This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
The sentence already said "at least" therefore "beyond" is redundant and I have trimmed. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Breastfeeding&type=revision&diff=719115870&oldid=718987543
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Jane Doe was still nursing her daughter when she was 2 1/2 years old. Her neighbor, Mary Busybody, said that maybe two years old might be acceptable but anything beyond two would be a disgrace and unnatural. They argued about it and Jane said, "OK, let's look it up in Wikipedia." They did and Mary said, "See, it says right there in Wikipedia 'After the introduction of foods at six months of age, continued breastfeeding until at least one to two years of age is then recommended'."
I went through this same sort of unreasonable objections to extended breastfeeding last year about this time. Must I again waste my time, especially now when I have so little of it? I would like to continue to improve this article but if I continue to find that I need to waste most of time time on this one issue it is doubtful that I would be able to find time for little else. All in all a very discouraging situation for me... Gandydancer ( talk) 17:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that the WHOs recommendations are not based upon sound science. They should definitely not be in here, but we shouldn't pretend that they are scientific. Carl Fredik 💌 📧 21:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
We currently say "After the introduction of foods at six months of age, continued breastfeeding until at least one to two years of age is then recommended" This means breast feeding should continue until the child is one or two years of age or longer. Do not understand the concern? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
The question of the science behind the recommendation is an entirely separate issue. These are recognized experts and their recommendations and they absolutely belong in the article. If anyone wants to debate the MERIT of these recommendations, they may do so in their own thing and on their own space. Just because someone claims that the science behind these recommendations is faulty is no reason to exclude those recommendations from the article.
In this case, I also agree that a quote makes the most sense. The argument that"and beyond" is redundant ignores the reasons why "and beyond" is indeed the exact wording used. Also, in the case of a recommendation, a quote is obviously the most accurate and therefore truthful way to accurately portray type of information.
To say, "this organization recommends" and then to use your OWN WORDS had great potential for misunderstanding and error.
A recommendation IS a quote. My recommendation something is the exact words I used. Or else it is someone else's interpretation of my recommendation. There is no two ways about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyanda2000 ( talk • contribs) 15:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I think we can leave the discussion for the degree of benefit with respect to diarrhea and pneumonia in the developing versus the developed world can be left to the body of the article. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Breastfeeding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
This ref says "There's some evidence that regularly drinking more than two units of alcohol a day while breastfeeding may affect your baby's development. But an occasional drink is unlikely to harm your breastfed baby. It's recommended that breastfeeding mothers have no more than one or two units of alcohol once or twice a week." [2]
Thus we say "Smoking, limited amounts of alcohol, or coffee are not reasons to avoid breastfeeding." Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
| ||
---|---|---|
Feminism in breastfeeding
EthicsIn Muers’ article entitled “The Ethics of Breastfeeding”, she sets out to “challenge the individualization of responsibility, and of the attendant guilt” that results from current arguments and social attitude towards breastfeeding. [1] The action being the mother’s choice burdens the woman into deciding whether to conform with “a prescribed standard of good mothering” and feel guilty for even considering to choose something is often labeled as unhealthy. [1] However, Benoit’s article highlights not the importance of breastfeeding in regards to the child’s needs but rather in terms of the woman’s decision, or lack thereof due to a “society whose values are predominantly defined by men”. [2] Women who breastfeed, especially in public space, are often looked upon with disgust and disapproval regardless of the naturalness of breastfeeding. But this distaste is not because of the crude stigma modern society has developed about nudity but is instead about the “desexualization” of the female body when breastfeeding. [2] A patriarchally imposed oppression would not approve of a different use for an otherwise sexual part of the female anatomy than the use predetermined by said overarching opposition. And while this is understood socially, such an aggressive attitude towards women can only be practiced through politics. Muers writes that “infant feeding… is [a] key instance of the ‘personal’ within women’s lives that needs to be [re]named as ‘political’”. [1] Although, the medical importance of breastfeeding cannot be underscored. Scholar Lisa H. Amir recognizes the need to increase breastfeeding rates yet notes that acknowledging “social circumstances [can] improve our understanding of infant feeding” as it directly relates to the feminist ideology behind making the decision to breastfeed. [3] In recent years, this decision has been either praised or refuted based on “the baby’s behavior” and whether it is “well fed, satisfied, settled, and gaining weight”. [3] In other words, social approval depends how the baby appears to society instead of what the woman feels is the right course of action to take. This places an unfair question on the woman’s morality and ethical outlook, reducing the woman to acting on a decision out of selfishness. Woman's voiceBernice Hausman explains that arguments advocating for breastfeeding as an alternative to formula “turn on...whether science can tell us that women should breastfeed” [4] because of the obvious suppression of a feminist approach. What she implies is that the focus of the argument is warped—the social structure that “impedes women’s freedoms” is the question that is hiding behind the debate over the “value of breastfeeding”. [4] There is another layer of breastfeeding that is often overlooked that regards the physical sensations and emotional feelings that naturally arise from breastfeeding. From her studies and experiments, Charlotte Faircloth has concluded that the subjects that were supportive of the action felt as though what they were doing was right because it felt right. [5] She learned that some mothers felt such a strong bond with the child that it triggered a profound reaction within themselves as women, a truth that was often “indescribable”. [5] But her main point stems from this conclusion: whether it is moral and feminist simply because the emotional response received is a pleasurable one. References
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Breastfeeding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Breastfeeding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
These are Lancet articles about breastfeeding. Only one in the series was referenced in this article. Here are the rest in the series:
Others:
There is an approved Did You Know hook for the Low milk supply article. It would be good to have a few people with knowledge of breastfeeding watching it when eventually finds its way to the Main Page. Cheers, Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 23:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Also, Skin-to-skin contact, which redirects to Kangaroo care, is part of the DYK hook so please watchlist that too. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 05:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Just catching up on explaining my edit from a couple of days ago. I reverted a change to restore deleted information about the latching process & importance to milk transfer and to make the description of a good latch more clear. The following content was removed through my reversion:
The phrase "the bottom of the
areola... is in the baby's mouth" was particularly unclear to me, even though it was well-sourced. Assuming the phrase "bottom of the areola" means "inferior part of the areola":
Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 04:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help) This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the
public domain.
