Pacifiers No Barrier To Breastfeeding Success

[Black Orchid]

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0501200247.htm

Many women have heard of the benefits of breastfeeding and pacifier use in reducing the risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) as well as other advantages. But many may question the effects of pacifiers on breastfeeding success. Mothers need not worry about that according to Fern Hauck, M.D., researcher and associate professor of family medicine and public health sciences at the University of Virginia School of Medicine.

[Chavelamomela]

And my pediatrician will disagree, showing studies that pacifier use is correlated with earlier weaning. He'll tell you that if you use a paci, you're much more likely to stop BFing sooner.

[Belle]

I don't see how they came to the conclusion that pacifiers have no effect on breastfeeding when they say things like this.

Most of the observational studies— cross-sectional and cohort – reported an association between pacifier use and shortened duration of breastfeeding. This association was likely due to other factors such as breastfeeding difficulties or desire to wean,

Don't they think that those "breastfeeding difficulties" could have been caused by the pacifier? How are they coming to this conclusion? They review 29 studies that say that pacifier use does interfere with breastfeeding and conclude that it doesn't. I see a clear lack of scientific method here.

[Mama~Love]

Oh, give me a break .

[kcstar]

Originally Posted by Belle

I don't see how they came to the conclusion that pacifiers have no effect on breastfeeding when they say things like this. Don't they think that those "breastfeeding difficulties" could have been caused by the pacifier? How are they coming to this conclusion? They review 29 studies that say that pacifier use does interfere with breastfeeding and conclude that it doesn't. I see a clear lack of scientific method here.

Correlation (association) does not equal causation. There could be other causes.

[Belle]

Originally Posted by kcstar

Correlation (association) does not equal causation. There could be other causes.

So you have studies that say that breastfeeding is impacted by pacifiers. Then along comes study #30 that says that the conclusions drawn by those other studies is wrong because those moms "wanted to wean" How do you draw the conclusion that pacifiers have no impact on breastfeeding duration when the reviews of the studies clearly demonstrate that pacifier use = early weaning.

[vegemamato]

my first two used 'binkies' and I can honestly say that I feel like they did come between us and breastfeeding I did not want to wean either of them at the ages that they did, but the binkie seemed to [eventually] win at bedtime- meaning that they would rather have a bink than nurse to sleep.

With our youngest, I have not given her one (she's explored but hasn't sucked on random 'old' pacifiers) and I feel like we have a much stronger bond than I had with the others. I do not see her letting up on nursing, and I can't tell you how happy that makes me feel..

Looking back, I can't believe I ever used them

(not saying that no one should, just that *for us* we shouldn't)

[hipmummy]

LMAO.......Please I have seen so many FTT from excessive pacifier use while bf. Many who have been at our LLL. I blam the peds 75% of the time. Moms are still to blame...I remember one mom said I do not want him to associate food with comfort (hmm maybe because she read Baybywise) So instead she subbed precious meals with a binky. Now the child is so so very small. Oh yeh, her breastfeeding was fine went awesome NOT such BS.

[vegemamato]

Originally Posted by hipmummy

LMAO.......Please I have seen so many FTT from excessive pacifier use while bf. Many who have been at our LLL. I blam the peds 75% of the time. Moms are still to blame...I remember one mom said I do not want him to associate food with comfort (hmm maybe because she read Baybywise) So instead she subbed precious meals with a binky. Now the child is so so very small. Oh yeh, her breastfeeding was fine went awesome NOT such BS.

I thought that was unnecessary.. the mom's are doing EXACTLY what they're told, trying to be 'good' parents. The marketers of pacifiers (and formula and any other essential baby item) have gone as far as they possibly can in order to make sure we KNOW how well their products work, and KNOW that we *are* failing as mothers if we don't own/use each and every one of these amazing little gadgets. I mean, why wouldn't we want to offer the security of a binky or the disclipline of a time-out mat

Anyway- just saying that I don't blame the mamas, how could I when there are so many outside influences? (just as I wouldn't blame a ff mom who didn't breastfeed because it was 'gross')

[savithny]

Originally Posted by vegemamato

I thought that was unnecessary.. the mom's are doing EXACTLY what they're told, trying to be 'good' parents. The marketers of pacifiers (and formula and any other essential baby item) have gone as far as they possibly can in order to make sure we KNOW how well their products work, and KNOW that we *are* failing as mothers if we don't own/use each and every one of these amazing little gadgets. I mean, why wouldn't we want to offer the security of a binky or the disclipline of a time-out mat

Anyway- just saying that I don't blame the mamas, how could I when there are so many outside influences? (just as I wouldn't blame a ff mom who didn't breastfeed because it was 'gross')

Well, as someone who successfully BF a binky-loving baby, I have to say that the pacifier probably saved our nursing relationship. My first baby wanted to suck constantly - non nutritively. It was making me crazy, and I do mean crazy. My very pro-BF ped said "Get a pacifier. Try it. Don't overuse it." Being able to not have that awful squirrely feeling of being chewed-not-chewed on enabled me to get through the first weeks of nursing. It enabled me to take some much-needed showers. It enabled me to get out of the house by driving more than 10 minutes in any direction.

