Am I being selfish?

[sheldonsmommy]

OP- Maybe I can offer a different perspective

My ds1 was ebf for 3 or so months, until I went back to work part time. It didn't work for my supply and it was etched into my head that 'breast is best', which I interpreted as breast is the only method. So I persevered with pumping at work and bf when I was home, only to have him lose about half a pound. My own ignorance. We continued feeding with formula from then on. He is currently a healthy, thriving, lean, near 3 year-old.

My point is, the fact that you have the foresight to be contemplating your future decision is excellent. This is what will allow you to be content with however you feed lo. Being selfish entails thinking ONLY of yourself. You obviously have your family's interests in mind, or you wouldn't be conflicted at all. As others have said, do what you think is best. Each choice has upsides and downsides, but the only thing your lo will want is a happy mommy.

I feel compelled to add that about 75% of our antibodies, the IgG antibodies, actually pass through the placenta! The rest are passed via colostrum and breastmilk shortly after birth, or produced later if not given through milk. So your lo's immunity at 3 months is almost fully equipped to handle everyday pathogens spread by putting toys in his mouth, sucking his own fingers or having people kiss him. I fully disagree with people saying formula fed babies are more sickly than breastfed babies as the immune system is a complex fabrication based on genetics and exposure. Nurse rant over

 

[Unexpected212]

Ok I've read it all now. My son is more likely to die because I formula fed?

He's been formula fed since birth and he is now 18 months old. He has had 2 colds. Hasn't had to have any antibiotics.

My friends baby who is a year old and still breastfed has been in hospital 8 times with chest infections.

I think parents should do what feels right for them, and people should stop judging to harshly those decisions.

I have never understood the FF vs Bf debate. As long as the baby is being fed that is what matters. So many babies don't even get FED in this world full stop.

 

[MommyJogger]

It's not common sense because it's not clear cut like that. There's still a debate about the studies claiming that certain diseases are caused by not bf, or what the actual level of risk is (some studies contradict them, some don't find as big an effect) - so to use those studies to extrapolate something else is nothing close to common sense.

The CDC does keep track of deaths they suspect is related to formula: https://www.cdc.gov/features/cronobacter/

If there's 900 hundred cases of such a year, they have to have a category for it, or they wouldn't be doing their job.

At the end of the day, it's not right to use an extrapolation from some study and claim it as fact, it's not fact.

If you read the paper, they actually used only a set of death/disease/conditions for which there has been a strong, consistent link found. If the bolded is referring to that recent study that came out, you should know they weren't addressing any of the outcomes taken into account in the paper I posted. This pediatrics paper also restricted their analysis to the most conservative estimates (different studies will find different ORs, but they're all pretty tightly clustered for the outcomes looked at in this analysis and they assumed the least risk for each one as long as the risk came from a paper that met their criteria (the criteria tended to be a certain length of bf and had to not include combi feeding if at all possible).
As for the site you posted, the CDC is informed of Cronobacter infections. They don't record whether it came from formula or not, nor is reporting the infection required. So no, the CDC doesn't keep track of "formula deaths" from Cronobacter or any other complication. They can keep track of the difference in the rate of the infection between ff and bf infants, when it's reported, and use that to determine how many infections were caused by formula. If that's what you classify as recording it as a "formula death", then you should know those are the same methods used by the paper I posted.

Yes the OP's reasons may seem selfish to you (and perhaps they are) but to basically say her baby might die if she formula feeds is just downright wrong and using articles like the one you quoted is scaremongering to try and force your choice on others!

Statistic can be used to prove anything. A study like this can not possibly control for all the other factors which may have caused or led to the deaths of those infants. It cannot account for genetics, environment, lifestyle or socio-economic factors. Its a fact that bf rates are much higher in families from middle class backgrounds, those families typically have access to better healthcare, schools, have better living standards all of which are factors in what kind of diseases they will suffer from.

My dd was hospitalised at 6 weeks with bronciolitis, over that weekend 10 babies under 8 weeks were admitted with the same thing, of those babies 7 of them were bf. I am sure that bf does lower the risk of illness but by using formula the op would in no way be poisoning her baby. You have to be very careful using studies to back up an argument especially when the study contains no actual facts!

If you go back and actually read my posts before that, I specifically said that I wasn't trying to say that op's baby would die. My 900 babies comment was in response to Foogirl's multiple posts basically saying there's no difference in outcomes between bf and ff. I said there's a risk that her child would suffer from increased frequency of illness.
As for controlling, please read the papers used in the meta-analysis. Genetics and environment is controlled for by a large enough sample size and many of the papers used in the meta-analysis do run several sets of controls for SES and find that even in higher SES households only, the differences in the prevalence for the outcomes addressed in the meta-analysis hold. That's one of the reasons they restricted the analysis to the chosen outcomes.