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help) This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the
public domain.
There are some points in the video that seem inaccurate:
Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 23:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Re: Point #3, Yes Doc James you're right on this one. However, the mother's milk is still high-quality even if the mother's diet is deficient in some ways. ("Mother’s milk is recommended for all infants under ordinary circumstances, even if the mother’s diet is not perfect, according to the Committee on Nutrition During Pregnancy and Lactation of the Institute of Medicine" [1])
Some more issues with content:
Some thoughts generally on video in Wikipedia: There is a lot of potential for using video effectively in articles on breastfeeding. I don't think this particular form of video, which is basically a Powerpoint presentation that covers the topic at a stub-class or start-class level, is useful. This form of video is mostly text, in a medium that's frustratingly labour-intensive to review and almost impossible to revise. It's the equivalent of several paragraphs of text with no citations and no ability to be tagged as disputed. And at the end there is advertising.
What I would love to see in video are: high-quality demonstrations on how to get a good latch, demonstrations of various breastfeeding positions, and demonstrations of how to assess whether a baby is drinking effectively at the breast. And maybe demonstrations of things like signs of infant hunger and manual expression of breastmilk. The value of video is showing rather than telling. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 23:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I found a decent source for the health risks of introducing solids too late: poor growth, anemia, and feeding problems. [9] I'll remove the video for now and put it on this Talk page. There could be some still diagrams or snippets of the video that, if anyone wants to edit them out, would make a good complement to cited text. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 05:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
A few comments:
"After the introduction of foods at six months of age, recommendations include continued breastfeeding until at least one to two years of age."
This means breast feeding until one or two years old at least.
"After the introduction of foods at six months of age, recommendations include continued breastfeeding for at least one to two years or more."
This means breast feeding until at least 18 month or 36 months. Which refs support the later?
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
My edit read: After the introduction of foods at six months of age, recommendations include continued breastfeeding for at least one to two years or more. Which was just fine. And I don't understand why you keep saying I mentioned 18 months as I didn't. IMO your adding of "...one to two years of age or more" is not an improvement. One might say "more than one year", for example, but if one were speaking of age one would say "or older". But at least we've made some progress since previously you would not allow any mention of "or more" at all. Gandydancer ( talk) 21:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I would like to add information related to breast surgery to our article and would like to ask for feedback on a few sources.
Also please add anything you can find. Thanks
That was an opps on my part. I thought that the new (excellent) addition was the part that had been deleted and not the parts that were correctly deleted. Carry on! Gandydancer ( talk) 16:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I just rewrote a sentence. [16] This very topic is covered (with a significantly different emphasis) higher up the article under "Process/Drugs". -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 23:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
The section on Expressed Milk [i.e. pumping] seems to be biased. I'm certainly not well informed on this subject but Stanford has a site and a video which conflicts with the "adequacy" claims found in the section, especially the last paragraph about EP-only. Read material at
http://med.stanford.edu/newborns.html
or (for the video, which worked as of 28/5/2018)
https://med.stanford.edu/newborns/professional-education/breastfeeding/maximizing-milk-production.html
clearly says/shows that pumping without additional massage results in much less milk - pumping may only produce half of the volume available with pumping+massage. At the very least, this should be included. The conflict between the pollyanna-ish "everything is fine" claims currently in the section (and please note all of the vague qualifications) and the claims of the Stanford site are glaring. I also recommend these:
https://breastfeedingusa.org/content/article/how-much-milk-should-you-expect-pump-0
https://breastfeedingusa.org/content/article/pump-more-milk-use-hands-pumping
Given that milk supply depends on demand, then if pumping (demand) is half of what is available, then pumping must have less than optimum impact on milk supply. Surely worth noting.
98.21.221.175 (
talk) 21:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
In the section "Health effects" the following was added:
Is this text really appropriate for this article, and especially for that section? Is the tone of the text appropriate? Surely "It is detrimental that America would deny the health of children and mothers in order to salvage the multi-billion dollar formula industry" cannot be an encyclopedic tone. The text now makes most of the intro of the section "Health effects" (before the subsections start), despite the fact that it isn't really about health effects of breastfeeding; it's rather about the Politics of Donald Trump. The text gives undue weight to this incident; and it gives a biased slant to the article (out of all people who have ever contested various aspects of breastfeeding promotion, it chooses only one person as an example - which no doubt is likely to influence readers). 2A02:2F01:5CFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:433D ( talk) 23:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
In the lede it is said "Breastfeeding is less expensive than infant formula.[9][10]"
This is an oversimplification, and it also contradicts the section Financial considerations which states:
This claim from the lede needs to be removed or rephrased. 2A02:2F01:5CFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:433D ( talk) 23:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I removed this statement from our article:
A 2017 study found that introducing after birth limited formula use to aid breastfeeding difficulties does not interfere with breastfeeding later, and may be an important therapeutic option for newborns with the potential to reduce readmission rates.[199]
It was returned saying: the section deals with criticisms and relevant opinions (supported with studies) should be introduced. And given that many countries either have never implemented or have abandoned BFHI it is relevant
The (one) source says this:
In this randomized controlled trial, we enrolled 164 exclusively breastfeeding newborns, 24-72 hours old, whose weight loss was ≥75th percentile for age, and whose mothers had not yet begun mature milk production. Enrolled newborns were assigned randomly to either supplement breastfeeding with early limited formula (ELF), 10 mL of formula after each breastfeeding stopped at the onset of copious maternal milk production (intervention), or to continue exclusive breastfeeding (control). Outcomes assessed through 1 month included breastfeeding duration, readmission, and intestinal microbiota. [17]
According to La Leche League guidelines: After about two to four days [48 to 96 hours], your milk will “come in” and become plentiful. Your baby will continue to nurse often and start to gain weight. [18]
According to my extensive reading on breastfeeding, the worst thing that a mother can do is to supplement before any number of considerations have been looked into and certainly it is not the very first thing to do. Just for starters, one should be alarmed that in this study infants only 24 hours old were receiving supplemental milk. (As an aside, this is just asking for an infant to go on a "nursing strike", something that happened to me with my second baby when she was around a month old after just one experience with a bottle feeding.) BTW, it seems to me that I read somewhere that if supplemental milk must be used, feed it with a teaspoon rather than from a bottle.
