When hospitals are overly aggressive about breastfeeding promotion (Guest Post)

A guest post by Yunyan Jennifer Wang, Ph.D.

We’re reminded constantly that ‘breast is best’. The ads plaster the Metro, hospital walls and my Facebook feed. Breast milk is touted everywhere these days as liquid gold, the ambrosia of life granting a sacred bond between mother and child. So of course when I was pregnant with my first child in 2015, I planned to nurse my baby. I took the classes, bought milk freezer trays, researched gear in preparation to milk myself at work for the next two years, per WHO recommendations. However, six days after the birth of my child – I changed my mind.

Baby Aria was born via emergency C-section after 22 hours of labor at Johns Hopkins Hospital with a mild case of jaundice – a condition that commonly affects babies of Asian and African descent. As a rookie mom, so I consulted every nurse and lactation consultant who came through the door. I gathered lots of advice, even though some even seemed to conflict with one another. With each new nurse shift, my list of instructions grew longer until I was nursing for 40min, followed by pumping for 30min, repeated every 2.5 hr. Exhausted, I asked a nurse when I was supposed to sleep during all of this, she replied something all new mothers have heard and loathed – sleep when the baby sleeps (but you just told me to pump after nursing?). During the next four days, baby Aria had alarmingly few wet diapers and alternated between being with me and going back to the nursery for 24-hr light therapy sessions to treat jaundice. Throughout this time I was reassured that I was “doing a great job”, that nature had taken its course and my bleeding nipples were ‘normal’ according to one inexperienced nurse.

"Pregnant Alice down the rabbit hole of motherhood"

“Pregnant Alice down the rabbit hole of motherhood”

It seemed that baby got sick each time she came back to me. On day four, an inquisitive nurse weighed Aria before and after a long nursing session, confirming my nagging suspicion that she wasn’t getting any milk from me (<5g weight difference). I had come face to face with the fact that I had starved my child for three days, exacerbating her condition by dehydration. I thought this information would bring change to our care. But nothing happened. I would have felt better if a doctor came running in shouting – “Breastfeeding hasn’t been working for you!” Instead I was urged to continue as I’ve been told and I was still ‘doing a great job’.

On the eve of day five, we are still at the hospital due to her unrelenting jaundice. Severe sleep deprivation from pumping endlessly, cliff-diving hormones combined with guilt from harming my newborn created the perfect storm leading to a breakdown. I couldn’t understand why no one around me responded to reason, to empirical evidence. I lost faith in my healthcare providers’ judgment and my body’s ability to function like a mother. My head buzzed and my legs shook at the mere mention of breastfeeding. I stopped everything I was doing and asked to see a psychiatrist.

In the last 30 years, US hospitals have heeded the call to arms by the Surgeon General to promote breastfeeding. This includes the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative, a campaign launched by UNICEF and the WHO in 1991. This 10-step program includes posting breastfeeding literature in hospital rooms, training staff to support breastfeeding, giving other no food or drink to nursing infants unless medically indicated and giving no pacifier or artificial nipple. While these steps are well-intended, there is very little science behind these guidelines.

 

When anxiety became incapacitating, we decided to go for bottle-feeding. We were given dire warnings about nipple confusion, which could seal an infant’s fate to the bottle. A meta-study from last year[1] examined 14 studies on ‘nipple confusion’. Firstly, this is not a medical term. Secondly, it’s a misnomer since babies are less ‘confused’ than prefer the bottle, which is likely an indicator of difficulty and stress associated with nursing. The authors contended, “despite the limited and inconsistent evidence, nipple confusion is widely believed by practitioners” and concluded that causality is difficult to establish in these studies. JHH includes an Avent pacifier in every welcome packet, technically violating the initiative guidelines. Their argument is that pacifier use may help to prevent SIDS, as suggested by research from the APA [2]. So who is the authority on these topics? UNICEF? The CDC? Individual Hospitals? Medical studies? If some of the guidelines for the Baby-Friendly Initiative are outdated, shouldn’t there be review and revision for such a pandemic program?

 

All controversies aside, in our case the JHH staff continued to encourage nursing – which was in fact not working, while it was clearly medically necessary to feed my child somehow to prevent potential brain damage from jaundice. I agree that breastfeeding is ideal if possible. This is a mother’s choice. However in a hospital setting, if healthcare providers choose to ignore clinical signs to pursue political agendas, there is a conflict of interest. For us, the very thing that was supposed to provide nursing support instead endangered my child’s well-being and contributed to my not being able to nurse at all. I believe this was never the intention [3] of the hospital. Given a choice today, I would have traded my swanky single room for an L&D environment that hosted group nursing activities supported by lactation consultants and local support groups.

quotescover-JPG-30

Pushing for breastfeeding is deeply ingrained as our healthcare legislation. While I am a strong supporter for Obamacare, subsidizing just breast pumps at the hospital is unfair since it excludes a significant group of parents – such as GLBT, adoptive families, and those unable to breastfeed due to tongue-tie, latch issues, inverted nipples, medication and countless other reasons. A free breast pump isn’t always the answer when alternatives such as subsidized formula and milk banks are not accessible to all families. Ideally, all parents will have reasonable family leave (at least three months or past the ‘fourth trimester’) and there will be no stigma against working mothers taking several hours a day to pump at work. This is not yet the case in America. While we need to make those changes happen, it’s important to keep in mind not every family has a lactating mother overflowing with milk. We need to give help to all parents because all babies need to eat.

 

It’s been nine months and Aria is a spunky little girl who spends most of her mornings chasing after our cat at a steady crawl. I have been off meds for post-partum depression for 3 months and life is finally starting to feel normal again. I have talked to many local moms in Baltimore and discovered more than a handful of us feel bullied at the hospital and ended up feeling inadequate or had failed. On my morning commutes, I talk to Aria’s daycare teachers, Metro train conductors, coffee shop clerks and medical professionals. I realize it’s a huge challenge for moms at these presence-demanding jobs to can step away to pump for 30min every 3 hours in a private room in order to maintain an adequate milk supply. We all want to give our children ‘the best’, but what happens when this is not possible? If we are graced with #2 some day, I will prepare myself to nurse again. But if it doesn’t work out despite my best efforts, taking up the bottle certainly won’t be the end of the world this time around.

 

Jennifer is a neuroscientist at Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.
Sources
1. Zimmerman E, Thompson K. J Perinatol. (2015) Clarifying nipple confusion. Nov;35(11):895-9.

2. American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Sudden Infant Death S. The changing concept of sudden infant death syndrome: diagnostic coding shifts, controversies regarding the sleeping environment, and new variables to consider in reducing risk. Pediatrics 2005; 116(5): 1245–1255.

3. Bass JL, Gartley T, Kleinman R. Unintended Consequences of Current Breastfeeding Initiatives. JAMA Pediatr. 2016 Aug 22

 

FFF Friday: “I’m grateful to the midwives who stepped out of line with hospital policies to connect with what was really going on…”

Last month, I received a PM from a woman named Sarah. She wrote: 

“It is hard to describe how depressed and lost one feels when someone takes it upon themselves to remind you of how exclusive breastfeeding halves the risk of SIDS, when they know you will be formula feeding. And when you tell them you don’t have a choice they just keep reiterating. As though you are choosing to kill your baby willfully and wantonly. And you start to doubt if you should even be a mother at all if you can’t breastfeed exclusively. It’s a lonely place.”

