Breast-Feeding Baby Doll

Aleser said:
If all children were breastfed (in the us), then it should prevent 1.8 postneonatal deaths per 10 000 live births ... 720 postneonatal deaths might be prevented or delayed each year at little cost or risk.


Breastfeeding is one of the most effective ways to ensure child health and survival. A lack of exclusive breastfeeding during the first six months of life contributes to over a million avoidable child deaths each year.

Stating a fact (more breastfed children survive than artificially fed children) does not imply that all artificially fed children die. But it does factually state that some do die as a consequence of their parent's choices.

I'm sorry to hear you had seven children but are so defensive on the topic of feeding them appropriate food.
Click to expand...

eh....not that defensive..as long as they can scrounge something out of the fridge/trash can...my job is done.
your post makes me want to have another kid and bottle feed it just to be contrary.

:hmm:
 
ok wait...tell me please, exactly how formula can cause babies to die? i am not talking about parents who cant mix formula, or bad neighborhoods with no heat/air, i mean the formula itself. what is in it that is killing babies?
 
here is a quote from your link:

"In developing countries, breastfeeding protects
against diarrhea1 and respiratory diseases,2 important
causes of infant death.3–9 In contemporary
developed countries, however, where infectious
diseases account for a smaller portion of infant mortality,
10 what effect, if any, breastfeeding has on mortality
is not clear"
--------------------------
so yes..breastfeeding WILL save your child if you live in a 3rd world hellhole where there is no clean water, or if you are simply negligent...but used as it is intended, it is an adequate substitute.
here is a quote from the second link:
Infant formula does not contain the antibodies found in breast milk and is linked to some risks, such as water-borne diseases that arise from mixing powdered formula with unsafe water (many families lack access to clean water). Malnutrition can result from over-diluting formula to "stretch" supplies. Further, frequent feedings maintain the breast milk supply. If formula is used but becomes unavailable, a return to breastfeeding may not be an option due to diminished breast milk production."
--
formula isnt killing babies, its faulty parenting, bad water, and poor living conditions that are killing babies. no mother should feel guilty for choosing to bottle feed her child. her body, her choice.
 
frankiesmom said:
ok wait...tell me please, exactly how formula can cause babies to die? i am not talking about parents who cant mix formula, or bad neighborhoods with no heat/air, i mean the formula itself. what is in it that is killing babies?
Click to expand...

A lack of mother's antibodies.

A personal suspicion I have with the breastfed-babies-being-smarter thing is that the lack of cholesterol in infant formulas may be to blame. Here in the US, formulas all (AFAIK) don't have much or any... yet cholesterol is essential for myelin development and liberally produced in breastmilk.

Conclusions. Breastfeeding is associated with increased mean TC and LDL levels in infancy but lower levels in adulthood/adult life. These results suggest that breastfeeding may have long-term benefits for cardiovascular health and may have implications for the content of formula feed milks.

We have shown a substantial association of breastfeeding with a lowered risk for SIDS. This supports the need for more positive promotion and active community support to further enhance the level and length of exclusive breastfeeding.

(in mostly preterm infants) With the fall in the use of breast milk in British neonatal units, exclusive formula feeding could account for an estimated 500 extra cases of necrotising enterocolitis each year. About 100 of these infants would die.

these infants were drawn from the offspring of a population of primiparous women in the province who, after at least 36 weeks of pregnancy, gave birth to one normal infant weighing 2500 gm or more. Data were collected by means of a self-administered standardized questionnaire mailed to every mother a week before her infant reached 6 months of age. The crude incidence density ratio (IDR) revealed a protective effect of breast-feeding on respiratory illnesses (IDR = 0.66; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.52 to 0.83), on gastrointestinal illnesses (IDR = 0.53; 95% CI, 0.27 to 1.04) and on all illnesses (IDR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.54 to 0.82). The protective effect of breast-feeding on respiratory illnesses persisted even after adjustment for age of the infant, socioeconomic class, maternal age, and cigarette consumption (adjusted IDR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.00). Moreover, if we distinguished ear infection from other respiratory illnesses, we observed a separate protective effect for these two types of events. The results of this retrospective cohort study suggest a protective effect of breast-feeding in our population during the first 6 months of life.