Considering that the CDC, the WHO, and most authorities have accepted that breastfeeding without supplements is best for the baby except in the very rare instances of insufficient breast milk, I just don't see how a panel of a few MDs can dispute what has become the acceptable information for mothers from such a large number of authorities. I'd appreciate feedback. Gandydancer ( talk) 23:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand the importance of using only good sources when you expect this article to include criticism published as an opinion piece by only three MDs to refute the opinions of the following authorities who have endorsed the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative:
American Academy of Family Physicians; American Academy of Nursing; American Academy of Pediatrics; American College of Nurse-Midwives; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine; Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics; Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses (AWHONN); Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National WIC Association U.S. Breastfeeding Committee (USBC); U.S. Preventive Services Task Force; U.S. Surgeon General
Note also that in this followup opinion it is pointed out that the claim in the opinion piece you site [21] which states that compliance with the HFBI, specifically early skin-to-skin contact, causes SUPC, is without sourcing and is, according to the statistics offered not factual.
The two BBC articles you offer, "Weaning before six months 'may help breastfed babies" and another one that claims that babies that are given solids after 3 months sleep better which goes against both the WHO, the CDC and many other authorities recommendations does not meet the RS standards we would use in our article.
See also [22] BFHI "saves lives" another JAMA opinion but using using a meta-analysis of studies that have evaluated the BFHI. Gandydancer ( talk) 11:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Here are my thoughts on the recently-added content on supplemental formula for babies 24 - 72 hours old:
In summary: The source isn't appropriate, and it doesn't support the content that was added. There is strong medical consensus that supplemental formula should be given when medically necessary and only when medically necessary. The common mentality of, "Mom is having trouble breastfeeding so let's give the baby a bottle - it won't hurt" is what we should be educating against. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 05:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Regarding criticism of breastfeeding promotion and the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative, critical points of view are well-documented in reliable sources and held by more than a tiny minority, so we do have to include them. We should also include rebuttals to the criticism such as the articles GandyDancer mentions above. I'd like to see our article focus more on the facts rather than the rhetoric, so that the reader can decide which points of view have the most validity.
BTW, there is some controversy around whether solids should be started at 4 months or 6 months, but the people who advocate starting solids at 4 months are not, in general, criticizing the promotion of breastfeeding. All they are criticizing is the concept that breastfeeding continue exclusively after 4 months. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 20:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I am quite critical of keeping the JAMA opinion article, an article we would generally not consider for medical information, by putting it in the "Criticism of breastfeeding advocacy" section where the sourcing would perhaps be adequate. Of course the press just loved it and took the criticism and ran with it, but that does not change the fact that the article is a criticism of the BFHI and actually belongs in that section, if anywhere, IMO. If we include this criticism by three MDs do we then use a Huff Post criticism of their criticism...or what? Influential article against Baby-Friendly is based on a false claim - [23] IMO we need to be careful in what we include here - while the press widely circulated this opinion piece we should be careful that we don't do the same, giving our readers the impression that we see it as important and fitting for our article. Gandydancer ( talk) 15:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Other concerns focus on the rigidity of advice and lack of flexibility in views promoted by public campaigns. Three authors expressed concerns about Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative, in an opinion piece published in October 2016. They questioned whether full compliance with the ten steps of the initiative might inadvertently lead to the promotion of potentially hazardous practices and/or counterproductive outcomes. [24]
Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.Xenophrenic ( talk) 22:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I am thinking that we should perhaps include a pacifier discussion in this article. Also, I note that our Pacifier article uses WP voice re the APA advise without a source which needs fixing. I'll work on that article as time permits. I found this excellent article published by the Canadian Paediatric Society, and it covers the question quite well. [25] Gandydancer ( talk) 15:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Here is a 2016 Cochrane review on the use of pacifiers. [26] Gandydancer ( talk) 15:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I have moved this recent addition to the talk page for discussion:
There is no evidence to support increased fluid intake for breastfeeding mothers to increase their milk production. [2]
Here is what the source says:
Considering that this study is over 60 years old and involves only around 200 women during their first 8 days of breastfeeding, days when colostrum and milk production is a matter of only a few ounces, I can't see any reason to include this information. Gandydancer ( talk) 16:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Not sure why this was removed from the lead? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
My error User:ArnoldReinhold. Have restored "In the United States in 2015, 83% of women begin breastfeeding and 58% were still breastfeeding at 6 months, although only 25% exclusively." Per "25% only breastfeed until the age of six months" that is what exclusive breastfeeding is.
Per the increase or decrease since 2009 in one country, IMO that should go in the body of the text and I have moved there. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
This "immediate release of the hormone oxytocin" is not an actual real life benefit but sort of a mechanism. Belongs in the body not the lead IMO. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Is already discussed here Breastfeeding#Milk_kinship. The rest is primary sources. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC) I think religious view should have a separate paragraph. I have added tafsir ibn Kathir which is secondary source. I’m writing about quranic view which tells that mothers or wet nurses should breastfeed children for two years. And that such breastfeeding prohibits marriage with foster female ancestor and foster siblings. You can see whole of Wikipedia has primary sources as an additional to secondary source and this is in accordance of Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. Smatrah ( talk) 03:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect "A Comparison of Breastfeeding Rates by Country". Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 18:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Fits fine under society and culture. Does not need its own section. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi folks. My name is Amanda and I am a student at the University of Washington. I'm in the process of editing this page to add to the already existing section on public breastfeeding. These are a few of the resources I've located that I am finding to be useful. If anyone else has suggestions or feedback, do let me know. I hope to have my new content posted in the coming weeks!
