Both hospitals I delivered at had nurseries and I sent both kids each night we were there. With Jackson I was attempting BFing so they brought him every few hours which kind of sucked. With Scarlett I was like nope, so they kept her for like 6 hours (awesome).
I would say a nursery is probably one of my top five concerns in choosing a hospital. I'd be super annoyed if my only option was a baby friendly one. It sounds terrible and totally the wrong fit for me.
Post by laurenpetro on Oct 19, 2015 9:55:09 GMT -5
how does the medical community expect a woman to recover after childbirth (c/s or not) without allowing the body to rest? i'm not saying you have to be like i was and tell them to take the baby/babies from dusk 'till dawn but how is that not an option?
how does the medical community expect a woman to recover after childbirth (c/s or not) without allowing the body to rest? i'm not saying you have to be like i was and tell them to take the baby/babies from dusk 'till dawn but how is that not an option?
I was just wondering what will happen if breastfeeding rates fall in the US because of research and articles explaining how it's been oversold and over hyped. Especially without a decent federal maternity leave policy.
Will hospitals be willing to spend the money to bring them back and staff them 24/7?
Post by StrawberryBlondie on Oct 19, 2015 10:14:01 GMT -5
At the hospital where I had baby H I noticed a huge difference in attitudes toward breastfeeding, pacifiers, and the nursery between the older nurses who had either been there a long time and had kids of their own and the younger ones. The younger ones were all bonding! nipple confusion! breastfeeding! and the older ones were just kind of like "you do you."
Post by downtoearth on Oct 19, 2015 10:22:55 GMT -5
It's probably b/c I've had three kids (all breastfed for over a year, and I pumped everyday at work, so don't judge me), but I really don't care how people do babies. Yeah, I did when I was pregnant with my first, but even after having him (and I was a breastfeeding, no pacifier, room-in and co-sleep mom, baby wearer from day one), I didn't really care how others did their own baby thing. I still did what worked for me and I hope others would do what worked from them.
I think it's an age thing - sort of like how I knew everything about the world when I was 16-22, but started realizing I didn't know as much as I thought by like 23-28 and then realized I know so little from 30 on.
how does the medical community expect a woman to recover after childbirth (c/s or not) without allowing the body to rest? i'm not saying you have to be like i was and tell them to take the baby/babies from dusk 'till dawn but how is that not an option?
Suck it up! You're the one who wanted to have a kid! Personal responsibility!!!!!
how does the medical community expect a woman to recover after childbirth (c/s or not) without allowing the body to rest? i'm not saying you have to be like i was and tell them to take the baby/babies from dusk 'till dawn but how is that not an option?
My dad (an OB) was very fond of saying hospitals are not a place for rest. It was mostly tongue in cheek, but unfortunately very true, the resting happens when you are at home. Hospitals tend to be about wanting to make sure you are not going to die (bleed out, infection, etc), with very little thought given to the other less visible needs of recovery.
ETA: It's incredibly annoying and I couldn't agree more with you, in case that wasn't clear from the post!
how does the medical community expect a woman to recover after childbirth (c/s or not) without allowing the body to rest? i'm not saying you have to be like i was and tell them to take the baby/babies from dusk 'till dawn but how is that not an option?
I hated the hospital - granted I only had one kid, but I also did the stay awake, no drugs for 26 hours before having the baby and was so tired. My girlfriend had the same 24+ hour labor and she loved the hospital experience.
I just think there isn't a one-method fits all for everyone who is recovering from childbirth. Pretty much all the hospital can provide is resources and withhold judgment. I found it pretty daunting and scary to have to decide what was best for me and the kid (or kids in your case) right away. It's not clear-cut or easy.
Post by WanderingWinoZ on Oct 19, 2015 10:45:07 GMT -5
I gave birth at an all L&D hospital (TX children's) so all they did was births & babies all day long. They were designated baby friendly & I had to request a pacifier, but they gave DD one. I'd also brought my own too & was the first thing I packed this weekend into the bag for baby #2.
They encouraged rooming in, but also were happy to take the baby at night so I could sleep. I'd been up for over 50+ hours & desp. needed some rest before heading home. They brought her in once or twice to BF during the night & it was the best thing ever
The only pressure to BF came from me. The most unhelpful advice came from my single interaction with La Lache. I delivered at a "baby friendly" hospital and they were amazing both for beginning the BF process and kindly and practically (w/out pressure or any agenda) assisting when I was having trouble with BFing. If BFing is being oversold (which I highly question) not BFing seems to also be going trough a overselling moment too.