 

[babyblog]

I think it's a shame you need to post this in the first place. If you want to stop BF then it's completely down to you. I don't see it as selfish. You've carried your baby for 9 months and bf for 3- if you want to share the feeding with your partner then go for it. Your reasons will be the same as many other women's - of course there Is more freedom with bottle feeding, it goes without saying. You are not solely resonsible for your baby then and can have more breaks and do things for you or your other children. Do what you want!

 

[MommyJogger]

I feel compelled to add that about 75% of our antibodies, the IgG antibodies, actually pass through the placenta! The rest are passed via colostrum and breastmilk shortly after birth, or produced later if not given through milk. So your lo's immunity at 3 months is almost fully equipped to handle everyday pathogens spread by putting toys in his mouth, sucking his own fingers or having people kiss him. I fully disagree with people saying formula fed babies are more sickly than breastfed babies as the immune system is a complex fabrication based on genetics and exposure. Nurse rant over

This is a gross misrepresentation. IgGs make up about 75% of the antibodies in an adult human body. IgGs pass through the placenta. That does not in any way mean that 75% of a baby's important antibodies are passed through a placenta. At 3 months, a baby starts producing its own antibodies, but that does not mean that a baby is fully equipped to handle anything. At 6 months, their bodies produce antibodies at about the normal rate and then the discussion turns to immune specificity response, which doesn't perform at the 'average' ability until they're several years old. As for what you believe, empirical inquiry disagrees with you. Biochemist rant over.

 

[Amygdala]

I get very annoyed when people deny that breastmilk is nutritionally better than formula. By all means, feed your baby any way you choose and if there are factors that mean you deem formula feeding the best choice that's your prerogative. But don't justify it to yourself and others by saying formula is just as good as breast milk. It's not. Endless studies have shown so in recent years. Whether your baby was more or less sickly on formula or breastmilk has no bearing on the fact that overall, breastmilk is better for babies. To pretend otherwise is unfair to future mothers who might be reading/hearing this and haven't made up their minds on breastfeeding. Equally, if you couldn't breastfeed, be proud of the fact that you're providing your baby with the next best thing but don't get offended when someone says that breastmilk is better. It's a fact. It's not a judgement of you or your situation. People don't point it out to put you down but to give future mothers the information they need to make their own feeding decision.

 

[meli1981]

I dont think anyone every said formula was better than bm....were just saying breastfed babies CAN get sick as often as formyla fed babies....

 

[KatieB]

So, in answer to the original question... No, I don't think you're being selfish, but if, as you said, you love the bond that breastfeeding creates between you and your LO, then all I would say is that you may end up regretting it down the line. I'd see how it pans out for you over the coming weeks xx

 

[Unexpected212]

I get very annoyed when people deny that breastmilk is nutritionally better than formula. By all means, feed your baby any way you choose and if there are factors that mean you deem formula feeding the best choice that's your prerogative. But don't justify it to yourself and others by saying formula is just as good as breast milk. It's not. Endless studies have shown so in recent years. Whether your baby was more or less sickly on formula or breastmilk has no bearing on the fact that overall, breastmilk is better for babies. To pretend otherwise is unfair to future mothers who might be reading/hearing this and haven't made up their minds on breastfeeding. Equally, if you couldn't breastfeed, be proud of the fact that you're providing your baby with the next best thing but don't get offended when someone says that breastmilk is better. It's a fact. It's not a judgement of you or your situation. People don't point it out to put you down but to give future mothers the information they need to make their own feeding decision.

I haven't see one person say it's not better. I think breast milk is better. Yet I bottlefed due to a traumatic labour and other issues. However all that matters to me is my baby is happy and healthy. I don't care how he was fed. Just that he is here and fine.

I'm going to try breastfeeding with my next because I agree their are many benefits. I did NOT say in my post that because of my anecdotes people shouldn't breast feed. I just don't get the debate and the huge pressure on women. I am going to try my hardest to breast feed and if it doesn't work out I won't feel guilty because my child will be fed and loved and that is all that matters.

I just totally disagree with posting statistics that show 900 formula fed babies die due to formula. I think that is scare mongering and cruel to mummies that couldn't breastfeed.