Watchers of this page might be interested in the following AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Glass breastfeeding app trial (2nd nomination) Cheers, Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 07:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
More needs to be in about HIV and breastfeeding. Breastfeeding is not recommended if safe formula is available and the mother is HIV positive. There could be a page about exclusive breastfeeding or the page about HIV & breastfeeding could be added to. See talk page on HIV & pregnancy. TamaraStaples ( talk) 17:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
In the HIV & pregnancy page we need to add that women living with HIV are advised by the WHO not to breastfeed and to formula feed if certain conditions for formula feeding are met according to the latest WHO guidelines. If women living with HIV are in a country where formula feeding is not recommended then they need to exclusively breastfeed. We then need to say what exclusive breastfeeding means. The section could probaly be titled Breastfeeding and HIV and direct people to the Breastfeeding and HIV page for more information. The breastfeeding and HIV page needs to have a number of updates. I don't think that this is a highly contested area any more since the latest WHO recommendations were produced. The HIV and pregnancy page also needs to be updated so that it no longer suggests that there should be a page on exclusive breast feeding. South Africa no longer needs to be singled out as a developing country nor the United States as a more developed country. Referencing WHO guidelines is more inclusive. Also, all women with HIV should be taking antiretrovirals. If people wish I can update these pages, but I will wait until I get some feedback. I think that the pages as a group need to be updated soon as I think that as they are at the moment they could be misunderstood and/or give misleading information to women living with HIV. It is not that the previous updates were wrong, it is just that things have moved on a lot in the last few years. For example, it is only fairly recently that it was recommended that all women living with HIV should be taking antiretrovirals. TamaraStaples ( talk) 10:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Unless the paragraph starting "Health organisations"is moved it is in this area that the changes need to take place. In this paragraph I would take out the sentence starting "Medical conditions" and the one starting "Mothers who take". I would then add a new paragraph — Preceding unsigned comment added by TamaraStaples ( talk • contribs)
When women are HIV positive, the World Health Organisation recommends either exclusive breastfeeding or the provision of safe formula. [1] National health authorities are now recommended to endorse one approach, that is either exclusively breastfeeding with antiretroviral therapy or avoid all breastfeeding. All women known to be HIV positive should be taking lifelong antiretroviral therapy.(same reference for these as well) TamaraStaples ( talk) 18:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
You are quite correct in saying that I didn't notice the section on breastfeeding and HIV. That is why it needs to be moved, and also why the paragraph near the start of the page needs to be altered so that it says that HIV is an exception.I don't mind how it is done so I suggest that you do it as you wish, I just want it to be accurate. I also think that you need to take out the mention to TB. With TB the issues and recommendations are quite different. As far as I can see there is no mention of breastfeeding on the main TB page. Incidentally, I think there is a need to be careful about the words that are used. Many people reading the pages will not have English as their first language, and so they may not understand what Contraindications means. TamaraStaples ( talk) 16:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I just removed the following good-faith addition:
I believe this placed an undue emphasis on occupational therapy. As the source notes, "breastfeeding as an activity or method of feeding has received minimal attention in the occupational therapy literature." Some occupational therapists may have the training necessary to support breastfeeding, but most do not. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 19:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
An editor has removed "chestfeeding" from the first sentence. [30] What do people think of having this term in the first sentence? La Leche League Canada and La Leche League USA support use of this term. [31] The editorial decision on whether to include a synonym in the first sentence could consider this along with other factors such as how commonly the term is used. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 00:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I've
undone an edit by
ShelbyShag that added to the research section 'Additionally, breastfeeding research is being done to examine the LGBTQIA+ community's experience with lactation, as well on research on less heteronormative and more inclusive terms, such as "chestfeeding"'
. The source mentions the steps one hospital is taking wrt LGBTQI+. It doesn't mention research. Nor does it suggest that "chestfeeding" is itself "less heteronormative and more inclusive". Indeed their linked paper (
PMID
32330392
here) defines chestfeeding as "A term used by many masculine-identified trans people to describe the act of feeding their baby from their chest, regardless of whether they have had chest/top surgery (to alter or remove mammary tissue)". In other words, not inclusive at all, but just a term used by a minority group about themselves. The authors of that paper call themselves "Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine", not "Academy of Chestfeeding Medicine". --
Colin°
Talk 17:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't think
WP:WEIGHT would currently permit this term in the lead section. For example, Googling "chestfeeding" site:nhs.uk
returns couple of dozen documents (and "chest feeding" a handful more), all, as far as I can see, using the term as an addition to "breastfeeding". A similar search on ".gov.uk" returns nothing for the single word and only five results for the two words. Of those, two are duplicates and one is unrelated to the topic. Of the remainder, one is a question to an MP and the other a passing mention of "a new policy ‘Breast-feeding/ Chest-feeding/ Co-nursing policy’". This would suggest that in the UK at least, the term has not found widespread usage. Many of the NHS results refer to the Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals guideline that I mention in "Terminology" below, and which the authors acknowledge they are "leading the way". Others can search reliable US publications. My evidence so far suggests our language section could mention it very briefly, and does not support the idea that this term is widely proposed as an inclusive alternative, rather than occasionally used as an inclusive addition. --
Colin°
Talk 19:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | ← | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
The sentence already said "at least" therefore "beyond" is redundant and I have trimmed. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Breastfeeding&type=revision&diff=719115870&oldid=718987543
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 18:05, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Jane Doe was still nursing her daughter when she was 2 1/2 years old. Her neighbor, Mary Busybody, said that maybe two years old might be acceptable but anything beyond two would be a disgrace and unnatural. They argued about it and Jane said, "OK, let's look it up in Wikipedia." They did and Mary said, "See, it says right there in Wikipedia 'After the introduction of foods at six months of age, continued breastfeeding until at least one to two years of age is then recommended'."
