"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
<<>>
How was she "incapicitated" by her breasts?
"should get a free pass while someone with very compelling non-physical reasons should feel obligated to continue regardless of the consequences to her family"
You know, I don't think anyone here has negated anyone's compelling non-physical reasons or physical either to that matter. For the most part, I don't think anyone has really provided an extensive and immovable list of "good" or "bad".
Although I have asked the question, "what does desire" have to do with it, I don't THINK I have categorized "lack of desire" in the good or bad list. I will though - My personal opinion is that that is one of the poorer reasons once can give. Although many of us have discussed options for making breastfeeding work at work, nobody here has suggested anyone get fired or starve so they can breastfeed. I don't recall anyone taking a hard line with regard to specific reasons. It's all for discussion.
I don't think though anyone should get a free pass either way.
Cathie
"What would have preferred to hear? What "messages" would have less harmful, in your opinion?"
I did NOT need to hear that I was harming my baby by giving her formula.
"Even if they have "edged toward" it, have they actually "condemned" anyone?"
Not that I have read in recent history, not that I recall anyway. In the past, certainly. The overall tone here feels very judgemental to me though. I can't quantify it. It's pretty subjective. It's not so much what is said, it's how it's said.
"If what you read on debate boards upsets you so much, why are you visiting them?"
I didn't say it upset me, I said that I felt it was WRONG and potentially damaging. I am allowed to have that opinion aren't I?
"This describes me perfectly. I want to have this surgery myself, but I am not going to do it until I am sure there will be nobody else who needs to BF. Maybe it's foolish, since I do have back pain and poor posture now, but I am willing to wait a few more years. But that's my choice, and I don't judge anyone else for the way they handle the problem."
If you are not completely disabled by it then you HAVE a choice. I didn't. And saying what you said is a far cry from saying that it's "mutilation."
<<<"What would have preferred to hear? What "messages" would have less harmful, in your opinion?"
I did NOT need to hear that I was harming my baby by giving her formula.>>>
You didn't "need to hear that", even if the potential for harm actually existed? Why wouldn't you want to know exactly what the risks of FF were? I feel for you not having been able to successfully BF your daughter, and I'm sorry it still makes you feel bad. However, your inability to BF does not negate the risks associated with FF, nor does it make the potential for harm any less real. *Whatever* the reason for not BF, whether it's by choice or not, the risks of FF remain.
A nice coincidence, in the spirit of healing:
Mothering magazine has a newly released article about how important it is to educate without alienating or condemning. It's more touchy-feely story-telling than giving actual guidelines, but it's a nice read.
http://srv.ezinedirector.net/?n=1741329&s=59147804
It's nice to validate that mothers do their best, every time, with what they have and know and it's important to give them pleasant encouragement to grow, not condemnation. But we do need to carry on with the education.
"Really? You've never been the recipient of bad information IRT breastfeeding?"
Aside from being told by a nurse in the maternity ward that breast reduction surgery would have no effect on my ability to BF? (of course I knew she was wrong, but I needed support and help and that was what I got) No.
<<>>
Sure, you can have any opinion you want. That doesn't change the fact that this debate board exists to compare and discuss the implications of each feeding type. You may disagree with some of it. That's your right as well. I'm puzzled as to what you mean by "wrong and potentially damaging". Wrong in what way? The information being presented here about BF is fact-based and research-driven. And who is "potentially damaged" by being told that there are risks to not BF your baby? I think the info is very good to have. If you're concerned that someone is making her feeding choices based on what she reads here, than maybe the board is doing its job.
Pages