My heart broke for her. She was expecting her baby in the next few weeks, and I hoped against hope that when he or she arrived, all this self-doubt would wash away. 

And then, yesterday, she sent another message. She agreed to let me share it as an FFF Friday of sorts, even though that wasn’t her intent. I share this not to scare anyone who is currently expecting, because when Baby Friendly is done right, it can be a really positive experience. I share this to show that when Baby Friendly is done wrong, it’s done very wrong, and we can’t allow the good to overshadow the bad. It doesn’t matter that 20 women have a good experience if 5 are put through this kind of hell, because this kind of hell is inexcusable. End of story. And if anyone thinks what Sarah went through is acceptable, I doubt their opinions are malleable or their empathy is intact, so there’s no real reason to debate about it. 

Happy Friday, fearless ones. 

The FFF

** Please note – the names of everyone involved in this story have been changed, and the author refers to her baby as “they” rather than her or him to protect the child’s identity as well. Just so you don’t think she had twins! : ) ** 

 

Sarah’s Story

My baby, R, was two weeks old at 9.31pm two nights ago. Yesterday I lay next to them on our bed, watching them sleep and kissing their teeny tiny face, their squishy belly, their downy head and relishing them. I am still getting to know them, and our bond is still slowly growing as each day passes. Formula is largely responsible for being able to connect with them like this.

 

I would like to tell you about my experience so far of motherhood and feeding my baby while it remains fresh in my mind, because formula is at the centre of my story; formula and my breasts, and the both truly negligent and outstanding care I received – all within the same hospital.

 

There’s background to how feeding and by association, attachment, has gone down for me. I have a difficult history around fertility and mental health. I had two traumatic miscarriages before this baby was conceived, and their conception happened after painful, invasive fertility testing. A lot of emotions rode on the creation of their new life, and my pregnancy with them felt heavy every day with fear of loss. I found it difficult to connect with them as they grew inside me, and sought counselling to help me do so.

 

I also have mental health issues that I take daily medication to treat; medication that, while it does an excellent job at keeping me functional and well, passes into breast-milk, with unknown long term consequences for breastfed babies (not enough studies have been done, and even short term studies are limited in number and scope). Women who take these medications are generally advised to limit breastfeeding or use formula, though that information varies depending on who you talk to. The idea that breast-milk is the elixir of life weighs heavily in the “risk vs benefit” equation which means I’ve been told by some doctors that breastfeeding would be “worth it”.

 

After months of discussion with my husband (who has always maintained that breastfeeding or using formula was ultimately an issue of bodily autonomy and thus, my choice – I highly recommend being married to a feminist) I decided I wanted to breastfeed a little bit after our baby was born, but mostly use formula and let my supply dwindle naturally. This was for two reasons: so I could get enough rest to mitigate the likelihood of developing post natal depression and post puerperal psychosis, which I was in a high risk category for, and to minimise how much exposure our baby was getting to my medications.

 

The circus around advocating for this feeding plan began well before I gave birth. I raised it with one of the midwives handling my antenatal care and she refused to tick the “not breastfeeding” box on my antenatal card, insisting I speak to the lactation consultant. I left the appointment angry and disheartened at being patted on the head in this way. However, this LC was wonderful; she listened to my concerns, and said she would work with me to teach me how to bottle feed, and how to express colostrum which I was still keen to give our baby – provided I get advice saying it was safe to do so (I did). I spoke to a leading expert who recommended I breastfeed more than I was comfortable with (because breast is best, of course) and met with the LC again, who wrote a plan that included pumping – which I’d also never wanted to do -and demand feeding during the day, using formula at night to assist sleep. This was the start of the parade of conflicting, confusing and ultimately destabilising advice around feeding that marked the next few months.

 

My labour with R was long, intense and difficult. I didn’t eat or sleep for three days and was in labour for around 30 hours, with my waters breaking, my labour stalling and ultimately being induced with syntocin when everything stood still. By the time my little one was lifted onto my chest – a purple, heavy, wet and warm tiny human still attached to me by our shared cord that pulsed with lifegiving blood – I was completely exhausted. But they were here, finally, after so much fear that we’d never meet. During that first hour of skin to skin, they had their first breastfeed. Looking into their face in that moment I felt such a rush of love and contentment that I’ve never experienced before and don’t think anything will ever rival again.

 

I wish I could say my stay in hospital ended on such a high note; unfortunately it didn’t. I was transferred to the post natal ward for a long stay, with my husband staying on the fold-out beside my bed and R in a tiny cot on wheels at the end of my bed. Nobody in those first couple of days seemed to put two-and-two together and note my mental health history, detailed in my file, and the fact that I hadn’t slept at all in days. I was, as we say in Australia, completely knackered – but I’d anticipated this happening, having brought in seven syringes of precious colostrum I’d expressed ante-natally for my husband to drip feed R, and thinking we could use formula as well. Right? Wrong.

 

Our precious syringes of colostrum were (apparently accidentally) defrosted all at once. What was supposed to last days had now to be used up in the next 12-24 hours, which scuttled our plan. Then, the first nurse I asked to make up a bottle of formula so I could get some sleep flatly refused. I didn’t know how to reply. She said she’d only give the remaining expressed colostrum I’d brought and when I expressed concern that this wouldn’t be enough to feed our baby she said I’d just have to wake up and express more and the baby would have to “make do with a snack” and I’d have to have a shorter sleep. Beyond tired, I agreed and walked back to my room wondering what had happened. Hadn’t they read the lactation plan our LC had written?

 

Over the next few days I was awake every few hours, wildly expressing, and trying to latch a hungry baby on to nipples that increasingly felt razor-shredded with shaking anxious hands. I had loved that first breastfeed and had such confidence in our plan, but now I was doubting myself, and hating breastfeeding on demand. Eventually we found a midwife that would make us up a bottle of formula but I now felt I was doing the wrong thing by giving R a bottle. A different LC visited and heavily encouraged breast-feeding even though I kept mentioning the lack of longitudinal safety data surrounding my medications. My sleep debt was growing and so was my despair at our plan going out the window.

quotescover-JPG-32

On day three the baby blues hit, compounded by sleep deprivation, and I felt my attachment with R withering away. I didn’t want to touch them or look at them or tend to them because every cuddle had now become about providing food – and it hurt, and I struggled with the latch, and I was so so worried about how much of my medication was coming through in my milk. Expressing so often encouraged my milk to come in, big time, and soon I was painfully engorged and living with ice packs down my bra to deal with the excruciating sensations. I was not coping.

 

Day four came and I was officially a mess. The tipping point came when I sat on the bed watching my husband have a long, warm, stress-free cuddle with our baby while I was hooked up to the pump feeling like I was going to pass out from lack of sleep. I began to cry in that ugly-cry way you do when you feel like you’ve hit bottom. My husband began to cry too. And this is where one heroic midwife entered the picture.

 

Jill* walked in at that exact moment to do some observations, and seeing our faces and our tears, nestled herself into the armchair by the window and asked “what’s happening?” I explained how tired I was, how this was never our plan, how much I hated pumping, and how I felt I was losing my attachment with my baby and it scared me. She listened as I spilled forth my distress in an angry rush, and paused, considering my words carefully and choosing her own just as carefully. This after all was a Baby Friendly Hospital and she was supposed to recommend breastfeeding.