I went through this same sort of unreasonable objections to extended breastfeeding last year about this time. Must I again waste my time, especially now when I have so little of it? I would like to continue to improve this article but if I continue to find that I need to waste most of time time on this one issue it is doubtful that I would be able to find time for little else. All in all a very discouraging situation for me... Gandydancer ( talk) 17:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
The problem is that the WHOs recommendations are not based upon sound science. They should definitely not be in here, but we shouldn't pretend that they are scientific. Carl Fredik 💌 📧 21:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
We currently say "After the introduction of foods at six months of age, continued breastfeeding until at least one to two years of age is then recommended" This means breast feeding should continue until the child is one or two years of age or longer. Do not understand the concern? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 02:00, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
The question of the science behind the recommendation is an entirely separate issue. These are recognized experts and their recommendations and they absolutely belong in the article. If anyone wants to debate the MERIT of these recommendations, they may do so in their own thing and on their own space. Just because someone claims that the science behind these recommendations is faulty is no reason to exclude those recommendations from the article.
In this case, I also agree that a quote makes the most sense. The argument that"and beyond" is redundant ignores the reasons why "and beyond" is indeed the exact wording used. Also, in the case of a recommendation, a quote is obviously the most accurate and therefore truthful way to accurately portray type of information.
To say, "this organization recommends" and then to use your OWN WORDS had great potential for misunderstanding and error.
A recommendation IS a quote. My recommendation something is the exact words I used. Or else it is someone else's interpretation of my recommendation. There is no two ways about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amyanda2000 ( talk • contribs) 15:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
I think we can leave the discussion for the degree of benefit with respect to diarrhea and pneumonia in the developing versus the developed world can be left to the body of the article. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Breastfeeding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
This ref says "There's some evidence that regularly drinking more than two units of alcohol a day while breastfeeding may affect your baby's development. But an occasional drink is unlikely to harm your breastfed baby. It's recommended that breastfeeding mothers have no more than one or two units of alcohol once or twice a week." [2]
Thus we say "Smoking, limited amounts of alcohol, or coffee are not reasons to avoid breastfeeding." Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
Extended content
| ||
---|---|---|
Feminism in breastfeeding
EthicsIn Muers’ article entitled “The Ethics of Breastfeeding”, she sets out to “challenge the individualization of responsibility, and of the attendant guilt” that results from current arguments and social attitude towards breastfeeding. [1] The action being the mother’s choice burdens the woman into deciding whether to conform with “a prescribed standard of good mothering” and feel guilty for even considering to choose something is often labeled as unhealthy. [1] However, Benoit’s article highlights not the importance of breastfeeding in regards to the child’s needs but rather in terms of the woman’s decision, or lack thereof due to a “society whose values are predominantly defined by men”. [2] Women who breastfeed, especially in public space, are often looked upon with disgust and disapproval regardless of the naturalness of breastfeeding. But this distaste is not because of the crude stigma modern society has developed about nudity but is instead about the “desexualization” of the female body when breastfeeding. [2] A patriarchally imposed oppression would not approve of a different use for an otherwise sexual part of the female anatomy than the use predetermined by said overarching opposition. And while this is understood socially, such an aggressive attitude towards women can only be practiced through politics. Muers writes that “infant feeding… is [a] key instance of the ‘personal’ within women’s lives that needs to be [re]named as ‘political’”. [1] Although, the medical importance of breastfeeding cannot be underscored. Scholar Lisa H. Amir recognizes the need to increase breastfeeding rates yet notes that acknowledging “social circumstances [can] improve our understanding of infant feeding” as it directly relates to the feminist ideology behind making the decision to breastfeed. [3] In recent years, this decision has been either praised or refuted based on “the baby’s behavior” and whether it is “well fed, satisfied, settled, and gaining weight”. [3] In other words, social approval depends how the baby appears to society instead of what the woman feels is the right course of action to take. This places an unfair question on the woman’s morality and ethical outlook, reducing the woman to acting on a decision out of selfishness. Woman's voiceBernice Hausman explains that arguments advocating for breastfeeding as an alternative to formula “turn on...whether science can tell us that women should breastfeed” [4] because of the obvious suppression of a feminist approach. What she implies is that the focus of the argument is warped—the social structure that “impedes women’s freedoms” is the question that is hiding behind the debate over the “value of breastfeeding”. [4] There is another layer of breastfeeding that is often overlooked that regards the physical sensations and emotional feelings that naturally arise from breastfeeding. From her studies and experiments, Charlotte Faircloth has concluded that the subjects that were supportive of the action felt as though what they were doing was right because it felt right. [5] She learned that some mothers felt such a strong bond with the child that it triggered a profound reaction within themselves as women, a truth that was often “indescribable”. [5] But her main point stems from this conclusion: whether it is moral and feminist simply because the emotional response received is a pleasurable one. References
|
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Breastfeeding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:45, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Breastfeeding. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:31, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
These are Lancet articles about breastfeeding. Only one in the series was referenced in this article. Here are the rest in the series:
Others:
There is an approved Did You Know hook for the Low milk supply article. It would be good to have a few people with knowledge of breastfeeding watching it when eventually finds its way to the Main Page. Cheers, Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 23:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Also, Skin-to-skin contact, which redirects to Kangaroo care, is part of the DYK hook so please watchlist that too. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 05:29, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Just catching up on explaining my edit from a couple of days ago. I reverted a change to restore deleted information about the latching process & importance to milk transfer and to make the description of a good latch more clear. The following content was removed through my reversion:
The phrase "the bottom of the
areola... is in the baby's mouth" was particularly unclear to me, even though it was well-sourced. Assuming the phrase "bottom of the areola" means "inferior part of the areola":
Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 04:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help) This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the
public domain.
