[waterhog]

£200 for breasts - but can you put a price on the scorpion ? 12.11.13

breaking news is my test,
how will i deliver,
its not going via 1 of my man breast,
no need to shiver.
the government are wrong,
i am going against the silk,
the natural flow is most strong,
common sense must ensure delivery of milk.
trying to bribe is like "rude-tube",
you are handicapping whats expected,
this is not like"page 3" and the "boob",
i hope the "criminal" in this is detected.
what will be next,
will obese people be paid to starve,
i am getting vex,
insanity is starting to carve.
we have no money,
times are of "austerity",
its not going down as sweet as honey,
this story really is forbidden territory.
lets join forces and become a tribe,
contact the "government" and complain,
tell them " wont wash will your bribe",
and like "David Dimbleby" and his "scorpion", this is pain.

( 2 things i am trying to highlight with this and they are 1. i think it is wrong for the government to offer £200 to get mums to breast feed. and the second thing is to high light what David D has had done. sorry i always forget to put a link. here we go. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24900650 )

[arista]

Link?

[Cherie]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24900650

Disgrace, paying women to 120.00 to breastfeed for 6 weeks or 200 for six months. This should be up to the Mother, not bribed into doing it and made to feel bad if you can't.

[Vicky.]

I think anything that will encourage more mums to breastfeed is good. I would have done it had I been able to, I really tried for the fist 3 months or so but it wasnt happening..and its quite upsetting seeing the news and such make out hat mothers just dont do it coz they cant be bothered or other silly reasons like that, but I understand why they have to do that :S

[Vicky.]

On that note I have to say I find the 'lazy mums bottlefeed' argument to be absolutely ridiculous. Its much harder to bottlefeed..getting up at 4am to faff on making a bottle rather than just whipping your tits out and lying in bed with your baby

[Kizzy]

Maybe they were classed as lazy as they can pass the baby to others to feed instead of always having to be there?
I fed mine for around 4 months as it was said then that baby got all they needed by 3 months and I began to wean them at 4 as was the advice at the time too.
6 months seems to be the magic number now not sure why, if you have trouble expressing as I did it would be hard to be there or return to work if you stuck to that timescale.
Not sure how they will check that these babies are being breastfed for the £200?....

[arista]

Originally Posted by Kizzy

Maybe they were classed as lazy as they can pass the baby to others to feed instead of always having to be there?
I fed mine for around 4 months as it was said then that baby got all they needed by 3 months and I began to wean them at 4 as was the advice at the time too.
6 months seems to be the magic number now not sure why, if you have trouble expressing as I did it would be hard to be there or return to work if you stuck to that timescale.
Not sure how they will check that these babies are being breastfed for the £200?....

[Cherie]

Exactly how are they going to check, is the woman going to have to express milk in front of the health visitor to prove it, just ridiculous. I didn't breast feed either of mine, in total they have seen the GP 5 times (excluding immunisation), in 16 years. I have no shame about it, my choice.

And 6 months before moving onto solids when it used to be 4 months seems very late to me, babies are born much bigger these days (or at least that is now it seems) and seem to be hungry sooner.

[Cherie]

oh just heard the payment is going to rely on "honesty"

[user104658]

It's stupid and totally pointless - the reason most women don't breastfeed is because it's a "lost art" - their mothers didn't breastfeed, they don't see a lot of breastfeeding, most in society don't breastfeed, and breastfeeding support is therefore almost non-existant. It used to be much easier for women to breastfeed because they had mothers, aunts, sisters, and friends who all breastfed and who could give them advice on how to get it properly established.

Offering a financial incentive isn't going to change any of that - even people who do decide to do it "for the bribe" (which is ridiculous in the first place) will still probably struggle with it, because the support isn't there. 84% attempt breastfeeding at birth. 24% are breastfeeding at 6 weeks, 17% at 3 months, and 12% at 4 months. That says it all really.

I also reinforces the "6 months" myth. Most people seem to think that 6 months is when you're "supposed" to stop?? The medical advice is to breast feed for **AT LEAST** 6 months, with the ideal being up to two years.


Anyway... the statistics show that more than 80% of new mothers do want to try breastfeeding. They don't need a bribe. The reason that the actual percentage of breastfeeding mothers is woefully low is because most fail to get breastfeeding established - partly due to myths and misconceptions (e.g. that it shouldn't hurt at first, or that there's a certain number of oz. of milk that you need to be sure baby is getting), partly due to poor feeding technique because they had no help.

