. Accessed August 24, 2021

“Earlier than desired” typically means “before they wanted to”

My point is that they had no basis to know how long they wanted to BF before they did it. This is as stupid as thinking birth plans should dictate c-section rates. Women find out breastfeeding is hard/painful/exhausting or the baby needs more, and they realize “hey, now I know why formula was invented!”

The methodology wasn’t to ask people before they started nursing, you seem to have made that up. They were surveyed each month and when they reported cessation of breastfeeding, asked if they wanted to continue longer. So if they “just realized why formula was invented!” they would not have reported that they wanted to continue longer…

What were the actual survey questions? And of course women are going to say they wanted to BF longer due to all the messaging. Of course I wanted BF to be the magical experience (falsely) sold to me: blissful, easy, bonding. But it was not. It was an exhausting grind and I never made enough milk and it added an incredible amount of stress and discomfort to new motherhood. There’s no way I could have known that in advance. And if you’d ask me when we started using formula if I “wanted” to continue to exclusively breastfeed sure, I might have said yes, because the ideal would be great.

If you read the link the survey questions are provided. It’s not about what the mothers wanted in advance, it is about what made them stop and whether they wanted to continue. The factors that made them want to stop are some of the factors that AAP is trying to address, like the challenges of pumping in the workplace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really all about the culture of safety-ism for children. Because we live in a society with a lacking social safety net, lawsuits are typically how damages are handled. The AAP is just recommending doctors to say the safest thing so they can’t be sued. In reality, this is not what it looks like on the ground.

I had a baby in 2017 and in 2020. Both times. I brought my own formula to the hospital just in case. With my youngest, I offered some because his latch was a little funky. The nurse was like “you didn’t need to bring that.” Also, both babies went to the nursery for a few hours. It was offered to me. On the website, it says that they room in. But in reality they don’t want you falling asleep holding the baby.

My pediatrician recommended supplementing with no hesitation. When the pediatrician asks where the baby slept, I just didn’t mention that it was mostly in my arms. No doctor is going to recommend cosleeping but moms do what works.

I wish there was some way to reach out to pregnant women and urge them to ignore the culture of safetyism from their first child. It would save so many women from immense mental suffering. I went through it with my first. He wanted nothing to do with the bassinet, so I just didn’t sleep. Raging postpartum anxiety that lasted for years impacted us both.

Parents do drop babies more often in baby-friendly hospitals. It is a thing that happens. Babies get injured because of this.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-newborns-falls-idUSKCN1OX1WF

yes but it isnt solely dropped from breastfeeding. Also if they would make sidecar cribs to the bed, it would be easier. If there was more nursing staff so the ratio was 1:4, meaning if its 1 baby plus 1 mother then they only have two rooms. Or having a separate nurse for mom and baby, with mother ratio being 1:4 mothers and infants being 1:2.

The nursery option wasnt great either. In 2008 ratios of nurses to infants in the nursery was 1:8. 8 infants....newborns who need feeding, burping, rocking, diaper changes, temp checks, bilirubin checks, etc. No thank you.

It does not matter if the specific mother was breastfeeding. The policies are justified based on increasing breastfeeding. In reality it is a cost cutting measure and the victims are new mothers and babies. The AAP should get seriously slammed for this. Sorry you don't like the nursery but to me it is worth babies not getting skull fractures and developing seizures. Our country really, really hates women and babies, JFC.

Just because a hospital cuts costs and blames breastfeeding support doesn’t make actual breastfeeding support the problem. They could increase nursing staff, upgrade the equipment, add home-visits and “blame” breastfeeding support for that.

It's a breastfeeding support initiative. Make all the excuses you want, lactivism has become a cultist, misogynist religion. I think breastfeeding is a great choice when it is a choice, not when women are harangued into doing it for benefits that continue to be exaggerated by organizations like the AAP.