 

She told me then the following: breastfeeding is not motherhood. Motherhood is about so much more than how we feed our babies.

 

She then went on to recommend I stop breastfeeding or dial it right back, and switch to formula. She said it was time to take the stress out of feeding and that I really, really needed to get some sleep ASAP. She also said she was going to call one of the obstetric doctors and someone from the psych team to come and talk to me because she was worried about how things were going mental health wise for me.

 

The doctor came first after being called and brief on the situation, and there are no words to describe how negligent and inadequate she was in how she handled her care of me. When she walked in I was curled up under the covers, having cried continuously for hours and still going.

 

She tried to get my husband to leave the room (which by instinct I didn’t allow – and am so glad I didn’t). He sat close by, holding R and listening. She then launched into a rehearsed sounding spiel about why breastfeeding was best for babies and why formula was detrimental. I felt myself inwardly curl away from her – she was not here to help, it was very clear. I said I needed sleep, I was not coping and she replied in a patronising tone “you do know that someone needs to feed the baby every four hours, whether you’re breastfeeding or using formula, don’t you?”

 

What a ridiculous, insulting question – as if I had intended to starve my baby? As if I didn’t have a perfectly capable partner sitting beside me, also quite able to hold a bottle and feed our child? Clearly, in her view, feeding was entirely the responsibility of mothers. I was pretty pissed off at that point, which only intensified when she turned to my husband and said “and how do you feel about your wife stopping breastfeeding?” My husband arched his eyebrows so high I thought they would pop off the top of his forehead, and replied bluntly “I feel like it’s her choice, not mine.” She then read some compulsory questions in a bored tone off a piece of paper like “have you had any thoughts of harming yourself or your baby?” and then when she’d ticked all her boxes, she left. I was in even worse shape, now full of rage.

 

Then someone visited me from the psych team. He was wonderful. He suggested that formula was the best, safest option at this point and he pieced the last week together for me. The long labour. The three days with no sleep or food. The difficulty breastfeeding, the stress from pumping, the concerns about medication, the continuing lack of rest…as well as worries about our baby being jaundiced and having some investigations on a sacral dimple over their lower spine (all of which turned out fine). With all of this laid out, he said it was understandable that I wasn’t coping.

 

He and our midwife Jill suggested that we send our baby to the Special Care Nursery overnight so we could both “reset” ourselves with a full night of sleep. We were both pretty horrified by the suggestion that we have our babe removed from our care so young…and I felt like a failure for things having gotten this far. I didn’t want to agree to this. We both initially said no. Eventually, after a lot of discussion, we agreed – knowing that if we didn’t, things would probably get worse.

 

Leaving my baby in the nursery that night with the very kind, gentle nurses who would attend to R while we were apart was easily the hardest thing I’ve ever done. After nine months of fearing I would lose them, of thinking miscarriage or stillbirth would rip us apart, it had turned out that my mental health (or so it felt in that moment) was what had done it. I sat clinging to R before walking away, unable to look at or speak to the nurses with fat hot tears rolling down my face. How had we gotten here? Once we were back in my room I was given two sleeping tablets to calm me down and sent to bed to sleep. We picked R up at 6am the next morning, practically sprinting back to the nursery.

 

Now with some sleep under my belt, I was able to function again and advocate properly for myself. Everything looked better and I could think clearly for the first time in about a week. I knew then that I wasn’t going crazy; this wasn’t my fault. It was about the feeding and the sleep, it wasn’t about me.

 

After that everything improved. Another wonderful midwife – Harriet – took to the task of teaching us to bottle feed properly, showing us tips and tricks to do it well. We researched, we read, we tried to learn what we needed to know to move things forward and away from the dark place we’d been in as a family and to right what had felt like a sinking ship. Jill had barred the useless second LC from visiting again and unhelpful people were kept away. My fantastic parents wholeheartedly backed our decisions, and gave us lots of pep talks.

 

We’ve been at home for two weeks now. We are formula feeding 95% of the time, but I sometimes breastfeed because I want to, for a burst of ten minutes a day, once or twice a day. I lay down on the bed to do it, as it makes for an easier latch. I stop when I get frustrated, because that time is precious and intimate and I do not want it to be marred by anxiety. Such tiny periods of time also limit any effects from my medication and mean my supply is slowly fading away, and I’m getting my head around that. I know it’ll stop eventually, and I’ll find a way to be ok with it. I’m working on my bottle feeding technique, and using that time for attachment, looking into their eyes, kissing them, chatting to them. Just getting to know each other.

 

Reflecting now on the turbulence of that first five days, and how it nearly wrecked me, I am overwhelmed with both anger at some of the care I received around feeding, and gratitude for the midwives who stepped out of line with hospital policies to connect with what was really going on, and helped me. There’s a Carl Jung quote which feels so apt here – “Learn your theories well, but put them aside when you touch the miracle of a living person.”

 

If only more health care providers could set aside their theories when they touch each mother’s nuanced, lived experience, so many more women would be flourishing as mothers rather than falling apart. Hell, if they even just read the file, that would be a start. As it is, I’m going really well now, and repairing the hurts my bond with my child sustained in that first five days. It could have been very different for me if it hadn’t been for Jill though; and this is what is core to my story.

 

Every midwife, every doctor, every LC, should be like Jill. Promoting feeding that sustains and nourishes the child, the mother, and the bond between them – not forcing both of them into a slow-motion train-wreck neither may survive. Thank goodness for the rebels. Maybe one day they’ll be the norm.

***

Share your story, Email me at formulafeeders@gmail.com

 

Begging for Balance Before Banning the Bags

Last month, Maryland became the fourth state to eliminate the practice of handing out formula samples at hospitals. This was heralded as an important move in ensuring the health and welfare of the state’s newborns, as these sorts of initiatives always are. Reporters quoted breastfeeding advocates and nurses talking about how hospitals should be “marketing health”:

“This move allows Maryland hospitals to put their smallest patients’ health first,” said Dr. Dana Silver, pediatrician at Sinai Hospital and vice president of the (Maryland Breastfeeding Coalition), said in a statement.

From The Baltimore Sun

While the ban was officially a voluntary decision from the state’s 32 birthing hospitals and not a ruling from the state government, there were an awful lot of comments coming from state officials about the new policy:

“With changes like ‘banning the bags,’ we expect to see more mothers to try to exclusively feed their infants through breast feeding,” said Dr. Howard Haft, deputy secretary of public health services, in a statement. “This provides better overall health outcomes for Marylanders and brings us closer to achieving national goals in this area.”

The move was proposed three years ago by state health officials as part of a package of steps hospitals could voluntarily take to support breast feeding, which studies show may provide health benefits to the infants and mothers

The Baltimore Sun

Supporters of the “Ban the Bags” movement claim that mothers who get the formula samples are less likely to exclusively breast feed and stop breast feeding before mothers who don’t get the formula.. They are absolutely correct. There are many studies showing this result, and I am in absolute agreement with them that the bags should NEVER be indiscriminately handed out upon hospital discharge.

Further, I agree that there’s no need for any marketing to be allowed in the maternity ward. As long as we all agree that this really means NO MARKETING. That includes free samples of Medela breast pads. I would also argue that posters ‘advertising’ the benefits of breastfeeding – often with slogans that are inherently shame and anxiety-producing – have no place in the maternity ward.

