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:

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.

In other words, you don't think the AAP should be held accountable for making burdensome recommendations based on flimsy evidence. I do, I don't think that is "deranged" (and I also don't need to call you "deranged" express my opinion).

[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:

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.

In other words, you don't think the AAP should be held accountable for making burdensome recommendations based on flimsy evidence. I do, I don't think that is "deranged" (and I also don't need to call you "deranged" express my opinion).

So far on this board I have seen one poster call people bonkers, psychotic, insane and every permutation whenever they are opposed. That behavior is deranged. The board stopped engaging with them, they were so distressed. If that poster isn’t you, my comment is not in reference to your posts.

How do you propose “holding the AAP accountable” for their opinions other than applying our own common sense and doing what we think is sensible for our families? It’s a group of people. Different pediatricians in this area will give different opinions on all sorts of things, we “hold them accountable” by seeing pediatricians whose practices align with our families needs.

[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:

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.

In other words, you don't think the AAP should be held accountable for making burdensome recommendations based on flimsy evidence. I do, I don't think that is "deranged" (and I also don't need to call you "deranged" express my opinion).

So far on this board I have seen one poster call people bonkers, psychotic, insane and every permutation whenever they are opposed. That behavior is deranged. The board stopped engaging with them, they were so distressed. If that poster isn’t you, my comment is not in reference to your posts.

How do you propose “holding the AAP accountable” for their opinions other than applying our own common sense and doing what we think is sensible for our families? It’s a group of people. Different pediatricians in this area will give different opinions on all sorts of things, we “hold them accountable” by seeing pediatricians whose practices align with our families needs.

DP. I called the recommendation to withhold formula from babies with severe jaundice until JUST before they need a blood transfusion “psychopathic,” and I stand by that.

[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.

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?

AAP should give the feeding wars a break and issue workplace recommendations on nap time for new mothers.

[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:

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.

In other words, you don't think the AAP should be held accountable for making burdensome recommendations based on flimsy evidence. I do, I don't think that is "deranged" (and I also don't need to call you "deranged" express my opinion).

So far on this board I have seen one poster call people bonkers, psychotic, insane and every permutation whenever they are opposed. That behavior is deranged. The board stopped engaging with them, they were so distressed. If that poster isn’t you, my comment is not in reference to your posts.

How do you propose “holding the AAP accountable” for their opinions other than applying our own common sense and doing what we think is sensible for our families? It’s a group of people. Different pediatricians in this area will give different opinions on all sorts of things, we “hold them accountable” by seeing pediatricians whose practices align with our families needs.

The AAP is not some random mommy blogger that you can ignore. It is the national advocacy and trade group for pediatricians. It’s recommendations have great weight and result in material changes to pediatrician, hospital, and insurance practices. During Covid their opinion swayed some very important public policies. They are a powerful org making public health recommendations. So yeah, I think they need to be accountable. It’s honestly flabbergasting to me that they do not have a transparent control process rating the strength of evidence they base their recommendations on, like eg the US Preventative Task Force. The peanut allergy debacle ought to have triggered organizational reform, but it did not.

[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.

But the benefit to breastfeeding to two years that they Cite is to the mother not the child so this „pressure“ does not come into play here.

The truth of the matter is that it is impossible for anyone to follow all the recommendations about what ks best for one’s child (or us) to the letter so we are all picking and choosing based on circumstances.

It’s sad that you think women who make choices different from your own shouldn’t be supported in those choices. Basically supporting the status quo of women who want to bf longer being judged and discouraged.

[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:

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.

In other words, you don't think the AAP should be held accountable for making burdensome recommendations based on flimsy evidence. I do, I don't think that is "deranged" (and I also don't need to call you "deranged" express my opinion).

So far on this board I have seen one poster call people bonkers, psychotic, insane and every permutation whenever they are opposed. That behavior is deranged. The board stopped engaging with them, they were so distressed. If that poster isn’t you, my comment is not in reference to your posts.

How do you propose “holding the AAP accountable” for their opinions other than applying our own common sense and doing what we think is sensible for our families? It’s a group of people. Different pediatricians in this area will give different opinions on all sorts of things, we “hold them accountable” by seeing pediatricians whose practices align with our families needs.