Also the only point I was making is it in my experience I haven't seen it make much difference to immune systems. doesn't mean it isn't a fact it is better. Just that my sons immune system is great and he was bottlefed.

A happy mother makes for a happy baby and that is the end of it in my mind. As long as the baby is fed and cared for the rest really doesn't matter.

 

[MommyJogger]

I just totally disagree with posting statistics that show 900 formula fed babies die due to formula. I think that is scare mongering and cruel to mummies that couldn't breastfeed.

It's not any more scaremongering or cruel than posting statistics about stomach sleeping or car seat safety or secondhand smoke. This thread is not about not being able to breastfeed, it's about choosing not to when you can. And Foogirl and others frequently make posts about how she/they believe there's no major difference between ff outcomes and bf outcomes and about how babies "thrive" on formula and "formula doesn't harm babies", when the latter statement is just 100% not true and the first one is a quality statement that doesn't even mean anything. That was the only reason I posted the statistic. It was not directed at the OP or anyone on here who ff. It was directed at the pronouncement that formula is harmless and carries no risks with its use.

 

[aliss]

I guess this discussion is always difficult in baby club because the experience is still so new for people. I find it much easier to talk about bf/ff now that my oldest is 4, and that the rawness of that has worn off. But I do think people are reading into things a bit much, nobody said a formula baby was going to die, nobody said she was poisoning her baby, come on...

Statistics can be used to prove anything, so let's just pick up a cigarette while we're at it. We can pretend it's all baloney until we're blue in the face, but that doesn't change that women should be given information which is currently accurate or pretend to twist those findings for the sake of trying not to offend people either.

And I've formula fed one and breast fed another, I've got no stake in this game on either side. Accurate information for informed decision making.

 

[meli1981]

It was said that 900 babies die in the united states, a year, from being formula fed.....not to say her babys going to die but....
How are people supposed to take this?

 

[Foogirl]

I just totally disagree with posting statistics that show 900 formula fed babies die due to formula. I think that is scare mongering and cruel to mummies that couldn't breastfeed.

It's not any more scaremongering or cruel than posting statistics about stomach sleeping or car seat safety or secondhand smoke. This thread is not about not being able to breastfeed, it's about choosing not to when you can. And Foogirl and others frequently make posts about how she/they believe there's no major difference between ff outcomes and bf outcomes and about how babies "thrive" on formula and "formula doesn't harm babies", when the latter statement is just 100% not true and the first one is a quality statement that doesn't even mean anything. That was the only reason I posted the statistic. It was not directed at the OP or anyone on here who ff. It was directed at the pronouncement that formula is harmless and carries no risks with its use.

As others have said, none of the research is clear cut. To say that formula harms babies is ridiculous. It's not formula that harms babies it is ignorance, it is using dirty water, it is making the wrong mix, it is storing formula that harms babies and frankly this argument has no place on this thread as the only purpose it serves is to make you feel right and to make other mums feel worried about their feeding choices. Go start another if you want to argue the point.

 

[zorak]

I just totally disagree with posting statistics that show 900 formula fed babies die due to formula. I think that is scare mongering and cruel to mummies that couldn't breastfeed.

It's not any more scaremongering or cruel than posting statistics about stomach sleeping or car seat safety or secondhand smoke. This thread is not about not being able to breastfeed, it's about choosing not to when you can. And Foogirl and others frequently make posts about how she/they believe there's no major difference between ff outcomes and bf outcomes and about how babies "thrive" on formula and "formula doesn't harm babies", when the latter statement is just 100% not true and the first one is a quality statement that doesn't even mean anything. That was the only reason I posted the statistic. It was not directed at the OP or anyone on here who ff. It was directed at the pronouncement that formula is harmless and carries no risks with its use.

As others have said, none of the research is clear cut. To say that formula harms babies is ridiculous. It's not formula that harms babies it is ignorance, it is using dirty water, it is making the wrong mix, it is storing formula that harms babies and frankly this argument has no place on this thread as the only purpose it serves is to make you feel right and to make other mums feel worried about their feeding choices. Go start another if you want to argue the point.

Also, if you don't know how to properly read scientific materials don't quote from them!

 

[meli1981]

Totally agree with foogirl....its not the formula its human error.....and the same can be said for bm...if its not stored properly or if things arent sterlized as in the pump or something...then babies could still get sick...

 

[Tasha]

I dont think the OP wanted a FF V BF debate. Please can we move back on topic to the OP post, offer her support and advice or move on from the thread. Thank you.