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help) This article incorporates text from this source, which is in the
public domain.
There are some points in the video that seem inaccurate:
Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 23:41, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Re: Point #3, Yes Doc James you're right on this one. However, the mother's milk is still high-quality even if the mother's diet is deficient in some ways. ("Mother’s milk is recommended for all infants under ordinary circumstances, even if the mother’s diet is not perfect, according to the Committee on Nutrition During Pregnancy and Lactation of the Institute of Medicine" [1])
Some more issues with content:
Some thoughts generally on video in Wikipedia: There is a lot of potential for using video effectively in articles on breastfeeding. I don't think this particular form of video, which is basically a Powerpoint presentation that covers the topic at a stub-class or start-class level, is useful. This form of video is mostly text, in a medium that's frustratingly labour-intensive to review and almost impossible to revise. It's the equivalent of several paragraphs of text with no citations and no ability to be tagged as disputed. And at the end there is advertising.
What I would love to see in video are: high-quality demonstrations on how to get a good latch, demonstrations of various breastfeeding positions, and demonstrations of how to assess whether a baby is drinking effectively at the breast. And maybe demonstrations of things like signs of infant hunger and manual expression of breastmilk. The value of video is showing rather than telling. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 23:53, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
I found a decent source for the health risks of introducing solids too late: poor growth, anemia, and feeding problems. [9] I'll remove the video for now and put it on this Talk page. There could be some still diagrams or snippets of the video that, if anyone wants to edit them out, would make a good complement to cited text. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 05:49, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
A few comments:
"After the introduction of foods at six months of age, recommendations include continued breastfeeding until at least one to two years of age."
This means breast feeding until one or two years old at least.
"After the introduction of foods at six months of age, recommendations include continued breastfeeding for at least one to two years or more."
This means breast feeding until at least 18 month or 36 months. Which refs support the later?
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
My edit read: After the introduction of foods at six months of age, recommendations include continued breastfeeding for at least one to two years or more. Which was just fine. And I don't understand why you keep saying I mentioned 18 months as I didn't. IMO your adding of "...one to two years of age or more" is not an improvement. One might say "more than one year", for example, but if one were speaking of age one would say "or older". But at least we've made some progress since previously you would not allow any mention of "or more" at all. Gandydancer ( talk) 21:50, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
I would like to add information related to breast surgery to our article and would like to ask for feedback on a few sources.
Also please add anything you can find. Thanks
That was an opps on my part. I thought that the new (excellent) addition was the part that had been deleted and not the parts that were correctly deleted. Carry on! Gandydancer ( talk) 16:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I just rewrote a sentence. [16] This very topic is covered (with a significantly different emphasis) higher up the article under "Process/Drugs". -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 23:54, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
The section on Expressed Milk [i.e. pumping] seems to be biased. I'm certainly not well informed on this subject but Stanford has a site and a video which conflicts with the "adequacy" claims found in the section, especially the last paragraph about EP-only. Read material at
http://med.stanford.edu/newborns.html
or (for the video, which worked as of 28/5/2018)
https://med.stanford.edu/newborns/professional-education/breastfeeding/maximizing-milk-production.html
clearly says/shows that pumping without additional massage results in much less milk - pumping may only produce half of the volume available with pumping+massage. At the very least, this should be included. The conflict between the pollyanna-ish "everything is fine" claims currently in the section (and please note all of the vague qualifications) and the claims of the Stanford site are glaring. I also recommend these:
https://breastfeedingusa.org/content/article/how-much-milk-should-you-expect-pump-0
https://breastfeedingusa.org/content/article/pump-more-milk-use-hands-pumping
Given that milk supply depends on demand, then if pumping (demand) is half of what is available, then pumping must have less than optimum impact on milk supply. Surely worth noting.
98.21.221.175 (
talk) 21:36, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
In the section "Health effects" the following was added:
Is this text really appropriate for this article, and especially for that section? Is the tone of the text appropriate? Surely "It is detrimental that America would deny the health of children and mothers in order to salvage the multi-billion dollar formula industry" cannot be an encyclopedic tone. The text now makes most of the intro of the section "Health effects" (before the subsections start), despite the fact that it isn't really about health effects of breastfeeding; it's rather about the Politics of Donald Trump. The text gives undue weight to this incident; and it gives a biased slant to the article (out of all people who have ever contested various aspects of breastfeeding promotion, it chooses only one person as an example - which no doubt is likely to influence readers). 2A02:2F01:5CFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:433D ( talk) 23:33, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
In the lede it is said "Breastfeeding is less expensive than infant formula.[9][10]"
This is an oversimplification, and it also contradicts the section Financial considerations which states:
This claim from the lede needs to be removed or rephrased. 2A02:2F01:5CFF:FFFF:0:0:6465:433D ( talk) 23:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I removed this statement from our article:
A 2017 study found that introducing after birth limited formula use to aid breastfeeding difficulties does not interfere with breastfeeding later, and may be an important therapeutic option for newborns with the potential to reduce readmission rates.[199]
It was returned saying: the section deals with criticisms and relevant opinions (supported with studies) should be introduced. And given that many countries either have never implemented or have abandoned BFHI it is relevant
The (one) source says this:
In this randomized controlled trial, we enrolled 164 exclusively breastfeeding newborns, 24-72 hours old, whose weight loss was ≥75th percentile for age, and whose mothers had not yet begun mature milk production. Enrolled newborns were assigned randomly to either supplement breastfeeding with early limited formula (ELF), 10 mL of formula after each breastfeeding stopped at the onset of copious maternal milk production (intervention), or to continue exclusive breastfeeding (control). Outcomes assessed through 1 month included breastfeeding duration, readmission, and intestinal microbiota. [17]
According to La Leche League guidelines: After about two to four days [48 to 96 hours], your milk will “come in” and become plentiful. Your baby will continue to nurse often and start to gain weight. [18]
According to my extensive reading on breastfeeding, the worst thing that a mother can do is to supplement before any number of considerations have been looked into and certainly it is not the very first thing to do. Just for starters, one should be alarmed that in this study infants only 24 hours old were receiving supplemental milk. (As an aside, this is just asking for an infant to go on a "nursing strike", something that happened to me with my second baby when she was around a month old after just one experience with a bottle feeding.) BTW, it seems to me that I read somewhere that if supplemental milk must be used, feed it with a teaspoon rather than from a bottle.