One of the biggest sources of support for me while I was BFing, including when I was have tremendous issues, was KellyMom. And they shared this in response to the NYT piece: *******
Promotion without Support: A Reply to Editorials that Attack Breastfeeding Advocacy with 2 comments
I would like to reply to Courtney Jung’s op-ed, and many other similar editorials that attack breastfeeding advocacy as bad for women. This argument posits a false dichotomy, supported by formula advertising, that the true battleground for breastfeeding exists between “lactivists” and mothers who choose to, or must, formula feed their infants. Rather, breastfeeding advocacy today focuses on the social conditions that prevent women around the world from being able to make choices that support their health and empowerment, and the futures of their babies.
It is unclear why discourse on the “minimal” or “moderate” effects of breastfeeding continues; it is likely related to influence from both personal experiences of writers and influence from formula marketing. I will not engage this discourse here, as it is clear from every medical expert panel in every country in the world that the benefits of breastfeeding for health of mother and baby, decreasing economic and health inequities, and supporting a healthy environment, are well established. As breastfeeding is the physiologic norm, high rates of infant formula feeding negatively impacts all of these factors. Also, if what we are discussing is an over-emphasis on the social critique of women’s work, this is beside the point.
I am therefore saddened that media discourse on breastfeeding continues to undermine women by putting forth articles supporting the notion that a battleground exists between mothers. This classic patriarchal technique, of pitting women against each other, keeps the focus away from the systematic factors that undermine women around the world, including unequal access to paid maternity leave, evidence-based birthing practices, postpartum lactation support, breast milk banking, employer support of breastfeeding, and misleading advertising from infant formula companies. It is also the result of insufficient funding for public health infrastructures that therefore focus on breastfeeding promotion, without addressing breastfeeding support.
I urge us to notice that breastfeeding advocacy has moved on. The conflation of negative social experiences of mothers and breastfeeding advocacy is overstated. Advocacy has moved the dialogue, and we are saving our justified anger for the development of much-needed policies, medical practices and community movements that support women to have the real possibility of making choices that support the health and well-being of their families. The social and media conversation needs to move on as well. Editorials like Jung’s in the ‘Times’ only serve to continue the false conflation of advocacy and social blaming, and the false battleground between mothers.
Casey Rosen-Carole, MD, MPH is an Academic General Pediatrics Fellow and Breastfeeding Medicine Fellow at the University of Rochester Medical Center
What they need to do is to put Rock n plays in each hospital room!
Seriously. What is it, $50? Considering how much a standard birth and stay costs, that's like peanuts in the grand scheme. Every new parent could take it with them. How about a couple of Velcro swaddles while they're at it.
yes the cost about $50 I think
though of course, the health insurance company will be billed $300 ...
"It is unclear why discourse on the “minimal” or “moderate” effects of breastfeeding continues"
I think it's because people like me really want to know what and how big the benefit really is. When I had my first baby over 7 years ago, the idea that it was really advantageous for the baby was still prevalent and many people had a, "well why *wouldn't* you want to try it if it does so much" kind of attitude. This was back when people still believed it led to things like lower obesity rates and higher IQ scores, etc. and there were all kinds of memes and graphics shared on Facebook and these message boards and the like. I did try it and it really wasn't for me. The sleep deprivation related to being my child's sole source of food made me feel extremely depressed and physically unwell. But I felt guilty for wanting to stop because of all the supposed benefits that I'd be giving up on for my son.
If the benefits of breastfeeding had never been overhyped to begin with, I would have had a much easier time stopping and I wouldn't have bothered trying it again with my younger children.
eta: I think it's really disingenuous to ignore the fact that this is a huge source of emotion, guilt, and internal pressure for women. Breastfeeding is not easy for everyone and when it doesn't come naturally, many women feel like they need to move heaven and earth to make it happen or their children will be missing out on important health benefits. Wouldn't it be nice for us to know exactly what those benefits are and if they are really worth the effort?
Post by Velar Fricative on Oct 19, 2015 11:45:34 GMT -5
I do appreciate what breastfeeding advocates have done over the years to normalize breastfeeding as much as possible. I feel like I wouldn't have been able to pump at work with no effect on my work and reputation without such advocacy, nor would I have had the information and support readily available to me to breastfeed DD for 8.5 months. My one worry with pitting one method of feeding against the other (in either direction) is that if we continue to talk on and on and on about how the benefits of BFing are negligible, working mothers who pump might get some pushback because, "Hey, formula is the same, why do you need to take time out of work to pump???" or "Why do you need to take your boob out in public to feed your baby?" Of course, if that's what the science says, fine, which means this discussion will continue forever and ever (not to mention that FF moms have heard judgy comments themselves too), but this is why I just want both ways of feeding a baby to be acceptable and a choice for women that don't have negative consequences for them either way, in any capacity.