I am super pro breastfeeding for those who want to, but if the AAP would focus on the really important things PP suggested (more nurses per mother/infant, more nurses in the nursery, shorter hours for medical staff, etc.) instead of making all the outcomes about whether people breastfeed or not it would be better for breastfeeding moms AND formula feeding moms. I bet you'd get more people willing to try breastfeeding if they weren't so miserably stressed anyway.

Heyo, all those things cost money. Much better to act like changing the mothers' behavior is the start and end of early childhood wellbeing. After all, women's labor is free to the system! I also have long believed that public health focuses on breastfeeding because they KNOW that new mothers are a susceptible audience. Nothing to do with the actual costs and benefits of interventions; they just know that women can be pressured.

I just don’t understand WHY, I guess. What is the super important health benefit that EVERYONE has to breastfeed for 2+ years, in a developed country where we have clean water and baby formula? The last I looked into this (years ago), the only benefit that was outside of controlling for factors like family income, day care/non day care, education, etc. was a small reduction on a population - not even individual - level basis in ear infections and diarrhea. And that pumped and stored milk loses even those small benefits. Is that really worth all the hand wringing that new moms do about BFing?

The reccomendation isn’t that everyone has to nurse for two years. It’s that people who want to nurse past one, whose babies want to nurse last one, should be supported in doing so.

Also the benefits after one year primarily are a reduced cancer risk for the mother. I feel like that should matter.

Being pregnant and giving birth also reduces your risk of breast and ovarian cancer, but you don’t see these organizations telling women to get pregnant and have kids if they don’t want to. Birth control use also reduces BC risk and is a lot less invasive on your life.

They’re not saying to nurse if you don’t want to either— they’re saying if you and your infant want to nurse past one year, you should be supported in that choice by your pediatrician and your workplace. That’s what “mutually desired” means in the recommendation.

More lies. The new guidelines do not say anything about nursing for one year. They say, and I quote:
"The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recommends exclusive breastfeeding for approximately 6 months after birth. Furthermore, the AAP supports continued breastfeeding, along with appropriate complementary foods introduced at about 6 months, as long as mutually desired by mother and child for 2 years or beyond."

The old guidelines said:
"The American Academy of Pediatrics reaffirms its recommendation of exclusive breastfeeding for about 6 months, followed by continued breastfeeding as complementary foods are introduced, with continuation of breastfeeding for 1 year or longer as mutually desired by mother and infant."

Where it previously recommended continued breastfeeding "for 1 year or longer", it now "supports" (wtf does that mean, is the AAP paying women for their time? No, they are just trying to use another word for recommending) breastfeeding for two years and beyond. If you are being generous you could say the AAP is reducing its "recommendation" from 1 year to 6 months, but nowhere else in the document does it indicate that, rather they are doubling down on all the previous recommendations including numerous ones that are based on flimsy evidence and/or have been shown to actually harm women and babies.

If you read your own quotes, it will help. If breastfeeding is not something you want, which it clearly isn’t, then these recommendations are not about you.

What a mother "wants" is often defined by what they think is good for their child. Many of us follow recommendations because we want what is best for our children. We power through the exhaustion and discomfort. Too bad the evidence for the recommendations suck.

Ok so now women are not capable of deciding whether they desire to breastfeed? We’re just automatons to Big Lactation? If that’s true why do we so easily disregard other AAP recommendations without starting huge, moderately deranged threads about them? Do I *want* to roomshare with my child for a year? Nope! So I didn’t. And when the AAP suggested I did I did not start a thread about how my sleep was being undervalued due to weak evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s really all about the culture of safety-ism for children. Because we live in a society with a lacking social safety net, lawsuits are typically how damages are handled. The AAP is just recommending doctors to say the safest thing so they can’t be sued. In reality, this is not what it looks like on the ground.

I had a baby in 2017 and in 2020. Both times. I brought my own formula to the hospital just in case. With my youngest, I offered some because his latch was a little funky. The nurse was like “you didn’t need to bring that.” Also, both babies went to the nursery for a few hours. It was offered to me. On the website, it says that they room in. But in reality they don’t want you falling asleep holding the baby.