Considering that the CDC, the WHO, and most authorities have accepted that breastfeeding without supplements is best for the baby except in the very rare instances of insufficient breast milk, I just don't see how a panel of a few MDs can dispute what has become the acceptable information for mothers from such a large number of authorities. I'd appreciate feedback. Gandydancer ( talk) 23:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)
You don't seem to understand the importance of using only good sources when you expect this article to include criticism published as an opinion piece by only three MDs to refute the opinions of the following authorities who have endorsed the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative:
American Academy of Family Physicians; American Academy of Nursing; American Academy of Pediatrics; American College of Nurse-Midwives; American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists; Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine; Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics; Association of Women's Health, Obstetric and Neonatal Nurses (AWHONN); Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) National WIC Association U.S. Breastfeeding Committee (USBC); U.S. Preventive Services Task Force; U.S. Surgeon General
Note also that in this followup opinion it is pointed out that the claim in the opinion piece you site [21] which states that compliance with the HFBI, specifically early skin-to-skin contact, causes SUPC, is without sourcing and is, according to the statistics offered not factual.
The two BBC articles you offer, "Weaning before six months 'may help breastfed babies" and another one that claims that babies that are given solids after 3 months sleep better which goes against both the WHO, the CDC and many other authorities recommendations does not meet the RS standards we would use in our article.
See also [22] BFHI "saves lives" another JAMA opinion but using using a meta-analysis of studies that have evaluated the BFHI. Gandydancer ( talk) 11:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
Here are my thoughts on the recently-added content on supplemental formula for babies 24 - 72 hours old:
In summary: The source isn't appropriate, and it doesn't support the content that was added. There is strong medical consensus that supplemental formula should be given when medically necessary and only when medically necessary. The common mentality of, "Mom is having trouble breastfeeding so let's give the baby a bottle - it won't hurt" is what we should be educating against. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 05:55, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Regarding criticism of breastfeeding promotion and the Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative, critical points of view are well-documented in reliable sources and held by more than a tiny minority, so we do have to include them. We should also include rebuttals to the criticism such as the articles GandyDancer mentions above. I'd like to see our article focus more on the facts rather than the rhetoric, so that the reader can decide which points of view have the most validity.
BTW, there is some controversy around whether solids should be started at 4 months or 6 months, but the people who advocate starting solids at 4 months are not, in general, criticizing the promotion of breastfeeding. All they are criticizing is the concept that breastfeeding continue exclusively after 4 months. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 20:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
I am quite critical of keeping the JAMA opinion article, an article we would generally not consider for medical information, by putting it in the "Criticism of breastfeeding advocacy" section where the sourcing would perhaps be adequate. Of course the press just loved it and took the criticism and ran with it, but that does not change the fact that the article is a criticism of the BFHI and actually belongs in that section, if anywhere, IMO. If we include this criticism by three MDs do we then use a Huff Post criticism of their criticism...or what? Influential article against Baby-Friendly is based on a false claim - [23] IMO we need to be careful in what we include here - while the press widely circulated this opinion piece we should be careful that we don't do the same, giving our readers the impression that we see it as important and fitting for our article. Gandydancer ( talk) 15:15, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
Other concerns focus on the rigidity of advice and lack of flexibility in views promoted by public campaigns. Three authors expressed concerns about Baby Friendly Hospital Initiative, in an opinion piece published in October 2016. They questioned whether full compliance with the ten steps of the initiative might inadvertently lead to the promotion of potentially hazardous practices and/or counterproductive outcomes. [24]
Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views.Xenophrenic ( talk) 22:53, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
I am thinking that we should perhaps include a pacifier discussion in this article. Also, I note that our Pacifier article uses WP voice re the APA advise without a source which needs fixing. I'll work on that article as time permits. I found this excellent article published by the Canadian Paediatric Society, and it covers the question quite well. [25] Gandydancer ( talk) 15:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC) Here is a 2016 Cochrane review on the use of pacifiers. [26] Gandydancer ( talk) 15:20, 31 July 2018 (UTC)
I have moved this recent addition to the talk page for discussion:
There is no evidence to support increased fluid intake for breastfeeding mothers to increase their milk production. [2]
Here is what the source says:
Considering that this study is over 60 years old and involves only around 200 women during their first 8 days of breastfeeding, days when colostrum and milk production is a matter of only a few ounces, I can't see any reason to include this information. Gandydancer ( talk) 16:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Not sure why this was removed from the lead? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 01:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
My error User:ArnoldReinhold. Have restored "In the United States in 2015, 83% of women begin breastfeeding and 58% were still breastfeeding at 6 months, although only 25% exclusively." Per "25% only breastfeed until the age of six months" that is what exclusive breastfeeding is.