And lastly, there’s a valid argument that allowing formula companies to provide samples drives up the cost of commercial formula. But this is a bit of a straw man, because the marketing budgets of large pharmaceutical corporations are built in well-thought-out, specific ways; I suspect that Enfamil will find a way to use whatever money was going into the hospital discharge packs and spend it elsewhere. The cost of brand-name formula isn’t going down anytime soon, which is why it’s a wonderful thing that we have high-quality generic options on the market.

All of these arguments in favor of the Ban the Bags movement are valid. But there are other, equally valid arguments opposing it, that are being uniformly ignored by those in power:

What if mothers actually want the samples?

What if these samples allow parents to feed their babies the safer but far more expensive ready-to-feed nursettes, which reduce the risk of bacterial infections and exhausted, new-parent errors in preparing powdered formula?

What if the formula-sponsored discharge bags are the only real source of formula “education” parents are receiving?

Granted, these three questions all have other solutions than “give everyone formula samples”. For example,

– Formula samples could be on hand but only given upon parental request.

-These samples could be generic RTF newborn nursettes, pre-measured into small amounts that would prevent overfeeding (since everyone is so concerned about formula-using parents force-feeding their babies until their thimble-sized tummies expand, cursing them to a lifetime of morbid obesity)

-Samples could be outlawed, but all parents could instead receive a pre-discharge tutorial on safe formula feeding, what to look for in terms of insufficient breastfeeding and/or jaundice, and also a pamphlet or book with unbiased, easy to understand instructions for all safe feeding methods (breastfeeding, pumping, donor milk, formula feeding), as well as a local resource list for breastfeeding, formula feeding and postpartum mental health support.

Advocates for Ban the Bags can claim that these policies are put in place to protect babies, rather than to shame mothers or take away their options, but they need to understand that this is indeed the perception. I conducted a simple survey, composed primarily of the Fearless Formula Feeder audience, to explore what formula-using mothers thought of these initiatives. Of course, this is a biased group – most started out breastfeeding and switched to formula within the first 3 months, and some formula fed from the beginning (although I did open the survey up to anyone, and we did have 17% who exclusively breastfed, and 15% who breastfed and switched to formula between 3-12 months). But I’d posit that their bias is what makes their opinions so powerful. These are the moms who didn’t end up exclusively breastfeeding. If they felt that formula samples were at fault for this result, we would see that on the survey. Instead, this is what the survey found:

Chart_Q4_151104

Hurt your breastfeeding efforts= 2.26%

Help you in some way = 22.56%

Neither= 32.83%

Some of the open-ended responses included:

“I was offered a bag but refused it.”

“It was an absolute blessing- i needed to supplement while my breast milk came in, and it meant that i didn’t have to run to the store while recovering from 2 c-sections.”

“It did not influence my decision to switch to formula after 4 weeks, but it was so helpful to have the formula sample to try and see if it helped before buying expensive formula at the store.”

“Gave it away or threw it out.”

“It helped tremendously. I could only produce enough breastmilk for one baby, but I had two. Formula is expensive (as are babies, and we had two!), so the formula that the hospital sent us home with was invaluable. We wouldn’t have bought the nursettes on our own (we’re too cheap), so the ones that the hospital gave us made the first few weeks of parenthood a little bit easier. We weren’t having to mix formula after not sleeping.”

“I had a stack of breast feeding information given to me, a breast feeding class to attend, and a formula bag with some info and a small can of formula. The bag was just a nice gesture to formula being a choice for me and my babies.”

“I wasn’t as stressed about breast feeding bc I knew I had some formula to use if needed.”

There were some responses suggesting that the formula samples were detrimental to breastfeeding success, supporting my assertion that these should be clearly called Formula Bags, and only given upon request:

“It made me feel like the only option was failure… Here are samples and coupons so you can hand your life over to the formula companies.”

“… I forgot about it and when I found it the formula was expired. It was wasteful.”

“I felt like thenurses had no confidence in my ability to breastfeed. When I was given the bag I felt like I was destined to fail and everyone knew it except for me. My sister helped me to overcome the initial obstacles and I was successful meeting my breastfeeding goals, but without her I’m not sure I would have continued past two weeks.”

For those respondents opposing Ban the Bags, the most common impression was that it shamed formula feeding parents:

Chart_Q5_15110467% of respondents felt that the initiative “shames parents who choose formula”; 60% didn’t like banning the bags because the samples came in handy; 31% said that the bags were “the only source of formula education I received.”

Open-ended responses included:

“Because it’s paternalistic and undermines a parent’s right to choose how to feed her baby”

“I don’t think it should be banned altogether, samples should be available to women who choose to formula feed or combo feed, but I don’t think formula companies should be targetting women who intend to breastfeed exclusively any more than Lansinoh or Medela should target women who intend to formula feed.”

“Because it should not be the government’s business to create a culture of shame around a product that many new parents need. I think it would be fair to educate new parents that supplementing may interfere with their milk supply if they express a desire to breastfeed exclusively. Beyond that, they should leave it up to the parents if they wish to receive them or not. If a company wishes to provide a sample, their client base should be allowed to receive it…the samples are helpful as parents make decisions around what is best to feed their child.”

“Because it implies a qualitative judgement on formula use. Parents have a right to choose their feeding method and the hospital does not have a right to attempt to manipulate that choice. With both of my children, I was offered only pampers brand diapers in the hospital. Why does pampers get the opportunity to push their brand name but not a formula company?”

“Because it is completely, 100% disingenuous and insulting to insinuate that a promotional bag has more power over me than my own well-reasoned decision-making processes.”

“It implies parents aren’t capable of making a choice. That we women are so weak willed that if we see a formula sample we’ll throw our breastfeeding goals away for a few samples. It laughs in the face of informed consent. If one is going to make a choice human milk or formula then they should be given ALL of the information. The only information parents are given at appointments and from the hospital is about breastfeeding. Yet if a formula company gives formula information it’s decided it’s only for marketing. Sure formula makes formula companies money but if the hospital offered unbias formula information about it instead of 10 risk of formula feeding lists we wouldn’t be seeking it from the formula companies.”

“Much like banning condoms & birth control doesn’t prevent sex, banning formula samples & literature doesn’t prevent parents from using formula. It’s dangerous – parents need ALL the info about infant feeding. “Ban the Bags” initiatives are tantamount to sticking your fingers in your ears, closing your eyes, and saying “na na na I can’t hear you it’s not happening.” Childish and completely ineffective.”

The most attractive solutions for most respondents were to hand out the sample bags only upon request (73%), or to give an unbiased book/pamphlet talking about all infant feeding options (62%)  as an alternative:

Chart_Q7_151104(Interestingly, 19% chose “parents could receive sample bags of breastfeeding-related products”. I find this interesting, as it does negate the more palatable argument (at least in terms of feminism and bodily autonomy) that the reason to ban the bags is to take corporate interests/marketing out of healthcare settings. Apparently, predatory marketing on postpartum women is perfectly okay, provided it comes from Lansinoh rather than Similac.)