So, that money would be MUCH, MUCH better spent on employing skilled, full-time breast feeding support staff for hospitals and on support groups in the community. Oh, and on tackling the consumer grip that the formula companies have and their inclination to hinder and discourage breastfeeding.


My partner breastfed our first for 14 months and is still breastfeeding our second at nearly 16 months - if she hadn't had the support of a good online community, this might never have happened. The advice and suggestions from midwives / the NHS was straight up incorrect - for example, establishing breastfeeding can be painful for a few days or even weeks. The NHS line is basically "if it hurts, you're doing it wrong". My partner experienced some pain and, luckily, was on a forum with many experienced breastfeeders who told her that it was totally normal and would stop soon. If she hadn't had that - and had gone with the NHS advice of "painful = wrong", she might well have stopped believing there was a problem.

Another example; a friend of ours recently tried breastfeeding her 2nd baby (first was formula fed) but gave up after 3 weeks believing it was impossible / wasn't working for them... except, the baby refused a bottle. It just wouldn't take one at all, and they were getting worried... so, she tried breastfeeding again and stuck to it, and within a week the baby was feeding like a pro. If he had happily taken to a bottle, she would have gone on believing that it "would never work".

The statistics are that 97%+ of mothers CAN successfully breastfeed. We wouldn't have made it this far as a species if that wasn't the case. All other mammals breastfeed. Humans are not somehow "defective". And yet breastfeeding rates beyond 6 months are at under 5%... it's appalling.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

And 6 months before moving onto solids when it used to be 4 months seems very late to me, babies are born much bigger these days (or at least that is now it seems) and seem to be hungry sooner.

The gut only fully matures somewhere between 4.5 and 6 months (so some ARE ready earlier than others, 6 months is playing it safe, as it's when it's safe for nearly all babies). Introducing solids before the gut is fully matured increases the risk of food allergies and IBS in later life.

It all links in with breastfeeding, really... many formula fed babies are hungry at 4 months, because formula is not as nutritionally complete as breast milk. Most breastfed babies start showing interest in food at around 5 months or just after... it's safe to start introducing little things then IF they are showing genuine interest - i.e. they reach for food and try to put it in their mouth. Babies have a lot of instinct, and the physical act of trying to eat is as good an indicator as any that they're ready to eat.

The problem comes when parents actively spoon-feed a baby who ISN'T showing an active interest in food, taking grumbling / crying as the indication of hunger. Some start at 3 months or under. Frankly, they're more or less guaranteeing low-level gut damage at that age.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

It's stupid and totally pointless - the reason most women don't breastfeed is because it's a "lost art" - their mothers didn't breastfeed, they don't see a lot of breastfeeding, most in society don't breastfeed, and breastfeeding support is therefore almost non-existant. It used to be much easier for women to breastfeed because they had mothers, aunts, sisters, and friends who all breastfed and who could give them advice on how to get it properly established.

Offering a financial incentive isn't going to change any of that - even people who do decide to do it "for the bribe" (which is ridiculous in the first place) will still probably struggle with it, because the support isn't there. 84% attempt breastfeeding at birth. 24% are breastfeeding at 6 weeks, 17% at 3 months, and 12% at 4 months. That says it all really.

I also reinforces the "6 months" myth. Most people seem to think that 6 months is when you're "supposed" to stop?? The medical advice is to breast feed for **AT LEAST** 6 months, with the ideal being up to two years.


Anyway... the statistics show that more than 80% of new mothers do want to try breastfeeding. They don't need a bribe. The reason that the actual percentage of breastfeeding mothers is woefully low is because most fail to get breastfeeding established - partly due to myths and misconceptions (e.g. that it shouldn't hurt at first, or that there's a certain number of oz. of milk that you need to be sure baby is getting), partly due to poor feeding technique because they had no help.

So, that money would be MUCH, MUCH better spent on employing skilled, full-time breast feeding support staff for hospitals and on support groups in the community. Oh, and on tackling the consumer grip that the formula companies have and their inclination to hinder and discourage breastfeeding.


My partner breastfed our first for 14 months and is still breastfeeding our second at nearly 16 months - if she hadn't had the support of a good online community, this might never have happened. The advice and suggestions from midwives / the NHS was straight up incorrect - for example, establishing breastfeeding can be painful for a few days or even weeks. The NHS line is basically "if it hurts, you're doing it wrong". My partner experienced some pain and, luckily, was on a forum with many experienced breastfeeders who told her that it was totally normal and would stop soon. If she hadn't had that - and had gone with the NHS advice of "painful = wrong", she might well have stopped believing there was a problem.