Per the increase or decrease since 2009 in one country, IMO that should go in the body of the text and I have moved there. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:44, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
This "immediate release of the hormone oxytocin" is not an actual real life benefit but sort of a mechanism. Belongs in the body not the lead IMO. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 16:01, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Is already discussed here Breastfeeding#Milk_kinship. The rest is primary sources. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 17:28, 31 January 2019 (UTC) I think religious view should have a separate paragraph. I have added tafsir ibn Kathir which is secondary source. I’m writing about quranic view which tells that mothers or wet nurses should breastfeed children for two years. And that such breastfeeding prohibits marriage with foster female ancestor and foster siblings. You can see whole of Wikipedia has primary sources as an additional to secondary source and this is in accordance of Wikipedia guidelines. Thank you. Smatrah ( talk) 03:46, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect "A Comparison of Breastfeeding Rates by Country". Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. UnitedStatesian ( talk) 18:19, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Fits fine under society and culture. Does not need its own section. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 05:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi folks. My name is Amanda and I am a student at the University of Washington. I'm in the process of editing this page to add to the already existing section on public breastfeeding. These are a few of the resources I've located that I am finding to be useful. If anyone else has suggestions or feedback, do let me know. I hope to have my new content posted in the coming weeks!
Watchers of this page might be interested in the following AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google Glass breastfeeding app trial (2nd nomination) Cheers, Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 07:32, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
More needs to be in about HIV and breastfeeding. Breastfeeding is not recommended if safe formula is available and the mother is HIV positive. There could be a page about exclusive breastfeeding or the page about HIV & breastfeeding could be added to. See talk page on HIV & pregnancy. TamaraStaples ( talk) 17:34, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
In the HIV & pregnancy page we need to add that women living with HIV are advised by the WHO not to breastfeed and to formula feed if certain conditions for formula feeding are met according to the latest WHO guidelines. If women living with HIV are in a country where formula feeding is not recommended then they need to exclusively breastfeed. We then need to say what exclusive breastfeeding means. The section could probaly be titled Breastfeeding and HIV and direct people to the Breastfeeding and HIV page for more information. The breastfeeding and HIV page needs to have a number of updates. I don't think that this is a highly contested area any more since the latest WHO recommendations were produced. The HIV and pregnancy page also needs to be updated so that it no longer suggests that there should be a page on exclusive breast feeding. South Africa no longer needs to be singled out as a developing country nor the United States as a more developed country. Referencing WHO guidelines is more inclusive. Also, all women with HIV should be taking antiretrovirals. If people wish I can update these pages, but I will wait until I get some feedback. I think that the pages as a group need to be updated soon as I think that as they are at the moment they could be misunderstood and/or give misleading information to women living with HIV. It is not that the previous updates were wrong, it is just that things have moved on a lot in the last few years. For example, it is only fairly recently that it was recommended that all women living with HIV should be taking antiretrovirals. TamaraStaples ( talk) 10:05, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
Unless the paragraph starting "Health organisations"is moved it is in this area that the changes need to take place. In this paragraph I would take out the sentence starting "Medical conditions" and the one starting "Mothers who take". I would then add a new paragraph — Preceding unsigned comment added by TamaraStaples ( talk • contribs)
When women are HIV positive, the World Health Organisation recommends either exclusive breastfeeding or the provision of safe formula. [1] National health authorities are now recommended to endorse one approach, that is either exclusively breastfeeding with antiretroviral therapy or avoid all breastfeeding. All women known to be HIV positive should be taking lifelong antiretroviral therapy.(same reference for these as well) TamaraStaples ( talk) 18:23, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
You are quite correct in saying that I didn't notice the section on breastfeeding and HIV. That is why it needs to be moved, and also why the paragraph near the start of the page needs to be altered so that it says that HIV is an exception.I don't mind how it is done so I suggest that you do it as you wish, I just want it to be accurate. I also think that you need to take out the mention to TB. With TB the issues and recommendations are quite different. As far as I can see there is no mention of breastfeeding on the main TB page. Incidentally, I think there is a need to be careful about the words that are used. Many people reading the pages will not have English as their first language, and so they may not understand what Contraindications means. TamaraStaples ( talk) 16:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi. I just removed the following good-faith addition:
I believe this placed an undue emphasis on occupational therapy. As the source notes, "breastfeeding as an activity or method of feeding has received minimal attention in the occupational therapy literature." Some occupational therapists may have the training necessary to support breastfeeding, but most do not. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 19:12, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
An editor has removed "chestfeeding" from the first sentence. [30] What do people think of having this term in the first sentence? La Leche League Canada and La Leche League USA support use of this term. [31] The editorial decision on whether to include a synonym in the first sentence could consider this along with other factors such as how commonly the term is used. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 00:24, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
I've
undone an edit by
ShelbyShag that added to the research section 'Additionally, breastfeeding research is being done to examine the LGBTQIA+ community's experience with lactation, as well on research on less heteronormative and more inclusive terms, such as "chestfeeding"'
. The source mentions the steps one hospital is taking wrt LGBTQI+. It doesn't mention research. Nor does it suggest that "chestfeeding" is itself "less heteronormative and more inclusive". Indeed their linked paper (
PMID
32330392
here) defines chestfeeding as "A term used by many masculine-identified trans people to describe the act of feeding their baby from their chest, regardless of whether they have had chest/top surgery (to alter or remove mammary tissue)". In other words, not inclusive at all, but just a term used by a minority group about themselves. The authors of that paper call themselves "Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine", not "Academy of Chestfeeding Medicine". --
Colin°
Talk 17:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't think
WP:WEIGHT would currently permit this term in the lead section. For example, Googling "chestfeeding" site:nhs.uk
returns couple of dozen documents (and "chest feeding" a handful more), all, as far as I can see, using the term as an addition to "breastfeeding". A similar search on ".gov.uk" returns nothing for the single word and only five results for the two words. Of those, two are duplicates and one is unrelated to the topic. Of the remainder, one is a question to an MP and the other a passing mention of "a new policy ‘Breast-feeding/ Chest-feeding/ Co-nursing policy’". This would suggest that in the UK at least, the term has not found widespread usage. Many of the NHS results refer to the Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals guideline that I mention in "Terminology" below, and which the authors acknowledge they are "leading the way". Others can search reliable US publications. My evidence so far suggests our language section could mention it very briefly, and does not support the idea that this term is widely proposed as an inclusive alternative, rather than occasionally used as an inclusive addition. --
Colin°
Talk 19:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)