"Best" for family
Find a Conversation
| Fri, 05-11-2007 - 3:06pm |
I'm confused by the concept of "best for the family" and how it differs from "best for baby". It's been thrown about her alot. Mom acknowledges that breastfeeding is best for baby but formula feeds because she's taking account the whole family and thus bottle feeds.
My question is - if there is a breastfeeding solution to what's not working for the family - is bottlefeeding REALLY best for the family? If mom needs a break once in a while, why can't mom take a break once in a while - and continue to breastfeed? Baby is not going to starve over a couple of hours, an occasional pumped bottle is an option, even an occasional bottle of formula is an option. Switching to formula is a fullt time solution - is mom taking a full time break? Or the daddy bonding thing. Is it REALLY BEST for daddy to "share the feeding" for find a daddy-only activity (like playing with raspberries, or baths, or rocking).
I think what is really meant by "best for family" is, it works for the family. But does "what works" mean BEST?
I love analogies and I was thinking about this on the way home at lunch. I'm really busy lately and to stop at the grocery store on my way home from work means I'm about 20 minutes late picking up my kids. And then I usually send them out to play when I make dinner which could be another 45 minutes before we sit down to supper together. I COULD go through the fast food drive through on my way home, and have an extra hour with my kids, which certainly has many benefits. I could do it and it could work. AND, my kids are not obese, are not otherwise at risk for obesity (they play outside and are active in sports, they eat breakfast, ahve a healthy snack and a decent lunch). It could work for my family! But is it best for my family? No - I think it would be BEST for me to buy in bulk and freeze what I can and prepare supper for the crockpot the night before after the kids go to bed. I can have a better meal AND have that same hour. That could work too! Or, I could pick the kids up first, do our grocery shopping together (getting them to choose healthy items they like), and prepare the meal together. Even better - and it still works!
I think very rarely is formula for baby, "best" for the family. It's an additional financial burden, any risks that might come to fruition will be an aggrevation for the family (statistically more missed work days for parents, colic and constipation are not fun, etc), it's an environmental burden. It might be the quick and easy option, it may work - but it's rarely the ONLY option and while there is another relatively easy option that ALSO meets what's best for baby - THAT is what's best for family.
Note in my analogy above, the "best for family" option does require some change, sacrifice and patience over and above what is easy and works. Note that I also acknowledged in another thread that there are "good" reasons to not breastfeed. There are SOME exceptions to this, of course - is it best for family for mom to lose her job? Or for mom's very health to be jepordized?
I don't think there's a general expectation that mothers always make the BEST choices available for every decision (nobody is perfect), so why don't we acknowledge the difference between works and "best"? In a debate, of course, it IS what the expectation is - when you are debating the choices between two things, isn't that what it's about? But IRL, mom isn't REALLY expected to always do what's always best all the time.

Pages
"I do not want to see BF promoted to the expense of those who don't or can't.
"
OK, I'll agree with can't. But I don't understand what you are saying with "don't". You don't want to see "BF promoted to the expense of those who don't ". That doens't make sense. You are saying basically you don't want to see breastfeeding promoted AT ALL then, because either they do or don't or can't. No sense promotion to those who do.
"When we went to visit them months later they seriously treated me like crap for using formula."
That's on THEM, not breastfeeding promotion. It's their own ignorance, and insensitivities. breastfeeding promotion is not about makig those who can't feel bad. Or even those who don't. It's about education and raising awareness and changing society's perspective.
"Sure, maybe if I had tried hard enough I could have re-established a supply, but I was spent. I no longer had the will, the desire, or the strength to continue. Timing is pretty crucial in establishing a successful BF relationship and I simply had none."
You know, I don't think you'll find a single soul here would would fault you for your efforts. Often those who try but can't, put in the greatest effort of all.
Cathie
"What danger EXACTLY are you afraid of?"
Stigma is very powerful and very damaging.
"Society's judgement has to be tempered with common sense."
Agreed. But historically it has not always been.
"And those same messages were quite harmful to me. New mothers are pretty vulnerable emotionally. Well I was anyway. Had you been unsuccessful at BF perhaps you'd have felt differently."
But I wasn't going to be "unsuccessful at breastfeeding". I WAS going to nurse my babies just like women have done for thousands of years, regardless of what issues arose. Besides, FF was too new for me, and far too risky.
Just like the mother determined to FF her child - she would HAVE to solve any problems that would arise because it would be too late to establish a breastfeeding relationship at that point. I would HAVE to solve any problems that arose with breastfeeding because that was my choice.