 

[meli1981]

Going back to the original post...yes there are things in life we CAN do...but choose not to....and thats ok! Doesnt make us selfish...just makes us human just cause you have breasts doesnt mean ypu have to breastfeed.....but if you think youll miss it then just wait until summer to make any concrete decisions

 

[NoodleSnack]

It's not common sense because it's not clear cut like that. There's still a debate about the studies claiming that certain diseases are caused by not bf, or what the actual level of risk is (some studies contradict them, some don't find as big an effect) - so to use those studies to extrapolate something else is nothing close to common sense.

The CDC does keep track of deaths they suspect is related to formula: https://www.cdc.gov/features/cronobacter/

If there's 900 hundred cases of such a year, they have to have a category for it, or they wouldn't be doing their job.

At the end of the day, it's not right to use an extrapolation from some study and claim it as fact, it's not fact.

If you read the paper, they actually used only a set of death/disease/conditions for which there has been a strong, consistent link found.

According to the abstract: we conducted a cost analysis for all pediatric diseases for which the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality reported risk ratios that favored breastfeeding.

If the bolded is referring to that recent study that came out, you should know they weren't addressing any of the outcomes taken into account in the paper I posted.

This is their list of the diseases/conditions: necrotizing enterocolitis, otitis media, gastroenteritis, hospitalization for lower respiratory tract infections, atopic dermatitis, sudden infant death syndrome, childhood asthma, childhood leukemia, type 1 diabetes mellitus, and childhood obesity

I'm sure that paper addresses obesity and asthma.

There was also another sibling study that also did not find some of the benefits often stated for bf: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1361236/

This pediatrics paper also restricted their analysis to the most conservative estimates (different studies will find different ORs, but they're all pretty tightly clustered for the outcomes looked at in this analysis and they assumed the least risk for each one as long as the risk came from a paper that met their criteria (the criteria tended to be a certain length of bf and had to not include combi feeding if at all possible).

Are you sure you posted the correct study? The one you posted mostly lift the OR from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality report. They do include "any breastfeeding" for some of the conditions - see table2.

As for the site you posted, the CDC is informed of Cronobacter infections. They don't record whether it came from formula or not, nor is reporting the infection required. So no, the CDC doesn't keep track of "formula deaths" from Cronobacter or any other complication.

So why did they investigate whether the formula was conteminated?

I don't know what you are trying to argue. You claimed there are 900 deaths a year due to formula feeding, if that's so, there would be a statistics about it. Now you're saying there isn't a statistics for it because there isn't such a category for "formula death"?

It's like you can't/won't differentiate between a death from a disease that the study found an increased risk with ff VS a death directly attributable to formula. We don't know the exact cause of some of those diseases (how or whether formula causes it, all the study suggests is a correlation) but if a child drinks contaminated formula then there's a clear cause as to why he's sick.

They can keep track of the difference in the rate of the infection between ff and bf infants, when it's reported, and use that to determine how many infections were caused by formula.

That's not what's being done here. What's being done was cases of an infectious disease were reported, it was suspected to be related to formula and investigated as such. That's how they determine whether formula killed those children.

If that's what you classify as recording it as a "formula death", then you should know those are the same methods used by the paper I posted.

It's not the same method because the study takes a number from another study that says ff infants are more prone to so and so disease than bf infants, there is so and so number of ff compared to bf infants, so they put these numbers into a model and then claim that if they increase bf by this much, this number of children might not have died, even though they have not properly established a causal effect between ff and those deaths.

 

[flamingpanda]

If you will enjoy summer more with your boy then switch. He's already three months and you've obviously done an amazing job. So don't beat yourself up, be the happiest mum you can be and you will have a happy baby. Good luck with whatever decision you make and have a lovely summer!

Also please don't worry about all the ff/bf debate in here. Some people like to use these kind of threads as a soapbox for their beliefs rather than addressing the original poster and their question/problem.

 

[Trishg21]

If you will enjoy summer more with your boy then switch. He's already three months and you've obviously done an amazing job. So don't beat yourself up, be the happiest mum you can be and you will have a happy baby. Good luck with whatever decision you make and have a lovely summer!

Also please don't worry about all the ff/bf debate in here. Some people like to use these kind of threads as a soapbox for their beliefs rather than addressing the original poster and their question/problem.

Exactly my thoughts! If you will be a happier mom by FF then you should absolutely do it. Your happiness is important.

This "discussion" has gotten crazy. In the end it does not matter what a bunch of people on the internet think. Only you know your situation and what is best for your family, and you should be able to make those decisions without feeling guilty.