Post by WanderingWinoZ on Oct 19, 2015 11:46:28 GMT -5
Much like the abortion debate, it comes back to the fact that women need to have choices- choices that are fully informed & not swayed by pressure or emotion. They need facts & to be allowed to have the freedom to make whatever decision is best for their family, the baby, and the mom physically, emotionally, and psychologically without guilt or shame either way.
Even the the NYT editorial oversells the idea that BFing has no benefits. She cherry picks info that actually shows a benefit (BFing doesn't actually help with cavities (Nevermind it helps with cognitive development)) and says at best some studies are inconclusive. Using terms like "sobering data" or "overselling" are subjective words not based on anything and seem very over reactive, an ironic twist given her argument. Burried in her entire essay is actually a defense of BFing if you take our her buzzwords and bias.
Post by somersault72 on Oct 19, 2015 12:08:49 GMT -5
I got more "wtf, you're breastfeeding?" comments than anything (typical midwest--late to the party, LOL). I really, really wanted to bf and thankfully I was able to, but I can't say I care what others do. If someone asks for bf advice, I'll certainly chime in, but otherwise whatever. When I was pregnant, I was all about the "baby kind" hospital, but once I had my DS I was kind of over it. That kid kept me (and my then DH) up all night that first night and I was ready to climb the walls. I will be delivering at a different hospital next time and I'm pretty relieved I'll be able to hand my kid off to the nursery and give him or her a pacifier if I want to.
"I had my doubts breastfeeding would protect my children from everything from Crohn's disease to cancer..."
Strawman. No one has ever argued that breastfeeding will give your kids 100% immunity from cancer or Crohn's disease for the period of BFing or for the rest of your life.
"You should BF so your kid will never ever get cancer" said no one.
I know some people here are from the Carolinas--has anyone heard about Chapel Hill and Carborro becoming breastfeeding friendly cities? I think the program is terribly formula shame-y.
It sounds like a good program until you realize that it discourages any advertisements/sales of formula, wants formula placed on non-preferential shelves, and provide literature where formula is sold showing the benefits of breastfeeding. It also says that pregnant women need to be warned about the risks of unnecessary formula feeding. It's so offensive, IMO: www.townofchapelhill.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=28918
I'm not a fan of the Baby Friendly Hospital initiative either. I had my third baby at one and it seemed like a lot of their policies just make things harder for moms who are recovering from childbirth.
Do not get me started on the term "Baby Friendly." It gives me so much rage.
I have spent over 7 years of my adult life BFing and will soon be doing it again. I do it because it's easier for me and I am super lazy - no warming bottles in the midfle of the night, makes washing diapers easier and is free. But I recognize that my experience is different than othet women. First, I actually enjoy doing it. Plus I have an overabundant supply, don't have to work outside the home, and have had very eager nursers. If I were a working mom who had to mostly pump, or had to get a baby used to a bottle, or couldn't cosleep snd wake on demand all night due to my job, I'm not sure I would enjoy it as much or even want to do it at all.
With that said, I understand why WIC is the way it is. If every mom is alloted the same amount, and one chooses to BF for free, she should be able to use her allotted money on other necessities.
So, you've just not read the other posts about the many women who tried their ass off and couldn't?
Seriously? Did you not read the first paragraph of this post you quoted? I mean, it's aw, so I get y'all want to snipe at her, but stop cherry picking.
"I will not engage this discourse here, as it is clear from every medical expert panel in every country in the world that the benefits of breastfeeding for health of mother and baby, decreasing economic and health inequities, and supporting a healthy environment, are well established. As breastfeeding is the physiologic norm, high rates of infant formula feeding negatively impacts all of these factors."
And THEN they go on to accuse the NYT article of "pitting women against one another"? It seems disingenuous, AT BEST, for them to accuse anyone else of perpetuating a rift between breastfeeding and formula-feeding when they respond in that manner.
Respectfully, respond in what manner? To me, this NYT piece is exactly the kind of bullshit that perpetuates mommy wars, for all of the reasons heyjude stated.
