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][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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. [b]But in reality they don’t want you falling asleep holding the baby.[/b]

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.

[/quote]

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[/quote]

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.
[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

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? [/quote]

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.[/quote]

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. [/quote]

They’re not saying to nurse if you don’t want to either— they’re saying [b]if you and your infant want to nurse[/b] 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. [/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