Another example; a friend of ours recently tried breastfeeding her 2nd baby (first was formula fed) but gave up after 3 weeks believing it was impossible / wasn't working for them... except, the baby refused a bottle. It just wouldn't take one at all, and they were getting worried... so, she tried breastfeeding again and stuck to it, and within a week the baby was feeding like a pro. If he had happily taken to a bottle, she would have gone on believing that it "would never work".

The statistics are that 97%+ of mothers CAN successfully breastfeed. We wouldn't have made it this far as a species if that wasn't the case. All other mammals breastfeed. Humans are not somehow "defective". And yet breastfeeding rates beyond 6 months are at under 5%... it's appalling.

what is appalling about it? most women have returned to work 6 months after childbirth so breastfeeding after 6 months would be totally impractical.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

On that note I have to say I find the 'lazy mums bottlefeed' argument to be absolutely ridiculous. Its much harder to bottlefeed..getting up at 4am to faff on making a bottle rather than just whipping your tits out and lying in bed with your baby

I don't think this is driven home hard enough in maternity units; it's short term pain vs long term gain! Establishing breastfeeding is a lot of hard work, but once it's done it's done, and of course it's much easier with any future children... and like you said, further down the line it's clearly a much easier option! We've never had to consider bottles for night-time feeds, bottles for travelling or going out, what to do if they're suddenly hungry and there's nowhere to prepare a bottle... it sounds like a pain in the arse to me! Especially as I've never had to actually breastfeed either, haha... but yeah I have to admit, it sounds like a lot of extra effort and planning to me.

If we're being honest though, I do think a lot of new mothers are in part tempted towards formula so that night feeds can be shared between mum and dad or occasionally delegated to a grandparent. Not that this applies to all - I'm very aware that there are lots of mothers who would have happily taken on the responsibility but weren't able to (usually because they were failed by the support system, as I said above).

There are also dads who push for it because they don't want to "miss the bonding experience" of night feeds. Which is... let's be honest... purely selfish. We did have a girl fairly recently whose partner wanted to share in night feeds as he felt he was missing out, so she was asking if it's possible to pump breastmilk to be used for night feeds. Again somewhere that standard advicve is woeful; an NHS health visitor told her that it was a great idea. When in reality, the biological mechanisms for successful breastfeeding rely on night time natural feeding patterns in order to maintain an adequate milk supply for the next day... and most women who pump through the day for bottle use at night find their supply dropping or drying up completely within a matter of a month or two. Sigh. Luckily in this case she was able to convince the dad that there were plenty of other ways he could bond with the baby and it didn't need to involve feeding. Personally, I find the idea that a dad has to feed his baby in order to "bond properly" absolutely ridiculous

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

what is appalling about it? most women have returned to work 6 months after childbirth so breastfeeding after 6 months would be totally impractical.

After 6 months breastfeeding could easily fit around any work schedule, because it's not their only form of food. It's appalling because the health benefits are numerous, and because it's one of the lowest rates in the entire world.

[Kizzy]

The advice at the time I had mine was to breastfeed for at least 3 months, 16 months seems excessive and as said restrictive for both mother and child.
The risks of food allergies also sounds like a myth, I would think the cellular structure in the gut would be fully developed at birth?
My worry is this, is this drive to encourage breast feeding a precursor to yet more changes to welfare, are milk tokens for low income households to stop?
My guess is they are, which would have a knock on effect of keeping women from the work place for longer post partum.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

I don't think this is driven home hard enough in maternity units; it's short term pain vs long term gain! Establishing breastfeeding is a lot of hard work, but once it's done it's done, and of course it's much easier with any future children... and like you said, further down the line it's clearly a much easier option! We've never had to consider bottles for night-time feeds, bottles for travelling or going out, what to do if they're suddenly hungry and there's nowhere to prepare a bottle... it sounds like a pain in the arse to me! Especially as I've never had to actually breastfeed either, haha... but yeah I have to admit, it sounds like a lot of extra effort and planning to me.

If we're being honest though, I do think a lot of new mothers are in part tempted towards formula so that night feeds can be shared between mum and dad or occasionally delegated to a grandparent. Not that this applies to all - I'm very aware that there are lots of mothers who would have happily taken on the responsibility but weren't able to (usually because they were failed by the support system, as I said above).