Many respondents mentioned feeling like the gift bags “normalized” formula, saying that it was the only time formula was mentioned or seen during their hospital stay. For those choosing to formula feed or combo-feed from the start, this can be disheartening. If formula were discussed as an option, without the scare tactics or patronizing language used in most healthcare settings, perhaps getting rid of the bags would meet with less outrage. In a space left for respondent comments, a sense of feeling marginalized and that there was only one “right” choice for infant feeding was clear:

“I had zero information about the right way to formula feed. I had no idea how good formula was good for, how to properly store it, the right amount to give, etc– I only learned from formula containers. Information about this in a pamphlet would have been very helpful.” 

“The lack of free formula is not my concern. I am concerned that regulating this shames formula feeders (i.e., the message is that formula is so awful it should not be given out by a hospital). I am also concerned about the total lack of education in hospitals about when and how to supplement or EFF.”

” These are often the first times mom and dad are presented with formula, and the only “education” and information they may receive about it. Yet breastfeeding info and help is available in quite a widespread manner. Again to take this away would do a great deal of harm for parents who may exclusively formula feed, as they could certainly use whatever educational info they can get about formula feeding.”

“Parents should be given accurate, and unbiased info about ALL feeding options. Denying info about a healthy, and nutritional feeding choice merely due to zealotry does nothing to help women, or children.”

“Formula information and samples should always be available on request – no questions asked. Also safe and clear information for both feeding methods needs to be made to all parents. Breastfeeding, pumping, bottle feeding, sterilising equipment, post partum depression, maternal health, and safe practice for storing formula and breastmilk.”

Although there’s been a recent backlash against breastfeeding pressure, this is not an issue of questioning breastfeeding’s benefits. Of course hospitals should be protecting and supporting breastfeeding, provided it is something a woman is not opposed to doing, but we also have to be realistic: formula is here to stay. It is going to be used, and the way we’re going about things now, it is going to be used incorrectly, with shame and guilt and fear. Of course direct marketing to patients has no place in the healthcare setting, but in a climate where formula is being kept under lock and key and treated like tobacco or alcohol, we need to be aware that the formula companies are often the only ones discussing their product with new parents. If we truly care about “putting the health of our smallest patients first”, then do exactly that, because leaving their parents without proper info on formula use is putting their heath in danger. Making their mothers feel marginalized simply because their breasts don’t work how they are supposed to, or because they have personal, valid reasons for not wanting to feed a child from a culturally, emotionally-loaded part of the female anatomy, puts the mothers’ health in danger, which can obviously affect infant health as well.

These are not simple issues, so let’s not oversimplify them by insisting that taking away a bag – a bag that can be taken or left, like the jello on the hospital tray – is going to make a huge impact on breastfeeding rates, while ignoring the impact it may have on the experiences of formula-using parents.

Balance before bans. That’s all we ask.

 

 

 

 

 

News Bites: Lack of support for breastfeeding moms; Organic formula hyperbole

My blood pressure is rising, and I’m mid-tirade directed at my poor, innocent husband when it hits me: It must be time for a good, old fashioned, FFF news roundup.

Those of you who’ve been with me for awhile probably remember that I used to do these frequently, especially when something in the news cycle gives me a bout of psychologically-induced hives. So it may come as no surprise that I felt the urge this morning, when not one, but two frustrating pieces popped up in my news feed.

First up, we have coverage of a new study in the aptly titled “Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report”, claiming that women are still not getting sufficient support in American hospitals for breastfeeding.

According to NPR:

Most hospitals around the country aren’t doing a good job of helping new moms who want to breast-feed, researchers report Tuesday..Several common practices at the institutions may actually prevent moms from sticking with breast-feeding for six months — the duration thought to be most healthful for babies.

 

Epidemiologists at the CDC surveyed more than 80 percent of the birthing centers across the country about the support they give new moms trying to breast-feed. About half of those surveyed said they implement five of the 10 practices recommended by the World Health Organization. By comparison, only a third of hospitals were hitting that mark in 2007.

Looking at the study itself, the news is far from dire. In fact, according to the CDC report of the evidence, “nationally, hospitals implementing more than half of the Ten Steps increased from 28.7% in 2007 to 53.9% in 2013.” That’s a pretty significant jump, but the media decided to go with the story that “hospitals aren’t doing enough to support women in meeting breastfeeding goals.”

This is me, reading these articles. Not really. But it SO could have been.

This is me, reading these articles. Not really. But it SO could have been.

But what is the real story, here, and how come no one is talking about it? What this study tells us is whether hospitals are following what they are ‘supposed’ to do to help improve breastfeeding rates. These are things like providing mandatory breastfeeding classes, holding breastfeeding support groups (or referring out to La Leche League, etc.), making sure no pacifiers are given to neonates, and outlawing the use of “unnecessary” formula supplementation – something which the NPR piece gives ample air time:

And, too often, that’s not happening. For example, about 75 percent of hospitals still give healthy babies some formula in the first days of life, even when moms say they want to breast-feed.

 

“Even a little bit of formula may undermine a strong start to breastfeeding,” Frieden says.

Again, let’s go back to the actual study. All it tells us is that “less progress occurred in limiting non–breast milk feeding of breastfed infants (20.6% to 26.4%)”. “Breastfed infants” means infants who start out breastfeeding, presumably. But many, many parents end up supplementing by choice or by necessity – and the study does not differentiate between these situations and the type of scenario the media is imagining, where innocent breastfed babies are stolen from their parents in the night and force-fed Enfamil.

This study is not news. This study is not, in fact, telling us anything about whether women are getting “support”, at all. It is telling us whether the number of hospitals following government guidelines for raising breastfeeding rates is going up (it is). It does not correlate that number with any increase in actual breastfeeding rates. It does not survey women and ask if they felt supported in achieving their breastfeeding goals. And it certainly does not factor in the needs or experiences of women who do not want to breastfeed, or physically can’t.

But it’s not the study I’m worried about – it’s the media’s insistence on sticking to one stale, tunnel-visioned narrative, insisting that what women need is support, but defining “support” as more control over their decisions and bodies; deciding that “supporting breastfeeding” means what one group decided it means, rather than listening to women, and asking them what would really help them achieve their goals. We end up exactly in the same place we were before: with hospitals implementing pro-breastfeeding policies and then wondering why their patients and nurses are making them so difficult to carry out. (Maybe because they aren’t the right policies, or they aren’t being implemented in the right way.)

Moving on… to a piece that could have been a nice little gift to formula consumers, something that actually made a case for better transparency in the formula industry, in the popular New York Times “Motherlode” column. If you’re not familiar with Motherlode, it usually features well-written personal essays on parenting, with the occasional news, book review, or opinion piece. Today’s column, “What Does ‘Organic’ Mean For Baby Formula”, was none of these, but rather a bizarre bit of “investigative reporting” that would have fit better over on Food Babe’s blog. The author of the piece writes:

…I began to question what, exactly, were the unexpected and confusing things I was reading on the ingredients lists.

The biggest surprise was that in many of the formulas, the main ingredient was not milk, but highly processed, refined sweeteners (often listed as organic glucose syrup solids). I generally avoid feeding refined sweeteners — even organic ones — to my children. I was even more taken aback to see how many also included ingredients one wouldn’t typically expect to find in organic food — like synthetic preservatives.

I won’t bore you with all the specifics of why formulas contain sweeteners, synthetic preservatives, and “confusing” ingredients, except to say this: companies have done their R&D to make the healthiest product possible for the lowest possible price. There may indeed be less processed or more premium ingredients available, but we don’t have any research proving that more expensive or organic formulas are any better for a child’s health, so there doesn’t seem to be justification for using materials that would raise the cost. (Note: If you do want more info on formula ingredients, visit Dr. Chad Hayes’ fantastic website).