The AAP is not some random mommy blogger that you can ignore. It is the national advocacy and trade group for pediatricians. It’s recommendations have great weight and result in material changes to pediatrician, hospital, and insurance practices. During Covid their opinion swayed some very important public policies. They are a powerful org making public health recommendations. So yeah, I think they need to be accountable. It’s honestly flabbergasting to me that they do not have a transparent control process rating the strength of evidence they base their recommendations on, like eg the US Preventative Task Force. The peanut allergy debacle ought to have triggered organizational reform, but it did not.

It really is though, and on every other subject people ignore it routinely without this degree of agitation.

I know not one single person who sleeps with their baby in their room until one. My pediatrician suggested moving my baby at 5M and that’s what we did. My insurance company still covered that visit.

I know several parents who co-sleep. No one has repossessed their babies. Two such parents are themselves physicians and they did not have their licenses revoked.

Formula, both RTF and canned, was sent to my house days after I had my baby, in 2020. Which means hospitals still share data with formula companies and the AAP hasn’t intervened to stop them. We handed it off to a family with new twins and moved on with our day.

Breastfeeding is only being treated as a bigger deal because people are emotionally attached to their side, but that’s just another choice.

[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.

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?

AAP should give the feeding wars a break and issue workplace recommendations on nap time for new mothers.

Like how they explicitly call for longer, paid, maternity leave as part of these recommendations?

[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:

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.

But the benefit to breastfeeding to two years that they Cite is to the mother not the child so this „pressure“ does not come into play here.

The truth of the matter is that it is impossible for anyone to follow all the recommendations about what ks best for one’s child (or us) to the letter so we are all picking and choosing based on circumstances.

It’s sad that you think women who make choices different from your own shouldn’t be supported in those choices. Basically supporting the status quo of women who want to bf longer being judged and discouraged.

No. We all deserve correct and unbiased information from our doctors, tailored to our own circumstances. The AAP’s recommendation is specifically to push extended BF using flimsy evidence. They could have just said “all women’s feeding choices should be respected, including extended BF.” But that’s not what they did, because they are making a value judgment that extended BF is *better.* And, they fail to even take on the reasons why pediatricians may not support extended BF, which, from what I’ve heard, has to do with the difficulty of weaning a toddler. What’s clear is that they are intending to correct the perception that BF after 1 is purely a personal choice, by asserting (based on poor evidence) that it is the better choice.

[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:

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?

AAP should give the feeding wars a break and issue workplace recommendations on nap time for new mothers.

Like how they explicitly call for longer, paid, maternity leave as part of these recommendations?

Lots of women want to return to work. It would be more in line with supporting mothers (not “breastfeeding”) by saying: “you could continue to exclusively BF and pump when you return to work. There are significant costs involved and many women find it disruptive to their work. Think about how you want to prioritize your time and energy when they are scarce. Breastfeeding has modest benefits, including …. “

[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:

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.

In other words, you don't think the AAP should be held accountable for making burdensome recommendations based on flimsy evidence. I do, I don't think that is "deranged" (and I also don't need to call you "deranged" express my opinion).

So far on this board I have seen one poster call people bonkers, psychotic, insane and every permutation whenever they are opposed. That behavior is deranged. The board stopped engaging with them, they were so distressed. If that poster isn’t you, my comment is not in reference to your posts.

How do you propose “holding the AAP accountable” for their opinions other than applying our own common sense and doing what we think is sensible for our families? It’s a group of people. Different pediatricians in this area will give different opinions on all sorts of things, we “hold them accountable” by seeing pediatricians whose practices align with our families needs.

The AAP is not some random mommy blogger that you can ignore. It is the national advocacy and trade group for pediatricians. It’s recommendations have great weight and result in material changes to pediatrician, hospital, and insurance practices. During Covid their opinion swayed some very important public policies. They are a powerful org making public health recommendations. So yeah, I think they need to be accountable. It’s honestly flabbergasting to me that they do not have a transparent control process rating the strength of evidence they base their recommendations on, like eg the US Preventative Task Force. The peanut allergy debacle ought to have triggered organizational reform, but it did not.