I have spent over 7 years of my adult life BFing and will soon be doing it again. I do it because it's easier for me and I am super lazy - no warming bottles in the midfle of the night, makes washing diapers easier and is free. But I recognize that my experience is different than othet women. First, I actually enjoy doing it. Plus I have an overabundant supply, don't have to work outside the home, and have had very eager nursers. If I were a working mom who had to mostly pump, or had to get a baby used to a bottle, or couldn't cosleep snd wake on demand all night due to my job, I'm not sure I would enjoy it as much or even want to do it at all.
With that said, I understand why WIC is the way it is. If every mom is alloted the same amount, and one chooses to BF for free, she should be able to use her allotted money on other necessities.
So, you've just not read the other posts about the many women who tried their ass off and couldn't?
Not to mention that some women "choose" not to because of a history of sex abuse. Or perhaps they're choosing not to because they have to return to work at 4 week PP and need all the recovery time possible. Or a myriad of other reasons, all of which are valid.
"I had my doubts breastfeeding would protect my children from everything from Crohn's disease to cancer..."
Strawman. No one has ever argued that breastfeeding will give your kids 100% immunity from cancer or Crohn's disease for the period of BFing or for the rest of your life.
"You should BF so your kid will never ever get cancer" said no one.
I don't think the remark is so off-base. The author of the Kellymom response once wrote an article in which she said the following:
"It is well proven that formula marketing decreases breastfeeding rates and that lower breastfeeding rates mean more disease and death from causes as varied as breast cancer to SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome)."
Even the the NYT editorial oversells the idea that BFing has no benefits. She cherry picks info that actually shows a benefit (BFing doesn't actually help with cavities (Nevermind it helps with cognitive development)) and says at best some studies are inconclusive. Using terms like "sobering data" or "overselling" are subjective words not based on anything and seem very over reactive, an ironic twist given her argument. Burried in her entire essay is actually a defense of BFing if you take our her buzzwords and bias.
The study:
"Dr. Kramer’s research does not compare breast-feeding with non-breast-feeding,"
Even the the NYT editorial oversells the idea that BFing has no benefits. She cherry picks info that actually shows a benefit (BFing doesn't actually help with cavities (Nevermind it helps with cognitive development)) and says at best some studies are inconclusive. Using terms like "sobering data" or "overselling" are subjective words not based on anything and seem very over reactive, an ironic twist given her argument. Burried in her entire essay is actually a defense of BFing if you take our her buzzwords and bias.
The study:
"Dr. Kramer’s research does not compare breast-feeding with non-breast-feeding,"
how does the medical community expect a woman to recover after childbirth (c/s or not) without allowing the body to rest? i'm not saying you have to be like i was and tell them to take the baby/babies from dusk 'till dawn but how is that not an option?
Medical-grade bootstraps.
Yep.
I hate the "Baby-Friendly" thing because it again tells women, "You know what? You don't need anything. Your job is to kill yourself making sure you give what little you have away. You just had a major medical event, and possibly major abdominal surgery? You don't need any help, you don't need any support, you don't need any healing. What you need to do is get to fucking work establishing breastfeeding." It once again ignores the fact that Mom is a patient too.
I was lucky that my hospital, while "baby-friendly," had a realistic approach to it. They were trained and helpful in breastfeeding and had LC's on staff. But they still sent me home with some "just in case" formula because she had lost a lot of weight. They had a night nursery. They did wake me to ask about a paci (which ticked my tired ass off at the time) but they gave her one. I hope their approach doesn't change, because I think it really was the best of both worlds.
Seriously? Did you not read the first paragraph of this post you quoted? I mean, it's aw, so I get y'all want to snipe at her, but stop cherry picking.
She says she respects that her experience is different, then says its choice. Well which one is it?
I may be cherry picking. But she's trying to vacillate here. Her experience is different from many other women, yet she is still inferring that wic recipients who ff are making a choice as opposed to operating under a requirement.
Another point on which the NYT author is wrong: WIC is not incentivizing breastfeeding. Breastfeeding women get more food because they have a higher caloric need. So it doesn't matter if it's the mother's choice or not.
I remember when I went to my post partum checkup at 1 year PP and I told the midwife that I was planning to wean my son in a month or two. She said I should not wean him, and should breast feed him for 2 or more years if possible to reap the benefits of breast cancer prevention ("you aren't trying to get pregnant or anything right?" umm yeah because why else would one want to stop breastfeeding if not for reproductive reasons?!sigh)
how big is the increase in protection against breast cancer? How much does each extra month buy me in terms of potential years of life later? nobody provided me this information. Just a vague "it reduces your chance of breast cancer". If I knew that I had a 5% chance of getting breast cancer in general, will breast feeding bring it to 4.99 % or to 1% ?? what's the ACTUAL AMOUNT.