Now, to be fair, I understand the author’s confusion; if you’re used to buying high-end organic food, the back of a formula can – organic or not – is going to be super intimidating. But it’s important to remember that the definition of organic food is simply about the sources of the ingredients:

“What is organic food? Organic food is produced by farmers who emphasize the use of renewable resources and the conservation of soil and water to enhance environmental quality for future generations.  Organic meat, poultry, eggs, and dairy products come from animals that are given no antibiotics or growth hormones.  Organic food is produced without using most conventional pesticides; fertilizers made with synthetic ingredients or sewage sludge; bioengineering; or ionizing radiation.  Before a product can be labeled ‘organic,’ a Government-approved certifier inspects the farm where the food is grown to make sure the farmer is following all the rules necessary to meet USDA organic standards.  Companies that handle or process organic food before it gets to your local supermarket or restaurant must be certified, too.”

-Consumer Brochure, USDA National Organic Program, http://www.ams.usda.gov/nop/Consumers/brochure.html

To clarify, in organic foods, the ingredients used can’t be derived from sources using GMO, pesticides, antibiotics, and so forth. It doesn’t mean that the food is healthy or whole. You could make an organic version of a Twinkie, but it would still be a Twinkie.

Now, in the case of formula, we are talking about something healthy – but also highly processed. This is chemical food, and it should be chemical food. It is a substitute for human milk; hence, the only way it can come close to human milk is by being recreated in a lab. Every mammal creates milk specific to its species; having the primary ingredient of human infant formula be cow’s milk has to do with cow’s milk being cheap and readily available, and easy enough to alter to be suitable for human consumption; it’s not because cow’s milk is particularly good for humans, whether it comes from the udders of grass-fed cows or not. 

I honestly do not want to criticize the author of the NYT piece. She sounds like a very well-intentioned mother. But I do think that an article which seems on the surface to be investigative journalism instead of an opinion piece, could be misleading to other well-intentioned parents, who will now feel that they have to pay exorbitant amounts of money to feed their children “healthy” formula: 

On a friend’s advice, I began to research two formulas made in the European Union, HiPP and Holle. It seemed pretty clear: these formulas came closer to what I would expect in organic baby food. No refined, high-concentrated sweeteners. No synthetic DHA or ARA. No synthetic preservatives. HiPP says it analyzes all its agricultural projects for traces of over 1,000 different substances. The main ingredient in Holle’s formula is milk that comes from pasture-fed cows raised on biodynamic farms.

 

Holle and HiPP are great products. And the author’s assertion at the end of her article, that parents need better options, is spot-on. I want there to be more communication between formula manufactures and parents, so that we all understand why certain ingredients are in our babies’ food. I want there to be ample options for kids with all sorts of food sensitivities; formulas for vegans; formula for parents who care about grass-fed cows. Because that’s the beauty of using a manufactured product – it can be altered. It can evolve.

What I don’t want is fear-mongering or confusion running around, when parents are already stressed and scared about formula use. I want parents to know that while DHA/ARA is indeed hexane-extracted, that does NOT mean that any hexane remains in the DHA/ARA. I want them to know that the reason many companies don’t use lactose is not because it’s expensive, but rather because cow lactose is different than human lactose, and many babies have a hard time tolerating it. I want them to know that yes, ingredients matter, and it’s absolutely okay to care about what goes into your body and your baby’s body (not that you need my permission or anyone else’s to feel how you’re going to feel, but you know what I mean), but the formulas on the market now have been tested, highly regulated, and proven to work beautifully for the majority of babies.

Insisting that we have more choices and better consumer knowledge does not have to mean throwing the generic brand-fed baby out with the bathwater. Let’s stop and talk to the people who are creating these formulas, and not just stop at the Cornucopia Institute (because both sides are affected by very strong bias, and you need to balance one extreme with the other), as well as some totally independent, science-minded folks. Let’s aim for truth and nuance rather than absolutes and middle-class food politics.

And now, I’m going to go celebrate the Cubs securing their place in the post-season, because that’s the only news really worth talking about, anyway.

 

***For a great breakdown of the organic formula options currently available in the US, visit the Incredible Infant’s Guide to Organic Formula.***

 

 

“Mothers deserve better”: An interview with Dr. Christie Del Castillo-Hegyi

Dr. Christie Del Castillo-Hegyi, MD, is a mother – and a physician- on a mission. Since she began her blog and Facebook page a few months ago, she’s become a hero to over 10,000 parents who have experienced insufficient milk or delayed lactogenesis II (the process of breastmilk “coming in” after birth). She has been tirelessly advocating for better safeguards for breastfeeding mothers, and fighting against the dogma that insists that supplementation is detrimental to a baby’s health. 

I’m honored to bring you this interview with Dr. Del Castillo-Hegyi. Her opinions are controversial, and I really admire her bravery, and how she’s turned a negative personal experience into a plea for change. Before we make blanket recommendations that force women to weigh their gut instinct against the fear of recriminations from medical professionals and hospital staff, it’s essential that we look at ALL the research- without bias, without blinders, without fear. 

– The FFF

“Mothers Deserve Better”:

An Interview with Christie Del Castillo-Hegyi, MD.

FFF: Your blog and Facebook page are called “Insufficient Breastfeeding Dangers”. What are the dangers of insufficient feeding in a newborn, exactly?

CDCH: The known potential effects of insufficient feeding are dehydration, low glucose, elevated bilirubin (jaundice) and high sodium.  All in all, those laboratory markers make up the syndrome of starvation.  Dehydration, if extreme enough, can cause decreased circulating blood volume, low blood pressure, and decreased circulation to the brain.  This can cause brain injury and even death.  In animal studies, thirty minutes of loss of circulation to the brain can cause widespread brain cell death.

 

Extreme dehydration results in hypernatremia, or high sodium, because as a baby loses water, the sodium will become concentrated.  Their brains can experience contraction similar to dehydrated fruit, which upon re-expansion through rehydration, can result in brain swelling and irreversible brain injury.  It has been documented in the literature that hypernatremic dehydration can result in brain swelling, brain hemorrhage, seizures and even death.

 

It is not clear how long a child can tolerate exclusive colostrum-feeding before they develop hypoglycemia.  I have had one mother whose child seemed dissatisfied from exclusive colostrum-feeding for only one day and was found hypoglycemic by the second day.  It is difficult to know what the typical time to developing hypoglycemia of an average exclusively breastfeeding child because glucose is not routinely checked in babies without a diabetic mother or other traditional risk factors.  Hypoglycemia eventually happens to all babies if they do not receive enough milk through breastfeeding either due to poor supply or poor latch.  EVERY article in the known medical literature that has studied newborn hypoglycemia shows evidence of harm in the form of abnormal MRI findings and decreased long-term cognitive outcomes.  A low glucose is typically cited as a glucose level of less than 45, even though some newborns may exhibit few signs of distress even at this level.  Signs of a hypoglycemic newborn is agitation, frantic feeding, inconsolable crying or lethargy.