In the first year of life the incidence of diarrheal illness among BF infants was half that of FF infants; the percentage with any otitis media was 19% lower and with prolonged episodes (> 10 days) was 80% lower in BF compared with FF infants. There were no significant differences in rates of respiratory illness; nearly all cases were mild upper respiratory infections. Morbidity rates did not differ significantly between groups in the second year of life, but the mean duration of episodes of otitis media was longer in FF than BF infants (8.8 +/- 5.3 vs 5.9 +/- 3.5 days, respectively; p = 0.01). These results indicate that the reduction in morbidity associated with breast-feeding is of sufficient magnitude to be of public health significance.

Among 2- to 11-month-olds, current breastfeeding was associated with a decreased likelihood of invasive pneumococcal disease (odds ratio, 0.27; 95% confidence interval: 0.08, 0.90).


Among generally healthy infants in developed nations, more than a tripling in severe respiratory tract illnesses resulting in hospitalizations was noted for infants who were not breastfed compared with those who were exclusively breastfed for 4 months.


After adjustment for the significant confounding variables the estimated probability of ever having respiratory illness in children who received breast milk exclusively for at least 15 weeks was consistently lower (17.0% (95% confidence interval 15.9% to 18.1%) for exclusive breast feeding, 31.0% (26.8% to 35.2%) for partial breast feeding, and 32.2% (30.7% to 33.7%) for bottle feeding. Solid feeding before 15 weeks was associated with an increased probability of wheeze during childhood (21.0% (19.9% to 22.1%) v 9.7% (8.6% to 10.8%)). It was also associated with increased percentage body fat and weight in childhood (mean body fat 18.5% (18.2% to 18.8%) v 16.5% (16.0% to 17.0%); weight standard deviation score 0.02 (−0.02 to 0.06) v −0.09 (−0.16 to 0.02). Systolic blood pressure was raised significantly in children who were exclusively bottle fed compared with children who received breast milk (mean 94.2 (93.5 to 94.9) mm Hg v 90.7 (89.9 to 91.7) mm Hg).

The results of this synthesis suggest that children who are never breast-fed or are breast-fed short-term have a higher risk than those breast-fed for > or = 6 months of developing Hodgkin's disease (HD), but not non-Hodgkin's lymphoma or acute lymphoblastic leukemia. HD has features of a complex cellular immune disorder and of chronic infection. Human milk contains an extensive array of anti-microbial activity and appears to stimulate early development of the infant immune system. Artificially fed infants negotiate exposure to infectious agents without the benefits of this immunologic armament and do not do as well as breast-fed infants in resisting infection. Thus, human milk may make the breast-fed infant better able to negotiate future carcinogenic insults by modulating the interaction between infectious agents and the developing infant immune system or by directly affecting the long-term development of the infant immune system.


(leukemias) A significant, negative association was observed between long-term breastfeeding and both ALL risk (odds ratio [OR]=0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.68, 0.84) and AML risk (OR=0.85; 95% CI 0.73, 0.98). Short-term breastfeeding was similarly protective for ALL and AML. Results for studies that adjusted and did not adjust for SES were not significantly different from the results for the 14 studies combined.

This meta-analysis indicated that, after adjustment for appropriate key cofactors, breast-feeding was associated with significantly higher scores for cognitive development than was formula feeding.

Generally there was an inverse relationship between breast-feeding and morbidity. This was most prominent in the first year of life but was also present in the first three years. After adjustment for potential confounding variables, duration of breast-feeding was associated with fewer morbidity episodes and lower rates of several specific illnesses during the first three years of life.

Breast-feeding was negatively associated with Crohn's disease (P approximately 0.04) and ulcerative colitis (P approximately 0.07), with relative risk point estimates around 0.5 and with evidence of duration-dependent trends in both
instances. There was no evidence of association of either disease with maternal age at birth, birth order, maternal smoking, or season of birth.

In the mother, breastfeeding has been suggested to reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes mellitus, the metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease. Moreover, it appears to reduce the risk of premenopausal breast cancer and ovarian cancer. In the neonate and infant, among other benefits, lactation confers protection from future both type 1 and type 2 diabetes.



This is just a sample of the hundreds of studies you can find on the matter. Breastfeeding DOES reduce mortality not just in infancy, but into childhood and adulthood. Breastmilk DOES have antibodies and nutrients not found in formula. Formula feeding, even when properly administered in a developed country, IS linked to an increase in illness and death.

