Reply to I hate the AAP

Forum Index » Infants, Toddlers, & Preschoolers

Reply to "I hate the AAP"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]"Anti-breastfeeding poster" here (I'm not against breastfeeding, I EBFed for 6 months and kept it up until 14 months). Here's a quote from the NYTimes about the new guidelines. The AAP has messed up before (we know this because they have previously retracted guidance that severely harmed some children) and they have messed up again. It is not uncommon for subject matter experts to know a lot about their subject but very little about how to interpret data, and there is no doubt in my mind that this is a BIG issue at the AAP.

"The new guidelines suggest that in the first week after birth, “pediatricians should discourage the use of nonmedically indicated supplementation with commercial infant formula.” The 2012 A.A.P. statement was more subtle, advising that pediatricians encourage “support of practices that avoid nonmedically indicated supplementation with commercial infant formula.”

The difference may seem like a minor point — supporting breastfeeding practices versus discouraging formula use — but it matters. “[b]Nonmedically indicated” is subjective, [/b]and the updated admonition concerns me. There are reports, such as this one from The Atlantic and this one from CNN, about mothers who’ve been pressured by lactation consultants, nurses or pediatricians to reject formula in the early days of their children’s lives, and as a result their babies lost a dangerous amount of weight and, in rare circumstances, became gravely ill."

These New Breastfeeding Guidelines Ignore the Reality of Many American Moms https://nyti.ms/3am1C5s[/quote]

That is untrue. There are highly publicized guidelines for what percentage of dropped birthweight indicates supplementation with formula in the days and weeks after birth. [/quote]

Yet there are babies who have been denied formula despite needing it. Is it really necessary to double down against formula, as these guidelines clearly do, despite the outright lies from previous posters on this thread?[/quote]

There are also babies who have been denied breast milk, and had the nursing relationship undermined, despite it being a viable option, because those same nurses and pediatricians don’t tell them their baby is within normal range for breastfed. Practitioners not following the best practices doesn’t mean those best practices don’t exist.[/quote]

baby starver![/quote]

Oh gosh you again? My baby is fine. She never had formula. She got syringe-fed my hand expressed milk because a nurse berated me to tears about how small she was and how fast she was losing weight. The next morning the pediatrician said she was completely fine, wholly within normal, and corrected the nurse. So I spent the night after I delivered a baby hand expressing the worlds most pathetic drops of colostrum because someone didn’t follow or “believe in” the published guidelines. That is a problem with a [b]person[/b] not with the [b]guidelines[/b].  It would have been [b]equally problematic[/b] if she had needed formula and not been offered it.

Given how much some families have struggled this year to find formula for their babies, undermining women who *want* to breastfeed and *can* breastfeed is even more disrespectful of womens time, unless you feel like driving 3-5 hours to secure formula is somehow compensated?[/quote]

You are off your rocker if you believe it is just as bad for you to have to hand express colostrum as it is to deny a starving baby formula. This is the problem with you sickos.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics