9 ms·

You seem to have a serious grudge about breast feeding vs. formula. I am sorry that was so traumatic for you. But it seems to me that this is much more to do wi

You seem to have a serious grudge about breast feeding vs. formula. I am sorry that was so traumatic for you. But it seems to me that this is much more to do with “new (yuppie) parent culture” than with the medical establishment or research community. Having spent a bunch of time around new parents, my observation is that most of them are way too hyped up about trivial threats. If a breast-feeding mother drinks a glass of wine once every few days the risk to the baby is trivial. If the baby sleeps in the same bed with the mother the risk to the baby is trivial, unless the mother is an a severe alcoholic or high on drugs. If the baby plays with many types of toys marked “ages 3+” while the parents are sitting watching, the risk to the baby is trivial. If the baby climbs up on a play structure marked “ages 4–7” while the parents are standing watching, the risk of permanent injury is trivial. If a 2-year-old walks around barefoot on the sidewalk, the risks are trivial. Etc. The same kind of tendencies bring us the anti-vax movement, a rush to sanitize all surfaces in the home, excessive fears about kidnapping, theatrical demonstrations of disgust near smokers outside on the sidewalk, and so on. New parents’ (and people’s in our society more generally) risk assessment and concept of hygiene is excessively black–and–white. But this is not the fault of “modern medicine”.

0xEFF 7y ago
The grudge against the breast is best is legitimate and valid. My son was just born in a baby friendly hospital 6 weeks premature. Mom was pumped full of fluids for days before the delivery and they built up in her lungs. The day after delivery, she woke up to the cardio and respiratory alarms going off at 6am and she was talking nonsense to the nurse, presumably because she wasn’t getting enough oxygen. That day, the nurses kept coming into her room and the top priority was to get her to pump. The top priority. I finally had to go talk to the charge nurse and demand they look at her lungs because she obviously couldn’t breathe. So yes. The hyper focus on breast feeding is a problem. Baby friendly is often hostile to the mother. The medical community is to blame while in the hospital prioritizing pumping over breathing.
- war1025 7y ago
  I don't know that it really has that much to do with "breast is best". I think nurses are just normal overworked people following their script. If it wasn't the breast is best thing, they'd be ignoring you for different reasons. We had twins two years ago and some of the nurses were just very lacking in empathy. A few of the other ones were fantastic. The second night we were in the hospital, I went home to stay with our older daughter. This left my wife on her own in the room, and the understanding was the nurses were going to give her time alone and handle a couple of the feedings for her. Well, shift change happened and the new nurse didn't give a care. Have to follow the script. Sure they took the twins away after the feeding, but when they need to eat every two hours and it takes an hour to do, and then they have a half hour of other checks they need to get in, basically my wife didn't get any sleep all night. She broke down crying in front of her nurse and the nurse basically said, "Suck it up." Without considering that my wife was dealing with a C-section, new twins, having nurses in and out of the room constantly, and me not being there to lend a hand. I came in at like 5 am, and she was basically just sobbing in her bed. Thankfully one of the nice nurses came in and sat with her and calmed her down, and then said she would have a chat with the younger nurse and let her know that she needed to cut new moms some slack. The other noteworthy thing that happened was my wife ordered supper, and while the nurses were in the room, she very obviously was having an allergic reaction to it. They just carried on like nothing was happening because "we're here for the babies". Finally I put my foot down and pointed out that my wife was obviously having an allergic reaction and her eyes were basically swollen shut. Then they finally were like "oh, I guess we should get her something for that." Which is a long way of saying, I agree that nurses aren't nearly attentive enough. And can relate. But also, I'm not sure if its the focus on breast feeding that is the issue.
  - michaelmrose 7y ago
    Not noticing that someone can't breath when their face is visibly swollen isn't a matter of being overworked its rank incompetence. If its caused by fatigue one has to wonder how the facility managed to collect the most money in the world for the same situations and manage not to afford enough personnel.
    - 7y ago
- ujjjujjj 7y ago
  You do know what the difference is between anecdotal evidence and statistics right? Your example sounds so far away from everything normal.
  - 0xEFF 7y ago
    Right, and I suppose modern medicine should ignore rare conditions and syndromes, treating only patients who fall nicely into a normal distribution.
    - ujjjujjj 7y ago
      No. Where did i say that? Has it ever crossed your mind, that medical people have a simliar distribution than every other field? Do you think every software developer is an expert? Do you think everyone who is painting, paints equally well? Do you think just because someone studied, that person is smart?
    - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
      His point was that one anecdote of a bad experience at a hospital does not dispute the statistics that breast milk is better than formula.
      - 0xEFF 7y ago
        The data does not support the claim breast milk is better than formula for long term outcomes [1]. Given this, it’s appropriate to be angry and frustrated at the way society and modern medicine treats women who do not breast feed. Especially when the woman is struggling to breathe. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jun/20/is-breast-really-best-i-looked-at-all-the-data-to-find-out https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jun/20/is-brea...
        ujjjujjj 7y ago
        That is STILL anecdotal. Srsly there are bad people working in hospitals who are doing a bad job. But some of them also just be overworked or don't care or whatever. “This is the most important thing you can do for your child, and if it doesn’t work for you, that’s very unfortunate and, in the long run, will have serious consequences.” never crossed my plate. In germany mothers try, if it doesn't work, it doesn't. Thats it.
- otabdeveloper4 7y ago
  > Baby friendly is often hostile to the mother. As it should be. You're the responsible adult in the room, and you will have to make sacrifices to take care of the helpless person you chose to bring into this world. If you think "mom comes first", then get a fur baby instead.
  - pfyra 7y ago
    It is not as black and white as that. You cannot simply ignore the mother and let her deal with baby blues or whatever pops up on her own or else you are not taking care of the child either. There is enough room to care for both the mother and the child.
    - otabdeveloper4 7y ago
      > There is enough room to care for both the mother and the child. I didn't say that there isn't. What I said, literally, is that the mother doesn't come first.
bgschiller 7y ago
I think you might be underestimating how hard breastfeeding is pushed in US hospitals. Our second night in the hospital with my son, my wife's milk hadn't come in yet. Our son was screaming because he was hungry. The nurse kept saying this was good, that it would encourage breast milk production. It took several tries to convince her that, while it might be good in the long run, we needed some food for this baby. This was a consistent experience with all nurses we dealt with. Interestingly, breastfeeding specialists tended to be more understanding.
- throwawayhhakdl 7y ago
  I don’t have any kids, but I can’t figure out what people are actually complaining about here. Most comments seem to be referring to breast feeding in the hospital in the few days post birth. Is it just hospital culture we’re upset with? My understanding was that breast milk is generally pretty important to do as it helps transmit antibodies and the like. But, having some formula is fine too. I see older cases about nestle misleading women in developing markets to suggest formula was better, which led to deaths. However this seems to be due to nutritional deficiencies which I, perhaps naively, would assume they have figured out by now.
  - karatestomp 7y ago
    > I see older cases about nestle misleading women in developing markets to suggest formula was better, which led to deaths. However this seems to be due to nutritional deficiencies which I, perhaps naively, would assume they have figured out by now. They have, it's fine. > But, having some formula is fine too. It is harder to get the baby on the breastfeeding train, if you will, if you're switching between breast and bottle. You can pump but many women find that really distasteful and either way it takes up shitloads of time and their body might still not cooperate. A surprising percentage of babies (admittedly anecdotal, but I'm a parent and know lots of others and the sample size is actually pretty large as a result, though not randomized) have a hell of a time "latching" and actually getting enough milk out, and that's if the mother's body's producing enough, both of which are hard to measure so it's really easy to end up with a baby who's in the "failing to thrive" range which can lead to further hospitalization (and more judgement from nurses and such). Frankly, as soon as shit gets a little sketchy I'd say just go straight to formula and bottle. It's not as good, sure, but the other way seems to be wildly harder and more difficult to track, unless you get very lucky and have one of those pairings where both mother and baby sync up perfectly and it just goes great, in which case it's merely very time-consuming. This is like 20% of babies at best, in my experience. The rest get to deal with non-stop stink-eye and condescension from nurses and other care providers while they're stressed out, hurting, and anxious already, to probably still fail at the whole breast feeding thing even if they try hard and feel like shit for weeks and maybe don't get their baby enough food to grow properly while attempting it.
jacobolus 7y ago
More directly to the topic of this discussion: the problem with screens is that they are a very easy tool for making children shut up and stop bothering the adults, and a much more difficult tool to make into a challenging and thoughtful experience. As a result many adults lean on using screens to distract their children much more than they absolutely need, and end up reliant on them. And the kids end up using screens in a way that is wasting a ton of time and not helping their development. The material on screen is very often (from what I can observe just walking around town and seeing kids looking at them) grossly inappropriate for the child’s current level – either too simple and repetitive or too advanced and incomprehensible – but the sounds, colors, and especially movement are so exciting as pure distraction that kids will sit entranced, whether or not they are learning anything. The overstimulation from the screen is addictive enough for the kids that the kids will start to fuss and cry when the screen is removed, and when given the choice the screen will crowd out other toys and activities. It is probably possible to make a screen a meaningful learning experience for young kids, but few parents (especially the ones who are using the screen to get a break from childcare) have the time to research and personally vet material to figure that out. If a kid watches 30m of Mr. Rogers every day, they’re going to be fine. But the kids watching 2 hours of YouTube low-budget animated nursery rhymes on loop, or watching endless unboxing videos, or playing a too-easy iPad game, when they could otherwise be playing with and learning about the physical world, are really missing out. This is not to say that kids shouldn’t regularly spend some time entertaining themselves while the parents do something else. But if they can learn to do so with a wimmelbook or some crayons or some blocks or a cardboard box.... they’re usually going to be learning more than if stuck in front of a TV.
- Waterluvian 7y ago
  I generally agree with all of that. And all of that, to me, suggests even just a fundamental level of involvement by parents is what's important. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with screens being a problem.
  - em-bee 7y ago
    well the problem is that screens exist. when i grew up screens didn't exist (at least not in my home), and so the problem solved itself in other ways. we got crazy on comic books. parents didn't get involved. (though they helped us buy up the remaining stocks of a second hand comic book dealer when that closed down. the problem with screens is that they are strongly attractive. my kids don't even notice me when they watch a screen. from the available entertainment kids will pick what is most attractive, and the only way to reduce screen time is to not make it available, and instead provide other options.
bcrosby95 7y ago
Our hospital had a 50 year old lactation consultant that called formula poison when she heard our pediatrician recommended us to supplement breastfeeding with formula. We decided not to even try with our twins, because it took an hour of pumping to produce half an ounce, every doctor we saw still pushed breastfeeding on us. There's immense peer pressure surrounding it too. People love feeling superior to each other.
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  Our kids were breastfed for the most part, but I still agree with you on formula not being a big deal. I disagree with this, though: > People love feeling superior to each other. I think it’s simply that people are poor at understanding that Option A being slightly better than Option B does not mean that Option B is bad. I think this deficiency in reasoning is what drives a lot of irrational behavior wrt to parenting (eg, making incredible sacrifices to afford a home in a neighborhood with “good schools”, going through hell so your newborn doesn’t sleep on its tummy, etc).
- shawnb576 7y ago
  This kind of stuff, well the whole fertility process really, is what really opened my eyes to what women have to deal with that most men don't seem to have any awareness of. The sheer amount of guilt, shame, tut-tutting, and general bullshit around the birthing process is just astounding. Breastfeeding is the poster child for this (great example here) but so does every other thing about parenting. Women have to make "no-win" choices around this, plus career, plus body changes, plus so many parenting choices. Every single one of these things has 10 books that say X and 10 books that say Y. Our pediatrician was supportive of nursing and suggested we stick with it but also said "the data that breastmilk is better in any significant way is just not there". My wife breastfed for 6 months with both our kids then called it good, and I thought that was heroic. Having to duck out to pump every couple hours is literally the last thing a new mom back at work (guilt! shame! second-guessing!) wants to be doing.
beagle3 7y ago
It’s most definitely the medical establishment. There are similar issues with the “back to sleep” campaign - the risk of SIDS apparently is indeed Slightly lower for babies sleeping on their back, but it is only very slightly lower, and some babies will not sleep on their back unless they are exhausted which causes other non trivial issues. If you actually look into the “back to sleep” study data, it is much, much weaker than proponents imply it is. And yet, every nurse in the hospital kept telling us with religious fervor to not even think of letting the baby fall asleep on their stomach. I was so impressed that I was sure the evidence was overwhelming. But after a week with a hardly sleeping newborn (relatively speaking), I decided to look into it myself. You should to, rather than trust the “experts”. (Or a random internet post like mine, for that matter)
- asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
  I went and looked at a few studies. I did not find the same weakness of evidence that you described. E.g. [1] seems decently strong, to take just one example, although I'd be happy to be shown my error. I do agree that folks should examine the research for themselves, since it's so easy to do once you get practice. I also agree that the research on screen time is extraordinarily weak, and that there isn't really a good reason it has a causal negative impact on children as yet. [1]: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199308053290601 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199308053290601
  - beagle3 7y ago
    I am away from home on phone at this second, and likely have not kept my 10 year old notes, but from memory: Strongest predictor of SIDS was mom’s education level, followed by whether or not she was smoking; stomach/back was third. It’s the strongest one that can (easily) be changed, but something is very fishy about the data. Proponents point out the inverse correlation between sleeping on back and SIDS, starting at the time the recommendations were made, as proof that this is a causal relationship. However, inclusion of time prior to recommendation shows that SIDS is inverse correlated to time; and sleeping on back is positively correlated with time only after recommendations were made. Also, it’s possible data in the last 10 years paints a different picture - but at the time, the case for causal “back to sleep” was very flimsy.
ebg13 7y ago
> theatrical demonstrations of disgust near smokers outside on the sidewalk I'm with you completely except for this one. Cigarette smoke feels like it sucks the air out of a nonsmoker's lungs from quite a wide radius. A nonsmoker can smell an outdoor cigarette from a block away, and it doesn't smell good even at that distance. Up close it makes people involuntarily gag. Not recognizing that seems pretty blind.
- skinkestek 7y ago
  Never been a smoker or even smoked until I was well beyond 30 and even then, something like 6 small cigars over the course of 4 years or so. None of my parents, aunts/uncles or grandparents have been smoking since before I was born AFAIK and I still disagree with you. I've always liked the distant smell of smoke for some reason. As everyone stops I'll probably miss it a bit but that is OK, I don't want them to destroy their lungs. But your blanket statements feels weird to me, even as a non-smoker from a non-smoking home.
- allovernow 7y ago
  Cigarette smoke is not nearly as bad or gross for the average person as you make it out to be - how do you think smokers could possibly stand it otherwise? If you didn't know it was bad for you you wouldn't be making such a pearl clutching fuss about it. This post is pure hysteria. You're rationalizing a conditioned, exaggerated reaction.
  - karatestomp 7y ago
    It didn't bother me back when everyone smoked, but now that I'm rarely around it it's about as bad as described. I can tell when someone's smoking two cars in front of me at a stoplight, too, when both our windows are rolled up. Smells awful.
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    On and off smoker chiming in here. I love the smell of cigarette smoke when I’m smoking or recently quit. If I haven’t smoked in several months, though, the smell is as the person you’re responding to describes: terrible, imposing, and wide reaching.
Reedx 7y ago
Those kind of overreactions and bulldozer parenting are in large part the result of 24/7 news, which made unusual events seem common and created an environment of neverending fear. Additionally, as the world became safer and sanitized, we became more distanced from injury and it seems more traumatic. Parents are more afraid and focused on the downsides. As well as the fact that we have fewer kids than in the past. The potential consequences are greater. It's also worth noting that the body and brain are anti-fragile. That is, they become stronger and more robust when challenged. Weaker in the absence of it. The end result of all this sanitization, safetyism and overprotection is a fragile human. One that is less able to cope with the challenges and messiness and nuance of the real world. That negative feedback loop has led to quite a mess. The Coddling of the American Mind does an excellent deep dive on all this: https://www.amazon.com/Coddling-American-Mind-Intentions-Generation/dp/0735224897 https://www.amazon.com/Coddling-American-Mind-Intentions-Gen...
- SoreGums 7y ago
  Anti-fragile indeed, still sucks when your 7month rolls off the bed unexpectedly...
  - marcus_holmes 7y ago
    That will be a very educational experience for it.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - Swizec 7y ago
    I once jumped off the bed straight onto my head and got a concussion at 5. Turned out fine My sis used to climb out of her crib and flop down to the ground when she was little. Turns out she was just naturally athletic. Now she’s a personal trainer. Put some pillows next to their bed and let them roll
gvjddbnvdrbv 7y ago
> theatrical demonstrations of disgust near smokers outside on the sidewalk, and so on. We are disgusted because the poison in cigarette smoke is extremely harmful to young lungs. Smokers should have to go into designated areas they should have no right to pollute the air of those around them.
- jacobolus 7y ago
  The amount of crap you get from momentarily standing near a smoker nearby outside is orders of magnitude less than you get from automobile exhaust walking around a typical city. When someone is idling their car or truck do you go knock on their window and make a big scene about how they are poisoning your child?
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    The complaints of the people you’re responding to are not merely health related, but also aesthetic. Cigarette smoke smells bad to most people. Smoking where other people will smell it is like farting in an elevator: highly inconsiderate.
    - jacobolus 7y ago
      From a purely aesthetic perspective, someone waving their arms, holding their nose, and talking loudly about how disgusting smokers are as they walk past a cigarette smoker is far more unpleasant than the original act. Theatrical public shaming is one of the ugliest things in society.
      - gvjddbnvdrbv 7y ago
        Given the strong association with SIDS and cigarette smoke the desire of parents to get their newborn babies away from the poison is not theatrical. It is practical.
      - toasterlovin 7y ago
        I don’t know what to tell you, but there’s a fundamental difference between being the transgressor and responding to a transgression. And I say this, FWIW, as a on and off smoker.
stOneskull 7y ago
> hyped up about trivial threats and really, this is the worst for kids
thaumasiotes 7y ago
> If the baby sleeps in the same bed with the mother the risk to the baby is trivial, unless the mother is an a severe alcoholic or high on drugs. Yep, this is just as obvious as you want it to be. And yet there's a massive government advertising campaign taking out billboards with the message "if you let your baby sleep with you, you are a bad mother and your baby will die". Check out the posters in the BART system sometime. I find this incredibly disgusting. Nothing can justify this official message. But there it is out there anyway. The government, spending your money to hurt you.
refurb 7y ago
It seems like in developing nations were getting into the realm of diminishing returns around health risks (obviously not everything, but a lot of things). Go back 50 years and the things like nutrition, vaccination, etc had huge benefit in risk reduction. Now that we’ve tackled those, we go after the next set. Now it’s breast feeding, screen time, etc. we put a similar focus on those but the returns are much smaller and sometimes questionable. Is breast feeding better? Sure. Is your child going not going to reach their full potential if you use formula? No. Not worth getting stressed over.
dragonsky 7y ago
Nope. Medical staff effectively saying you must feed your baby now or it will die three hours after it was born and after a 24 hour labour tends to focus your mind and scare the crap out of you. There is just as much unsubstantiated fear generated by medical staff when it comes to kids as everywhere else in the community. Seems that just having been a child qualifies somebody to comment on how you choose to raise your children. Too much attention and you are a helicopter parent, not enough and you are neglectful. God forbid you let them play in the park without you being there.
rstuart4133 7y ago
He is commenting on the depressingly short 1/2 life of recommendations from the medical fraternity, and he is spot on about breast feeding recommendations having changed recently. I'm guessing the abandoned recommendations got their start when Nestlé dressed up their sales women in WHO uniforms and instructed them to tell African woman "formula is best", and the medical fraternity understandably went basaltic, but they also went too far. Now that has come back to bite them. Medicine is not unique in it's "accepted dogma" having a 1/2 life of course, all sciences do. But it's horribly short. From https://hms.harvard.edu/news/medicine-changing-world https://hms.harvard.edu/news/medicine-changing-world : > Today, the half-life of medical knowledge is currently about 18-24 months, and it is projected that in about four years that half-life will be only 73 days. That's from a mob trying to flog education so it's going to be an exaggeration, but it's still short no matter who measures it. By comparison Engineering knowledge 1/2 life is till measured in decades, although I expect they conveniently leave software engineering out of that. Overall I agree with him, the doctors are far too eager to hard sell the latest advice in some paper. I guessing that's because selling advice is how they make their money. That behaviour has its downsides.

0xEFF 7y ago

The grudge against the breast is best is legitimate and valid. My son was just born in a baby friendly hospital 6 weeks premature. Mom was pumped full of fluids for days before the delivery and they built up in her lungs. The day after delivery, she woke up to the cardio and respiratory alarms going off at 6am and she was talking nonsense to the nurse, presumably because she wasn’t getting enough oxygen. That day, the nurses kept coming into her room and the top priority was to get her to pump. The top priority. I finally had to go talk to the charge nurse and demand they look at her lungs because she obviously couldn’t breathe. So yes. The hyper focus on breast feeding is a problem. Baby friendly is often hostile to the mother. The medical community is to blame while in the hospital prioritizing pumping over breathing.

war1025 7y ago
I don't know that it really has that much to do with "breast is best". I think nurses are just normal overworked people following their script. If it wasn't the breast is best thing, they'd be ignoring you for different reasons. We had twins two years ago and some of the nurses were just very lacking in empathy. A few of the other ones were fantastic. The second night we were in the hospital, I went home to stay with our older daughter. This left my wife on her own in the room, and the understanding was the nurses were going to give her time alone and handle a couple of the feedings for her. Well, shift change happened and the new nurse didn't give a care. Have to follow the script. Sure they took the twins away after the feeding, but when they need to eat every two hours and it takes an hour to do, and then they have a half hour of other checks they need to get in, basically my wife didn't get any sleep all night. She broke down crying in front of her nurse and the nurse basically said, "Suck it up." Without considering that my wife was dealing with a C-section, new twins, having nurses in and out of the room constantly, and me not being there to lend a hand. I came in at like 5 am, and she was basically just sobbing in her bed. Thankfully one of the nice nurses came in and sat with her and calmed her down, and then said she would have a chat with the younger nurse and let her know that she needed to cut new moms some slack. The other noteworthy thing that happened was my wife ordered supper, and while the nurses were in the room, she very obviously was having an allergic reaction to it. They just carried on like nothing was happening because "we're here for the babies". Finally I put my foot down and pointed out that my wife was obviously having an allergic reaction and her eyes were basically swollen shut. Then they finally were like "oh, I guess we should get her something for that." Which is a long way of saying, I agree that nurses aren't nearly attentive enough. And can relate. But also, I'm not sure if its the focus on breast feeding that is the issue.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  Not noticing that someone can't breath when their face is visibly swollen isn't a matter of being overworked its rank incompetence. If its caused by fatigue one has to wonder how the facility managed to collect the most money in the world for the same situations and manage not to afford enough personnel.
  - 7y ago
ujjjujjj 7y ago
You do know what the difference is between anecdotal evidence and statistics right? Your example sounds so far away from everything normal.
- 0xEFF 7y ago
  Right, and I suppose modern medicine should ignore rare conditions and syndromes, treating only patients who fall nicely into a normal distribution.
  - ujjjujjj 7y ago
    No. Where did i say that? Has it ever crossed your mind, that medical people have a simliar distribution than every other field? Do you think every software developer is an expert? Do you think everyone who is painting, paints equally well? Do you think just because someone studied, that person is smart?
  - s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
    His point was that one anecdote of a bad experience at a hospital does not dispute the statistics that breast milk is better than formula.
    - 0xEFF 7y ago
      The data does not support the claim breast milk is better than formula for long term outcomes [1]. Given this, it’s appropriate to be angry and frustrated at the way society and modern medicine treats women who do not breast feed. Especially when the woman is struggling to breathe. https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jun/20/is-breast-really-best-i-looked-at-all-the-data-to-find-out https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2019/jun/20/is-brea...
      - ujjjujjj 7y ago
        That is STILL anecdotal. Srsly there are bad people working in hospitals who are doing a bad job. But some of them also just be overworked or don't care or whatever. “This is the most important thing you can do for your child, and if it doesn’t work for you, that’s very unfortunate and, in the long run, will have serious consequences.” never crossed my plate. In germany mothers try, if it doesn't work, it doesn't. Thats it.
otabdeveloper4 7y ago
> Baby friendly is often hostile to the mother. As it should be. You're the responsible adult in the room, and you will have to make sacrifices to take care of the helpless person you chose to bring into this world. If you think "mom comes first", then get a fur baby instead.
- pfyra 7y ago
  It is not as black and white as that. You cannot simply ignore the mother and let her deal with baby blues or whatever pops up on her own or else you are not taking care of the child either. There is enough room to care for both the mother and the child.
  - otabdeveloper4 7y ago
    > There is enough room to care for both the mother and the child. I didn't say that there isn't. What I said, literally, is that the mother doesn't come first.

bgschiller 7y ago

I think you might be underestimating how hard breastfeeding is pushed in US hospitals. Our second night in the hospital with my son, my wife's milk hadn't come in yet. Our son was screaming because he was hungry. The nurse kept saying this was good, that it would encourage breast milk production. It took several tries to convince her that, while it might be good in the long run, we needed some food for this baby. This was a consistent experience with all nurses we dealt with. Interestingly, breastfeeding specialists tended to be more understanding.

throwawayhhakdl 7y ago
I don’t have any kids, but I can’t figure out what people are actually complaining about here. Most comments seem to be referring to breast feeding in the hospital in the few days post birth. Is it just hospital culture we’re upset with? My understanding was that breast milk is generally pretty important to do as it helps transmit antibodies and the like. But, having some formula is fine too. I see older cases about nestle misleading women in developing markets to suggest formula was better, which led to deaths. However this seems to be due to nutritional deficiencies which I, perhaps naively, would assume they have figured out by now.
- karatestomp 7y ago
  > I see older cases about nestle misleading women in developing markets to suggest formula was better, which led to deaths. However this seems to be due to nutritional deficiencies which I, perhaps naively, would assume they have figured out by now. They have, it's fine. > But, having some formula is fine too. It is harder to get the baby on the breastfeeding train, if you will, if you're switching between breast and bottle. You can pump but many women find that really distasteful and either way it takes up shitloads of time and their body might still not cooperate. A surprising percentage of babies (admittedly anecdotal, but I'm a parent and know lots of others and the sample size is actually pretty large as a result, though not randomized) have a hell of a time "latching" and actually getting enough milk out, and that's if the mother's body's producing enough, both of which are hard to measure so it's really easy to end up with a baby who's in the "failing to thrive" range which can lead to further hospitalization (and more judgement from nurses and such). Frankly, as soon as shit gets a little sketchy I'd say just go straight to formula and bottle. It's not as good, sure, but the other way seems to be wildly harder and more difficult to track, unless you get very lucky and have one of those pairings where both mother and baby sync up perfectly and it just goes great, in which case it's merely very time-consuming. This is like 20% of babies at best, in my experience. The rest get to deal with non-stop stink-eye and condescension from nurses and other care providers while they're stressed out, hurting, and anxious already, to probably still fail at the whole breast feeding thing even if they try hard and feel like shit for weeks and maybe don't get their baby enough food to grow properly while attempting it.

jacobolus 7y ago

More directly to the topic of this discussion: the problem with screens is that they are a very easy tool for making children shut up and stop bothering the adults, and a much more difficult tool to make into a challenging and thoughtful experience. As a result many adults lean on using screens to distract their children much more than they absolutely need, and end up reliant on them. And the kids end up using screens in a way that is wasting a ton of time and not helping their development. The material on screen is very often (from what I can observe just walking around town and seeing kids looking at them) grossly inappropriate for the child’s current level – either too simple and repetitive or too advanced and incomprehensible – but the sounds, colors, and especially movement are so exciting as pure distraction that kids will sit entranced, whether or not they are learning anything. The overstimulation from the screen is addictive enough for the kids that the kids will start to fuss and cry when the screen is removed, and when given the choice the screen will crowd out other toys and activities. It is probably possible to make a screen a meaningful learning experience for young kids, but few parents (especially the ones who are using the screen to get a break from childcare) have the time to research and personally vet material to figure that out. If a kid watches 30m of Mr. Rogers every day, they’re going to be fine. But the kids watching 2 hours of YouTube low-budget animated nursery rhymes on loop, or watching endless unboxing videos, or playing a too-easy iPad game, when they could otherwise be playing with and learning about the physical world, are really missing out. This is not to say that kids shouldn’t regularly spend some time entertaining themselves while the parents do something else. But if they can learn to do so with a wimmelbook or some crayons or some blocks or a cardboard box.... they’re usually going to be learning more than if stuck in front of a TV.

Waterluvian 7y ago
I generally agree with all of that. And all of that, to me, suggests even just a fundamental level of involvement by parents is what's important. This doesn't seem to have anything to do with screens being a problem.
- em-bee 7y ago
  well the problem is that screens exist. when i grew up screens didn't exist (at least not in my home), and so the problem solved itself in other ways. we got crazy on comic books. parents didn't get involved. (though they helped us buy up the remaining stocks of a second hand comic book dealer when that closed down. the problem with screens is that they are strongly attractive. my kids don't even notice me when they watch a screen. from the available entertainment kids will pick what is most attractive, and the only way to reduce screen time is to not make it available, and instead provide other options.

bcrosby95 7y ago

Our hospital had a 50 year old lactation consultant that called formula poison when she heard our pediatrician recommended us to supplement breastfeeding with formula. We decided not to even try with our twins, because it took an hour of pumping to produce half an ounce, every doctor we saw still pushed breastfeeding on us. There's immense peer pressure surrounding it too. People love feeling superior to each other.

toasterlovin 7y ago
Our kids were breastfed for the most part, but I still agree with you on formula not being a big deal. I disagree with this, though: > People love feeling superior to each other. I think it’s simply that people are poor at understanding that Option A being slightly better than Option B does not mean that Option B is bad. I think this deficiency in reasoning is what drives a lot of irrational behavior wrt to parenting (eg, making incredible sacrifices to afford a home in a neighborhood with “good schools”, going through hell so your newborn doesn’t sleep on its tummy, etc).
shawnb576 7y ago
This kind of stuff, well the whole fertility process really, is what really opened my eyes to what women have to deal with that most men don't seem to have any awareness of. The sheer amount of guilt, shame, tut-tutting, and general bullshit around the birthing process is just astounding. Breastfeeding is the poster child for this (great example here) but so does every other thing about parenting. Women have to make "no-win" choices around this, plus career, plus body changes, plus so many parenting choices. Every single one of these things has 10 books that say X and 10 books that say Y. Our pediatrician was supportive of nursing and suggested we stick with it but also said "the data that breastmilk is better in any significant way is just not there". My wife breastfed for 6 months with both our kids then called it good, and I thought that was heroic. Having to duck out to pump every couple hours is literally the last thing a new mom back at work (guilt! shame! second-guessing!) wants to be doing.

beagle3 7y ago

It’s most definitely the medical establishment. There are similar issues with the “back to sleep” campaign - the risk of SIDS apparently is indeed Slightly lower for babies sleeping on their back, but it is only very slightly lower, and some babies will not sleep on their back unless they are exhausted which causes other non trivial issues. If you actually look into the “back to sleep” study data, it is much, much weaker than proponents imply it is. And yet, every nurse in the hospital kept telling us with religious fervor to not even think of letting the baby fall asleep on their stomach. I was so impressed that I was sure the evidence was overwhelming. But after a week with a hardly sleeping newborn (relatively speaking), I decided to look into it myself. You should to, rather than trust the “experts”. (Or a random internet post like mine, for that matter)

asdfasgasdgasdg 7y ago
I went and looked at a few studies. I did not find the same weakness of evidence that you described. E.g. [1] seems decently strong, to take just one example, although I'd be happy to be shown my error. I do agree that folks should examine the research for themselves, since it's so easy to do once you get practice. I also agree that the research on screen time is extraordinarily weak, and that there isn't really a good reason it has a causal negative impact on children as yet. [1]: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199308053290601 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199308053290601
- beagle3 7y ago
  I am away from home on phone at this second, and likely have not kept my 10 year old notes, but from memory: Strongest predictor of SIDS was mom’s education level, followed by whether or not she was smoking; stomach/back was third. It’s the strongest one that can (easily) be changed, but something is very fishy about the data. Proponents point out the inverse correlation between sleeping on back and SIDS, starting at the time the recommendations were made, as proof that this is a causal relationship. However, inclusion of time prior to recommendation shows that SIDS is inverse correlated to time; and sleeping on back is positively correlated with time only after recommendations were made. Also, it’s possible data in the last 10 years paints a different picture - but at the time, the case for causal “back to sleep” was very flimsy.

ebg13 7y ago

> theatrical demonstrations of disgust near smokers outside on the sidewalk I'm with you completely except for this one. Cigarette smoke feels like it sucks the air out of a nonsmoker's lungs from quite a wide radius. A nonsmoker can smell an outdoor cigarette from a block away, and it doesn't smell good even at that distance. Up close it makes people involuntarily gag. Not recognizing that seems pretty blind.

skinkestek 7y ago
Never been a smoker or even smoked until I was well beyond 30 and even then, something like 6 small cigars over the course of 4 years or so. None of my parents, aunts/uncles or grandparents have been smoking since before I was born AFAIK and I still disagree with you. I've always liked the distant smell of smoke for some reason. As everyone stops I'll probably miss it a bit but that is OK, I don't want them to destroy their lungs. But your blanket statements feels weird to me, even as a non-smoker from a non-smoking home.
allovernow 7y ago
Cigarette smoke is not nearly as bad or gross for the average person as you make it out to be - how do you think smokers could possibly stand it otherwise? If you didn't know it was bad for you you wouldn't be making such a pearl clutching fuss about it. This post is pure hysteria. You're rationalizing a conditioned, exaggerated reaction.
- karatestomp 7y ago
  It didn't bother me back when everyone smoked, but now that I'm rarely around it it's about as bad as described. I can tell when someone's smoking two cars in front of me at a stoplight, too, when both our windows are rolled up. Smells awful.
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  On and off smoker chiming in here. I love the smell of cigarette smoke when I’m smoking or recently quit. If I haven’t smoked in several months, though, the smell is as the person you’re responding to describes: terrible, imposing, and wide reaching.

Reedx 7y ago

Those kind of overreactions and bulldozer parenting are in large part the result of 24/7 news, which made unusual events seem common and created an environment of neverending fear. Additionally, as the world became safer and sanitized, we became more distanced from injury and it seems more traumatic. Parents are more afraid and focused on the downsides. As well as the fact that we have fewer kids than in the past. The potential consequences are greater. It's also worth noting that the body and brain are anti-fragile. That is, they become stronger and more robust when challenged. Weaker in the absence of it. The end result of all this sanitization, safetyism and overprotection is a fragile human. One that is less able to cope with the challenges and messiness and nuance of the real world. That negative feedback loop has led to quite a mess. The Coddling of the American Mind does an excellent deep dive on all this: https://www.amazon.com/Coddling-American-Mind-Intentions-Generation/dp/0735224897 https://www.amazon.com/Coddling-American-Mind-Intentions-Gen...

SoreGums 7y ago
Anti-fragile indeed, still sucks when your 7month rolls off the bed unexpectedly...
- marcus_holmes 7y ago
  That will be a very educational experience for it.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- Swizec 7y ago
  I once jumped off the bed straight onto my head and got a concussion at 5. Turned out fine My sis used to climb out of her crib and flop down to the ground when she was little. Turns out she was just naturally athletic. Now she’s a personal trainer. Put some pillows next to their bed and let them roll

gvjddbnvdrbv 7y ago

> theatrical demonstrations of disgust near smokers outside on the sidewalk, and so on. We are disgusted because the poison in cigarette smoke is extremely harmful to young lungs. Smokers should have to go into designated areas they should have no right to pollute the air of those around them.

jacobolus 7y ago
The amount of crap you get from momentarily standing near a smoker nearby outside is orders of magnitude less than you get from automobile exhaust walking around a typical city. When someone is idling their car or truck do you go knock on their window and make a big scene about how they are poisoning your child?
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  The complaints of the people you’re responding to are not merely health related, but also aesthetic. Cigarette smoke smells bad to most people. Smoking where other people will smell it is like farting in an elevator: highly inconsiderate.
  - jacobolus 7y ago
    From a purely aesthetic perspective, someone waving their arms, holding their nose, and talking loudly about how disgusting smokers are as they walk past a cigarette smoker is far more unpleasant than the original act. Theatrical public shaming is one of the ugliest things in society.
    - gvjddbnvdrbv 7y ago
      Given the strong association with SIDS and cigarette smoke the desire of parents to get their newborn babies away from the poison is not theatrical. It is practical.
    - toasterlovin 7y ago
      I don’t know what to tell you, but there’s a fundamental difference between being the transgressor and responding to a transgression. And I say this, FWIW, as a on and off smoker.

stOneskull 7y ago

> hyped up about trivial threats and really, this is the worst for kids

thaumasiotes 7y ago

> If the baby sleeps in the same bed with the mother the risk to the baby is trivial, unless the mother is an a severe alcoholic or high on drugs. Yep, this is just as obvious as you want it to be. And yet there's a massive government advertising campaign taking out billboards with the message "if you let your baby sleep with you, you are a bad mother and your baby will die". Check out the posters in the BART system sometime. I find this incredibly disgusting. Nothing can justify this official message. But there it is out there anyway. The government, spending your money to hurt you.

refurb 7y ago

It seems like in developing nations were getting into the realm of diminishing returns around health risks (obviously not everything, but a lot of things). Go back 50 years and the things like nutrition, vaccination, etc had huge benefit in risk reduction. Now that we’ve tackled those, we go after the next set. Now it’s breast feeding, screen time, etc. we put a similar focus on those but the returns are much smaller and sometimes questionable. Is breast feeding better? Sure. Is your child going not going to reach their full potential if you use formula? No. Not worth getting stressed over.

dragonsky 7y ago

Nope. Medical staff effectively saying you must feed your baby now or it will die three hours after it was born and after a 24 hour labour tends to focus your mind and scare the crap out of you. There is just as much unsubstantiated fear generated by medical staff when it comes to kids as everywhere else in the community. Seems that just having been a child qualifies somebody to comment on how you choose to raise your children. Too much attention and you are a helicopter parent, not enough and you are neglectful. God forbid you let them play in the park without you being there.

rstuart4133 7y ago

He is commenting on the depressingly short 1/2 life of recommendations from the medical fraternity, and he is spot on about breast feeding recommendations having changed recently. I'm guessing the abandoned recommendations got their start when Nestlé dressed up their sales women in WHO uniforms and instructed them to tell African woman "formula is best", and the medical fraternity understandably went basaltic, but they also went too far. Now that has come back to bite them. Medicine is not unique in it's "accepted dogma" having a 1/2 life of course, all sciences do. But it's horribly short. From https://hms.harvard.edu/news/medicine-changing-world https://hms.harvard.edu/news/medicine-changing-world : > Today, the half-life of medical knowledge is currently about 18-24 months, and it is projected that in about four years that half-life will be only 73 days. That's from a mob trying to flog education so it's going to be an exaggeration, but it's still short no matter who measures it. By comparison Engineering knowledge 1/2 life is till measured in decades, although I expect they conveniently leave software engineering out of that. Overall I agree with him, the doctors are far too eager to hard sell the latest advice in some paper. I guessing that's because selling advice is how they make their money. That behaviour has its downsides.