It really is though, and on every other subject people ignore it routinely without this degree of agitation.

I know not one single person who sleeps with their baby in their room until one. My pediatrician suggested moving my baby at 5M and that’s what we did. My insurance company still covered that visit.

I know several parents who co-sleep. No one has repossessed their babies. Two such parents are themselves physicians and they did not have their licenses revoked.

Formula, both RTF and canned, was sent to my house days after I had my baby, in 2020. Which means hospitals still share data with formula companies and the AAP hasn’t intervened to stop them. We handed it off to a family with new twins and moved on with our day.

Breastfeeding is only being treated as a bigger deal because people are emotionally attached to their side, but that’s just another choice.

It’s amazing you continue to refuse to understand why women are “emotional” about BF. It’s because many, many women suffered pushing themselves to do it based on the moral exhorting of organizations like the AAP, only to realize later it was not worth it. And this uneccesary stress started in the “baby friendly” hospital that sent them on their “breastfeeding journeys” completely exhausted.

[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:

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.

But the benefit to breastfeeding to two years that they Cite is to the mother not the child so this „pressure“ does not come into play here.

The truth of the matter is that it is impossible for anyone to follow all the recommendations about what ks best for one’s child (or us) to the letter so we are all picking and choosing based on circumstances.

It’s sad that you think women who make choices different from your own shouldn’t be supported in those choices. Basically supporting the status quo of women who want to bf longer being judged and discouraged.

No. We all deserve correct and unbiased information from our doctors, tailored to our own circumstances. The AAP’s recommendation is specifically to push extended BF using flimsy evidence. They could have just said “all women’s feeding choices should be respected, including extended BF.” But that’s not what they did, because they are making a value judgment that extended BF is *better.* And, they fail to even take on the reasons why pediatricians may not support extended BF, which, from what I’ve heard, has to do with the difficulty of weaning a toddler. What’s clear is that they are intending to correct the perception that BF after 1 is purely a personal choice, by asserting (based on poor evidence) that it is the better choice.

How many times do we need to tell you that they aren't pushing extended BF before you will actually understand? They AREN'T. And because they aren't recommending extended BF, but instead supporting it, there's no reason to pick apart studies showing health benefits to mothers.

[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:

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?

AAP should give the feeding wars a break and issue workplace recommendations on nap time for new mothers.

Like how they explicitly call for longer, paid, maternity leave as part of these recommendations?

So much public health advice seems rooted in women not even attempting to hold down a job.

[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:

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?

AAP should give the feeding wars a break and issue workplace recommendations on nap time for new mothers.

Like how they explicitly call for longer, paid, maternity leave as part of these recommendations?

Lots of women want to return to work. It would be more in line with supporting mothers (not “breastfeeding”) by saying: “you could continue to exclusively BF and pump when you return to work. There are significant costs involved and many women find it disruptive to their work. Think about how you want to prioritize your time and energy when they are scarce. Breastfeeding has modest benefits, including …. “

I cannot imagine a more pro-employer, anti-employee stance than this. You could TRY to Breastfeed but make sure you’re prioritizing the bottom line of your workplace over feeding your baby the way you see fit. We’d hate to be disruptive to the shareholders. Doubly so when you’re talking about the low income women least likely to breastfeed. Don’t let that inconvenient biological function of yours make you take a legally protected break at Wal*Mart. Think of the Walton’s, they’ll never make it through the winter!

How about “You have a legal right to express breastmilk for your child in the workplace! The AAP encourages local governments to aggressively pursue violators of the law who prevent women from doing so! Here are a list of employee advocacy organizations who can help you file a complaint with the NLRB if your rights are violated.” And then expand those rights to two years as the recommendation already states.

[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:

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?

AAP should give the feeding wars a break and issue workplace recommendations on nap time for new mothers.

Like how they explicitly call for longer, paid, maternity leave as part of these recommendations?

So much public health advice seems rooted in women not even attempting to hold down a job.

Buying formula should not be a requirement to a woman having a job and a child unless her desire is to feed formula. Professional women and wealthy women are given lactation lounges at work, mandatory breaks, and other supports to breastfeeding. Those should be widely available not replaced by another consumer product.