You can be in denial all you want, but it shouldn't be merely a "mother's choice" to do something which can physically and developmentally harm her child. Formula is merely an "adequate substitute" as you put it when the mother or child cannot nurse, but it certainly should never have been treated as an excuse to never nurse 7 children "because its a choice".
 
I think you just want women to stay home and for them to "know their place".

;)
 
Aleser said:
Bottlefeeding dolls teach children that bottlefeeding artificial formula is normal, and perpetuates the cultural acceptability of bottlefeeding artificial formula.

Feeding artificial formula from a bottle kills children.

... you don't see a problem with that?
Click to expand...

I wasnt breast-fed and I am still alive.
 
shel90 said:
I wasnt breast-fed and I am still alive.
Click to expand...

Good for you. That does not change the fact that more children would survive infancy and childhood, and not go on to develop a host of diseases later in life, if more children were breastfed.

Formula kills children. Not -all- children, but enough that I don't regard it as a "personal choice".
 
Daredevel7 said:
I think you just want women to stay home and for them to "know their place".

;)
Click to expand...

No, I don't. You can nurse part time and pump when you go to work. You can get breast milk from a breast milk bank. Nothing about breastfeeding stops you from being able to work.

But I do think that having a child is a commitment to doing what is best for that child. I do not think that a woman -has- to or -should- have children, but once they do I do think they -should- seek out that child's best interests, whatever they may be.
 
AlleyCat said:
And I think the poster is a woman herself. :shock: I guess I should start staying home now. How so 1950's.
Click to expand...

You'll find that I already responded to the false accusation of wanting to "put women in their place". But perhaps you missed that post? Very easy to do, given that it is directly above your own. :laugh2:
 
Aleser said:
No, I don't. You can nurse part time and pump when you go to work. You can get breast milk from a breast milk bank. Nothing about breastfeeding stops you from being able to work.

But I do think that having a child is a commitment to doing what is best for that child. I do not think that a woman -has- to or -should- have children, but once they do I do think they -should- seek out that child's best interests, whatever they may be.
Click to expand...

I was just joking. Hence the ;)

However, you DID say this:

Aleser said:
Pumping into a bottle exclusively is a failing strategy, though. Women who try to exclusively pump often fail because you cannot usually produce as much milk with a pump as you can while nursing from a breast. If your mother managed to feed your brother 6 months of exclusive breastmilk and 2 years of supplemental breastmilk with a pump (the world health organization's minimal breastfeeding recommendation), good on her! But that places her in a minority that can be dedicated and successful with exclusive pumping.
Click to expand...

Implying that pumping breastmilk into a bottle is a FAIL.
 
Daredevel7 said:
I was just joking. Hence the ;)

However, you DID say this:



Implying that pumping breastmilk into a bottle is a FAIL.
Click to expand...

Pumping exclusively usually is, because a child stimulating your nipples is much more effective than a pump. However, mixed pumping (pumping at work, nursing when you're at home) is generally easier and more effective.

Pumping exclusively can be, as I said, done. Its just much more of an effort and commitment than nursing exclusively or nursing part of the time.
 
Aleser said:
You'll find that I already responded to the false accusation of wanting to "put women in their place". But perhaps you missed that post? Very easy to do, given that it is directly above your own. :laugh2:
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't pay attention to sarcasm or backwards thinking. I easily missed that post; very easy to do. :roll:

:laugh2:

( too easy to laugh, what a joke ... )
 
i have nothing else to add to this discussion, so here is an adult emoticon.




:asshole:
 
Misspnic said:
I've not seen a child "nurse" before, however giving a bottle to a baby is usually the way they do it.. take Baby born for instance; you can feed the toy doll with a bottle and put it on a potty etc.

Growing up, I never had any idea that babies were nursed, I always had a bottle to feed my toy baby with and that felt normal.

Would it not be awkward especially for a male to be in a room with a female child who is pretending nursing a toy baby?

-P
Click to expand...

No.
 
Aleser said:
No, I don't. You can nurse part time and pump when you go to work. You can get breast milk from a breast milk bank. Nothing about breastfeeding stops you from being able to work.

But I do think that having a child is a commitment to doing what is best for that child. I do not think that a woman -has- to or -should- have children, but once they do I do think they -should- seek out that child's best interests, whatever they may be.
Click to expand...

You know, you bring up an interesting point. The ADA will cover a breast feeding mother that needs the space to privately pump while at work. There has already been a precedent set.
 
Back
Top