 

Lastly, insufficient feeding can result in a third dangerous condition, called hyperbilirubinemia or jaundice.  A bilirubin of greater than 15 is considered abnormal in the literature and has been associated in multiple studies around the world with a higher risk of autism relative to newborns who don’t experience high bilirubin levels.  One study refuted these findings and it came from the Kaiser system, which is a Baby-Friendly hospital, where exclusive breastfeeding from birth is encouraged.  They produced a study that was well-done but was thousands-fold smaller in size that the largest study, which showed a positive correlation, in Denmark, where they studied the ENTIRE newborn population over 10 years, which included over 700,000 newborns.  The Denmark study found a 67% higher risk of autism in jaundiced newborns.

 

That being said, I don’t want to worry every mom whose child had jaundice.  Not every jaundiced newborn has a level above 15.  Also, not every child who develops a level above 15 will develop autism.  Autism is still a genetic disease.  I believe babies who are born with a lot of autism genetics, as predicted by having lots of scientists, mathematicians and engineers in their families, who experience a physiologic insult, such as lack of oxygen to the brain and jaundice (both demonstrated in the literature to be associated with autism) may go on to have the disabling condition of autistic spectrum disorder.

FFF: What sparked your interest in this issue?

CDCH: My newborn son developed hypernatremic jaundice and dehydration because I was assured by the breastfeeding manuals that there is always enough milk in the breast as long as I keep breastfeeding.  I was told that, “he would be hungry” and that my “latch was perfect” by our lactation consultant the day we left the hospital.  No one ever told me it was possible for a child to become dehydrated and unconscious because there was not enough milk present.  We were told to count the diapers but how wet is a wet diaper?

 

My son lost 15% by the third day, the day after discharge and my pediatrician must not have calculated the percent lost because he gave us the option of continuing to breastfeed and to wait for the 4th or 5th day.  I realized when I was watching my son get an IV that what I did must be common and that other mothers must be experiencing this horror too.  I thought, “What must my son’s brain injury look like and why hadn’t I heard of this before?”  Three-and-a-half years later, I found out what his brain injury looked like.

 

What I saw with my own physician- and mother-eyes was the slow torture of a newborn child.  Babies who are asked to endure hours of frantic feeding without compensation of milk, otherwise known as “cluster feeding,” are experiencing agony.  No textbook, lactation consultant or physician will ever convince me otherwise.  To this day, the description of what I saw is embedded in every breastfeeding manual as normal and vital for the stimulation of milk production.  We are systematically telling new mothers to ignore their child’s hunger cues by telling them there is ALWAYS enough colostrum and by scaring them into withholding formula even when a newborn needs it.  THAT is why newborn dehydration will never go away with simply increasing breastfeeding support and follow-up appointments.  Unless a mother is given the knowledge about the potential harms of insufficient feeding and the right to feed her own baby, newborns will continue to experience these complications and be hospitalized for it every day.

FFF: When you began researching the topic, was there anything that surprised or shocked you?quotescover-JPG-66

CDCH: I began researching the topic shortly after receiving our son’s formal diagnosis of autism, which was February, 2014.  I first studied jaundice and autism and was surprised that there were so many studies that linked the two conditions, because I had never heard of the risk factor listed in the patient literature on autism.  I wondered why a modifiable risk factor would not be heavily attacked in the face of an epidemic.  I believe it is because it is linked to breastfeeding.

Breastfeeding has enjoyed an untouchable status in the medical community.  So much so that no part of it as outlined by the lactation community has been challenged by the physician community.  We assumed because it is associated with breastfeeding, what ever the guidelines are must be safe, despite evidence that many newborns on a daily basis get admitted for dehydration and jaundice from exclusive breastfeeding.  Unfortunately, any challenge is quickly met with an accusation that the individual is “anti-breastfeeding” or “pro-formula,” when in fact, perhaps it may simply be a challenge like mine, whose purpose is to keep the newborn safe from harm.  I am surprised by the lack of activism by the medical community to reduce or stop the incidence of a horrible, life-threatening and brain-threatening condition that can be prevented with informing mothers of these complications and a few bottles of formula to keep a child out of the hospital.

quotescover-JPG-42I was surprised to find out that we really haven’t exclusively breastfed from birth for millennia before the creation of formula.  If that were so, indigenous cultures that have no access to formula currently would be doing so nearly 100% of the time.  In fact, there is no evidence that we have widely exclusively breastfed from a single mother at all.  According to a review of the history of breastfeeding written by an IBCLC, lactation failure was first described in Egypt in 1550 B.C.  Wet nurses were often employed to feed newborns whose mother could not lactate.  There are modern day cultures where babies are breastfed by a community of mothers, not just one mother.  Also, the breastfeeding literature is rife with articles showing how problematically low exclusive breastfeeding from birth is all around the world because most cultures give what they call, “pre-lacteal feeds.”  These moms probably just call it “feeding.”  Moms all over the world recognize that their children may need more than what is coming out of the breast and they have populated their countries on the tenets of feeding their children what they need every day.  It wasn’t until the breastfeeding resurgence in the 1980’s and the codification of exclusive breastfeeding from birth through the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative of the World Health Organization written in 1992, that we started feeding newborns colostrum-only during the first days of life in the hospital.  This was written primarily to counteract the dangerous feeding of formula prepared with contaminated water to babies in the developing world, which was an important public health endeavor.  However, the guidelines to exclusively breastfeed for 6 months largely ignored the common possibility of insufficient milk production experienced by many mothers.  So feeding newborns without supplementation only began in the 1990’s.

Nurses who worked in the newborn nursery in the 1980’s account that newborns were supplemented from the first day of life with 2 ounces of formula.  Most newborns tolerated these feeds and did not vomit it as widely claimed by the lactation community.  I found that the newborn stomach at birth is not 5 cc, as claimed by the lactation community.  It is in fact roughly 20 cc’s or 2/3rds an ounce, as summarized by a review of 6 different articles looking at actual newborns.  This is also the static volume of a newborn stomach and may not account for peristalsis, which may allow a newborn to accommodate more.  I discovered that it is quite implausible that the stomach can grow 10 times its size in 2 days and that a one-day-old newborns can in fact drink 2 ounces in one meal without vomiting at all.

Many moms asked me, “How much weight CAN they lose?” and “What DOES my newborn need?”  I looked again to the literature looking for evidence showing the safety of weight loss in newborns and NOT A SINGLE ARTICLE showing that 10% weight loss over 10 days is safe in every newborn, which is the current standard of care.  This teaching has been accepted for decades now.  To answer the second question, I sought out what a one-day-old’s daily caloric requirement was and what the caloric content of colostrum is.  I found that a one-day-old’s caloric requirement is the same as that of a three-day-old’s, because they have the same organs and same activity all three days.  A one-day-old newborn needs 110 kcal/kg/day and colostrum has 60 kcal/100 mL.  I must have done this calculation by hand 20 times because I found that this resulted in a one-day-old needing 2.8 ounces of colostrum per pound per day .  A 7 lb child would need 19.6 oz of milk in one day.  I confirmed this finding because I gave my 5.5 lb twin girls free access to supplementation and they each took 2 oz every 3 hours on their first day, a total of 16 oz.  They only gained 1 oz! That leaves 15 oz going completely toward their metabolic activity.  For them, they required 2.7 oz/lb/day.