There are also dads who push for it because they don't want to "miss the bonding experience" of night feeds. Which is... let's be honest... purely selfish. We did have a girl fairly recently whose partner wanted to share in night feeds as he felt he was missing out, so she was asking if it's possible to pump breastmilk to be used for night feeds. Again somewhere that standard advicve is woeful; an NHS health visitor told her that it was a great idea. When in reality, the biological mechanisms for successful breastfeeding rely on night time natural feeding patterns in order to maintain an adequate milk supply for the next day... and most women who pump through the day for bottle use at night find their supply dropping or drying up completely within a matter of a month or two. Sigh. Luckily in this case she was able to convince the dad that there were plenty of other ways he could bond with the baby and it didn't need to involve feeding. Personally, I find the idea that a dad has to feed his baby in order to "bond properly" absolutely ridiculous

I think expecting mothers to sit at home like a glorified jersey cow ridiculous but there you are.
It's a very antiquated view as far as I can see too.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

After 6 months breastfeeding could easily fit around any work schedule, because it's not their only form of food. It's appalling because the health benefits are numerous, and because it's one of the lowest rates in the entire world.

Only a man could come out with a statement like this, women have it tough enough trying to get on in the workplace without the addition of having leaky breasts, and rushing home because junior has his mouth open for a feed.

[user104658]

Human babies are actually born physically immature because of the size of the brain and therefore the head - basically they wouldn't "fit".

The jersey cow comment seems somewhat defensive which is par for the course with this topic. It's not really accurate.

Other than that... The trappings of society are entirely irrelevant to biological and medical fact. You may be right that being "stuck" at home breastfeeding reduces a woman's career choices. This has absolutely no bearing on whether or not it's better for INFANTS to b consume breastmilk longer term.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier;6480655[B

]The gut only fully matures somewhere between 4.5 and 6 months (so some ARE ready earlier than others, 6 months is playing it safe, as it's when it's safe for nearly all babies).[/B] Introducing solids before the gut is fully matured increases the risk of food allergies and IBS in later life.

It all links in with breastfeeding, really... many formula fed babies are hungry at 4 months, because formula is not as nutritionally complete as breast milk. Most breastfed babies start showing interest in food at around 5 months or just after... it's safe to start introducing little things then IF they are showing genuine interest - i.e. they reach for food and try to put it in their mouth. Babies have a lot of instinct, and the physical act of trying to eat is as good an indicator as any that they're ready to eat.

The problem comes when parents actively spoon-feed a baby who ISN'T showing an active interest in food, taking grumbling / crying as the indication of hunger. Some start at 3 months or under. Frankly, they're more or less guaranteeing low-level gut damage at that age.

This is very recent advice, 4 months was the age to introduce solids when mine were babies, no doubt the 6 months thing will alter again given time.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Cherie

This is very recent advice, 4 months was the age to introduce solids when mine were babies, no doubt the 6 months thing will alter again given time.

The medical advice is always changing, that's why it's usually best ignored over baby instincts IMO! Like I said, if they can grab food with their hands and put it in their mouth, gum it, and swallow it... Then they're probably ready to do so. If thy can't and would need a parent to spoon it then theyre probably not. After all we've been around lot longer than medical advice... And spoons, for that matter! And "wild babies" most likely just switched to solids when they felt ready to.

[Cherie]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

The medical advice is always changing, that's why it's usually best ignored over baby instincts IMO! Like I said, if they can grab food with their hands and put it in their mouth, gum it, and swallow it... Then they're probably ready to do so. If thy can't and would need a parent to spoon it then theyre probably not. After all we've been around lot longer than medical advice... And spoons, for that matter! And "wild babies" most likely just switched to solids when they felt ready to.

completely agree with you there.

[Kizzy]

Originally Posted by Cherie

Only a man could come out with a statement like this, women have it tough enough trying to get on in the workplace without the addition of having leaky breasts, and rushing home because junior has his mouth open for a feed.

I agree, how amazing would it be to never have your sleep disturbed for a night feed, or your work/life balance altered at all on becoming a parent?
If you continue to feed the milk will be produced no matter how old the child is, that's not to say the milk is needed or beneficial.

[waterhog]

i did see ages ago a woman that done this and the baby if i can call it this was huge and it really did not look right.

[user104658]

Bowing out of this, as usual medical facts will ve endlessly ignored or twisted to suit family circumstances or feelings of personal judgement.

It wasn't my intention to offend anyone. It is biologically best. If it doesn't fit with your family it's entirely your business.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Bowing out of this, as usual medical facts will ve endlessly ignored or twisted to suit family circumstances or feelings of personal judgement.

It wasn't my intention to offend anyone. It is biologically best. If it doesn't fit with your family it's entirely your business.

Even that sounds snappier than I intended! I genuinely mean that different things are necessary for different families, ot only bothers me when people try to alter reality to fit, pitting others off in the process.