My pediatrician recommended supplementing with no hesitation. When the pediatrician asks where the baby slept, I just didn’t mention that it was mostly in my arms. No doctor is going to recommend cosleeping but moms do what works.

I wish there was some way to reach out to pregnant women and urge them to ignore the culture of safetyism from their first child. It would save so many women from immense mental suffering. I went through it with my first. He wanted nothing to do with the bassinet, so I just didn’t sleep. Raging postpartum anxiety that lasted for years impacted us both.

Parents do drop babies more often in baby-friendly hospitals. It is a thing that happens. Babies get injured because of this.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-newborns-falls-idUSKCN1OX1WF

yes but it isnt solely dropped from breastfeeding. Also if they would make sidecar cribs to the bed, it would be easier. If there was more nursing staff so the ratio was 1:4, meaning if its 1 baby plus 1 mother then they only have two rooms. Or having a separate nurse for mom and baby, with mother ratio being 1:4 mothers and infants being 1:2.

The nursery option wasnt great either. In 2008 ratios of nurses to infants in the nursery was 1:8. 8 infants....newborns who need feeding, burping, rocking, diaper changes, temp checks, bilirubin checks, etc. No thank you.

It does not matter if the specific mother was breastfeeding. The policies are justified based on increasing breastfeeding. In reality it is a cost cutting measure and the victims are new mothers and babies. The AAP should get seriously slammed for this. Sorry you don't like the nursery but to me it is worth babies not getting skull fractures and developing seizures. Our country really, really hates women and babies, JFC.

Just because a hospital cuts costs and blames breastfeeding support doesn’t make actual breastfeeding support the problem. They could increase nursing staff, upgrade the equipment, add home-visits and “blame” breastfeeding support for that.

It's a breastfeeding support initiative. Make all the excuses you want, lactivism has become a cultist, misogynist religion. I think breastfeeding is a great choice when it is a choice, not when women are harangued into doing it for benefits that continue to be exaggerated by organizations like the AAP.

I am super pro breastfeeding for those who want to, but if the AAP would focus on the really important things PP suggested (more nurses per mother/infant, more nurses in the nursery, shorter hours for medical staff, etc.) instead of making all the outcomes about whether people breastfeed or not it would be better for breastfeeding moms AND formula feeding moms. I bet you'd get more people willing to try breastfeeding if they weren't so miserably stressed anyway.

Heyo, all those things cost money. Much better to act like changing the mothers' behavior is the start and end of early childhood wellbeing. After all, women's labor is free to the system! I also have long believed that public health focuses on breastfeeding because they KNOW that new mothers are a susceptible audience. Nothing to do with the actual costs and benefits of interventions; they just know that women can be pressured.

I just don’t understand WHY, I guess. What is the super important health benefit that EVERYONE has to breastfeed for 2+ years, in a developed country where we have clean water and baby formula? The last I looked into this (years ago), the only benefit that was outside of controlling for factors like family income, day care/non day care, education, etc. was a small reduction on a population - not even individual - level basis in ear infections and diarrhea. And that pumped and stored milk loses even those small benefits. Is that really worth all the hand wringing that new moms do about BFing?

The reccomendation isn’t that everyone has to nurse for two years. It’s that people who want to nurse past one, whose babies want to nurse last one, should be supported in doing so.

Also the benefits after one year primarily are a reduced cancer risk for the mother. I feel like that should matter.

Being pregnant and giving birth also reduces your risk of breast and ovarian cancer, but you don’t see these organizations telling women to get pregnant and have kids if they don’t want to. Birth control use also reduces BC risk and is a lot less invasive on your life.

They’re not saying to nurse if you don’t want to either— they’re saying if you and your infant want to nurse past one year, you should be supported in that choice by your pediatrician and your workplace. That’s what “mutually desired” means in the recommendation.

Why is there no recommendation that pediatricians and workplaces support other feeding choices? Other feeding choices can involve a lot of time or be less common, like a vegan diet.

What evidence exists that pediatricians and workplaces routinely impose barriers to a vegan diet?