<>
I completely disagree. Our society is so formula-centered that myths and untruths in regards to breastfeeding are rampant...to the detriment of moms and babies everywhere. I am grateful that someone pointed out to me that formula feeding has risks. Otherwise, I would have weaned my DD at 3 months. I only heard about the "benefits" of breastfeeding. We need to stop pretending that formula feeding is natural and that breastfeeding is something reserved for martyrs and supermommies. If you perceive the advocacy of breastfeeding as "judgement," that's your perogative. But as someone has already pointed out, the only one judging you on this board is you.
<>
BINGO - exactly. And that's why this board isn't about persecuting individuals or trying to legislate that formula feeding never happens. It's about discussing what are appropriate reasons, and sharing that with enough preparation and support, women can often work through it the rough patches.
Over at the abortion debate board, no one is trying to insist that we should admire women who abort after refusing to take any precautions. That would be like us admiring women who choose to formula feed without even trying to breastfeed.
You will notice that even the women that rabidly support women's right to choose are passionately committed to reducing the rate at which that choice must be made. That's the perfect analogy. Thank you for bringing it up. By promoting greater awareness of the normal lumps and bumps of initiating breastfeeding and sharing wisdom of how we all got through it, we are supporting women in their effort to avoid having to make that choice to drop back to formula feeding.
"To be honest, I don't really see why not. There is no physical difference between a child who's mother is physically unable to BF and a child who's mother chooses not to for other reasons."
Except the physical differences in the child who's mother is physically unable to BF are the best they can possible get and the physical differences in the child who's mother chooses not to for other reasons is less than the best they can get.
There's no physical difference between a child who has his arm amputated for gangrene and a child who who has his arm amputated for the fun of it. But one was necessary for life and the other was just unnecessary. No, I'm not comparing formula to amputation, but using that example because it is so OBVIOUS. Use the same logic with the decision to formula feed.
"To me it's kind of like someone saying that an abortion for one reason is ok, but for a different reason it's not. Or that a divorce for one reason is ok, but for another reason it's not. To me they are both just far too personal of a decision for anyone to be in a position to judge from the outside. "
Those are all debatable and I had to say I disagree with you on all of them. A divorce because of alcolism or abuse is WAAYYY different than divorce because you are bored. Either way the effect on the child is SO GREAT, the benefit of the divorce would have to be just as great or more for it to be OK.
"I doubt if people would always agree when and if it actually is necessary. What constitutes necessity to me may not to you."
And what you consider to be "necessary" may be influenced by society's views. It's society's views that are being targeted here.
Cathie
"OK, I'll agree with can't. But I don't understand what you are saying with "don't". You don't want to see "BF promoted to the expense of those who don't ". That doens't make sense. You are saying basically you don't want to see breastfeeding promoted AT ALL then, because either they do or don't or can't. No sense promotion to those who do."
Ok, maybe I can explain this better. I think if someone has the education about BF, and is not making the choice out of ignorance or fear or other reasons like that, but still decides that BF is not working for them, then they do not deserve to be judged for it. Address the misinformation. Clear up the myths. Assuage the fears. But accept that everyone is going to have their own unique experiences and what works for one may not work for another.
"breastfeeding promotion is not about makig those who can't feel bad. Or even those who don't. It's about education and raising awareness and changing society's perspective."
Well, the point is that they didn't KNOW I couldn't. They thought I was just making an ignorant choice. I might talk freely about personal medical issues here (where it's related anyway), but I do not broadcast them in my life and I should not have to.
But I don't disagree with what you are saying. I DO think it was their problem, not mine, and I think that the danger with any issue like this is that some people will take it too far and treat others badly because of it. I'm not saying "don't promote BF" I'm saying that caution must be used. People need to recognize that what seems apparent to them from the outside is not the whole story, and at the very least should not make mean spirited digs at someone for using formula.
"You will notice that even the women that rabidly support women's right to choose are passionately committed to reducing the rate at which that choice must be made. "
Very well put. I always put it this way: Abortion is never the 'best' choice, only, occassionally, it is the 'least worst' choice. I think that applies to ffing as well. It's never the 'best' choice, only, occassionally, it is the 'least worst' choice. Kind of a 'when all else fails', last resort type of thing. This would certainly encompass those who are unABLE as well as those who couldn't make it work within their lifestyle - no one would ever suggest that a mother let her baby starve rather than use formula. I have also pointed out elsewhere in this thread that formula *is* a reduction of risk over some of the alternatives. It is *not* an irresponsible form of infant nutrition. RiskiER than bfing? Yes. But it certainly isn't the riskiEST form of infant nutrition. As someone else mentioned, as parents we are expected to *reduce* risks (we are NOT expected to do the 'least riskiest thing)....formula use accomplishes this, when breastmilk is not available.
"But I wasn't going to be "unsuccessful at breastfeeding". I WAS going to nurse my babies just like women have done for thousands of years, regardless of what issues arose."
I could have said the exact same thing and I'd have been wrong.
Pages