How much actual science and observation of actual babies and safety data was done to come up with the breastfeeding guidelines?  There are many articles that show that unlimited supplementation can reduce breastfeeding duration, which is why formula is withheld from babies, but none that showed this practice was safe for the baby’s brain in the long run.  We have no idea what threshold of weight loss is in fact safe for a baby’s brain, because it has not been studied.  While babies’ bodies can endure days of underfeeding, their brains cannot.  That is what I am asking the scientific community to study.

FFF: Do you think that medical professionals are afraid to say anything that could be construed as “anti-breastfeeding”? How have your peers responded to your work in this area?

CDCH: Yes, medical professionals are afraid to say anything contrary to what the lactation community accepts as true because they do not want to be perceived as “anti-breastfeeding” or “pro-formula.”  Being “pro-formula” or “formula-sponsored” is a common accusation that I receive despite all the “pro-breastfeeding” instruction that I provide.  People have assumed that if you are against any part of the breastfeeding prescription, you MUST be against breastfeeding.

I am absolutely pro-breastfeeding.  I am absolutely AGAINST starving a child to achieve it.  I have received quiet support from several of my peers, but mostly silence for the majority.  I believe colleagues who are silent are incredulous or shocked or afraid.  I can’t truly know.  I can understand it because I am a physician and we are taught to stick close to the pack.  I am literally running away from it.

Until there is data from a credible and impartial source like the CDC or the Joint Commission, I will not have the proof that the Baby-Friendly Hospital Initiative is causing long-lasting harm.  There is already plenty of harm that has resulted locked in the hearts of many mothers who experienced this trauma.  I hope moms from both our Facebook sites will be willing to help advocate for increased safety for newborns by submitting written and/or video testimony on how the BFHI harmed them and their child.

FFF: What sort of response have you received from publishing your blog and Facebook page? 

CDCH: Outrage from breastfeeding moms and opposition from most lactation consultants except for a loved few, two of which fully recognize the harms of insufficient feeding to baby’s and their moms.  However, the ones I live for are the responses from moms who say that this happened to them and their babies either were harmed, hospitalized or were luckily saved from harm by an independently minded mom, nurse or other individual that told them their baby was hungry and needed a bottle.  These moms write to thank me for validating what happened to them and for telling them that this was not their fault, that what they saw was real and that this should never happen to any mother and child.  I have received messages from moms experiencing what I describe in my letter in real time and I have helped those moms advocate for their child, even when their professionals were bullying them to keep withholding formula!  It’s crazy.  What are we doing to our newborns?

What I feel most disappointed about is the lack of response I have received from the Executive Committee of American Academy of Pediatrics who I have been trying to contact for at least 6 months.  No response from the organization that is supposed to protect our newborns.  So I decided to inform the public on my own.  At first I was afraid.  Now I am not.

FFF: Have you endured any personal or professional attacks due to asking these tough questions about our current protocol for early breastfeeding?

CDCH: Tons.  People on the internet can act with cruelty because they don’t have to suffer any consequences.  I try not to let it get to me because I know it comes from a place that is likely sincere like mine, a mother trying to protect her newborn from harm.  Some mothers perceive my ideas as harmful, likely because the thought of starving your child is so horrible, I get the most harsh messages from breastfeeding moms, often moms whose children developed pathological weight loss.  I haven’t received too many challenges from physicians though, interestingly enough.  At least among my colleagues on Facebook, I have received supportive messages.

FFF: In an ideal world, how do you think hospitals could alter their procedures to better protect babies and mothers from the dangers of insufficient breastfeeding?

CDCH: These are my core recommendations:

1) Instructional videos on manual expression to check for the presence of colostrum.  Mom should also be instructed on listening for swallows to detect transfer of milk.

 

2) Pre- and post-breastfeeding weights to ensure transfer of milk and identify newborns at risk for underfeeding.

 

3) Calculation of the 7% weight loss threshold at delivery so that a mother knows when supplementation may be needed, which can be posted in her room.  The most critical clinical data an exclusively breastfeeding mom needs to know is the percent weight loss of her child.

 

4) Universal informed consent and thorough counseling on the possibility of underfeeding and jaundice due to delayed or failed lactogenesis and giving mothers permission to supplement their child if they go under the weight limit at home using a baby scale. Mothers must know the signs of a newborn in distress including hours of feeding continuously, crying after unlatching, and not sleeping. Most of all, a mother should be advised to check her supply by hand-expression or pumping to ensure that her child is in fact getting fed.  If little milk is present, she should be given permission ahead of time to supplement by syringe with next-day follow-up with a pediatrician and lactation consultant to assess the effectiveness of technique and transfer of milk if such an event arises.

5) Uniform daily bilirubin (abnormal total bilirubin > 14) and glucose checks (abnormal glucose < 45) for exclusively breastfed infants who are losing weight or who have any degree of jaundice.  Both these values are critical to detect physiology that can cause brain injury.

6) Twice daily weight checks in the hospital and at home until lactogenesis and consistent milk transfer has been established with a mother-baby dyad.  These can be plotted before discharge to predict the expected weight loss the day after discharge if mother’s milk does not come in.  A mother can check the weight at home and supplement if the child reaches the weight loss threshold.

7) Detailed instructions on supplementation only after nursing to continue the stimulation needed for milk production.  Supplementation should be a choice and be accepted and supported by the medical community as a patient right.  A mother has the right to feed her child above all goals the medical community has for her.

8) A breastfeeding safety checklist to reduce medical error in the care of a mother and exclusively breastfed newborn.

 

Lastly, my advice for new mothers at home is to have an experienced parent around for the first week to help.  Parents need sleep and they don’t get much in the postpartum period.  Additionally, experienced parents know the look and sound of a child who is hungry or in distress.  The child’s wishes should be honored.  I believe in the human rights of a newborn to be fed what they need because following the alternative can lead to what my son experienced.

FFF: Your page grows in popularity every day. Have you been surprised at how many mothers have been affected by this issue?

CDCH: I am not surprised by how many mothers have experienced this issue.  Mothers have been experiencing this for 2 decades now since exclusive breastfeeding from birth has been the mandate.  This is the first that the experience is being made public because mothers have been uniformly shamed for having their child go through this.

Even now, people still post comments that blame me for not knowing, for not producing enough milk, for not seeking out enough help when the entire teaching by the lactation community prevents a mother from knowing this is possible and the standard of care does not detect what is coming out of a mother’s breast.  We have been taught to abandon responding to a baby’s cry in order to achieve exclusive breastfeeding and rely instead on weight checks and bilirubin levels to determine “medical necessity” for supplementation.

What are we doing with our newborns?  What are we doing to our mothers?  It breaks my heart every day the things mothers have told me about inadvertently starving their newborns.  They all sought help and all followed the instruction of their providers while seeing that there was something wrong with their child.  But they were told breastfeeding is always enough as long as your child is producing diapers.  What we are doing is NOT enough. These are the most well-intentioned and motivated mothers who do this. They read parenting books, attend classes and follow their doctor’s orders like I did.  I was in the hospital for a whole 48 hours while my son was receiving nothing for me!  Then I was at my pediatrician’s office the next day, at a lactation consultant’s office the day after and in the hospital by that evening.

Mothers are being led astray by the current breastfeeding dogma and being led to hospitalize their precious babies.  These mothers deserve better.

Vist Dr. Del Castillo-Hegyi’s Facebook page for more information: https://www.facebook.com/insufficientbreastfeedingdangers?fref=ts

 

 

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...