DS breastfed exclusively to 6mos and gently weaned at my direction at 18 mos - early, I know, but I was through pumping at work and had always had that AAP 12 months as my goal with #1. If I had been told I couldn't use a pacifier, that it would make me an awful mom and ruin my child's life, I probably would have wound up weaning very early. Because all the "suck it up" advice in the world didn't make up for the fact that the non-swallowing nibble-nursing was making my skin crawl and making me dread nursing my baby.

How many of those statistically earlier weaners were babies like mine, whose constant need to nurse made me hate nursing and dread the very act of it? How much of the earlier weaning is actually a maternal response to that, either conscious or unconscious.

FWIW, my 2nd never used a pacifier. Do I get mommy bonus points for that even though its because she found her thumb and sucked that more often and eagerly than her brother took his pacifier (because we restricted his pacifier use, but couldn't withhold her own thumb)

[vegemamato]

Savithny, I'm so sorry you had such a hard time! I know that touched-out feeling (usually when the babies are sick for us, knock on wood)..

My middle had/has sensory issues that made bf really difficult for very different reasons- she couldn't handle us touching her, especially on her head, which is obviously part of nursing..

I totally agree that there are situations where a little one might need another source of comfort though.. (just as there are situations where a child should probably be vaccinated, or a baby needs to be formula fed).

I think that for the majority of pacifier users, however, there isn't that element of need, and there wasn't a concious decision made (at least in my circumstance and those of most of my binky-using friends )

[Anastasiya]

Originally Posted by savithny

Well, as someone who successfully BF a binky-loving baby, I have to say that the pacifier probably saved our nursing relationship.

Here too.

My children have never, ever been able to comfort nurse. No matter if they just filled their bellies and wanted to suck for comfort, they always get more and more letdowns from me and are drowned with milk even when they don't want to be. So they pull off, upset. Then latch back on to pacify themselves, but get more milk and even more upset. My fourth hates this so much and gnaws on his fists until I can get the pacifier for him - he wants to suck so badly but with a fully tummy he does NOT want milk.

How many of those statistically earlier weaners were babies like mine, whose constant need to nurse made me hate nursing and dread the very act of it? How much of the earlier weaning is actually a maternal response to that, either conscious or unconscious.

Totally agree. So many moms I know love providing food for their children, but don't like being the pacifier. That's not saying I wouldn't like it myself, but so many don't like it...and they wean early too. I wonder if more moms would breastfeed longer if they didn't feel so tied down by breastfeeding (again, I don't feel that way, but soooo many moms do).

FWIW, my 2nd never used a pacifier. Do I get mommy bonus points for that even though its because she found her thumb and sucked that more often and eagerly than her brother took his pacifier (because we restricted his pacifier use, but couldn't withhold her own thumb)

My first three are thumb / finger suckers. They never took pacifiers either.

[hipmummy]

Originally Posted by vegemamato

I thought that was unnecessary.. the mom's are doing EXACTLY what they're told, trying to be 'good' parents. The marketers of pacifiers (and formula and any other essential baby item) have gone as far as they possibly can in order to make sure we KNOW how well their products work, and KNOW that we *are* failing as mothers if we don't own/use each and every one of these amazing little gadgets. I mean, why wouldn't we want to offer the security of a binky or the disclipline of a time-out mat

Anyway- just saying that I don't blame the mamas, how could I when there are so many outside influences? (just as I wouldn't blame a ff mom who didn't breastfeed because it was 'gross')

I think you read it wrong. She CHOSE to read and follow BABYwise. NO one made her. She was educated on the dangers of pacifiers and chose to give one anyway. Believe my child was on mw nonstop. I don't know many people who would have tolerated the non-stop sucking. But I never even considered one for a moment even when people pushed and pushed I said No. But I do know there is a time an a place and working mothers need them so they can satisfy the babies need to suck. There are just too many babies I have seen on a clinical basis that have suffered from pacifier use.

[Sanveann]

Originally Posted by Sancta

My children have never, ever been able to comfort nurse. No matter if they just filled their bellies and wanted to suck for comfort, they always get more and more letdowns from me and are drowned with milk even when they don't want to be. So they pull off, upset. Then latch back on to pacify themselves, but get more milk and even more upset. My fourth hates this so much and gnaws on his fists until I can get the pacifier for him - he wants to suck so badly but with a fully tummy he does NOT want milk.

DS2 is JUST like this. I have a huge supply and a pretty hard letdown, and when he was tiny, he ALWAYS wanted to be sucking ... but he'd get SO mad when he'd get milk and wasn't hungry! We tried a binky, but he never liked it, so he sucked on our fingers until he was big enough to find his own reliably

[yoginisarah]

I definitely think it depends on the situation. In my case, I make a lot of milk, especially the first 6 months. So, I had 2 babies that wanted to comfort nurse, but would latch on and get a mouthfull of milk. They were already full and would pull off, spit out the milk and cry. Then try to latch back on just to suck and the cycle would continue. A pacifier really helped my babies be able to comfort suck when they were full. I always offered the breast before the pacifier. Neither ever had formula, my son weaned himself (a week before my daughter was born) and my daughter is still breastfeeding.

[kcstar]

Originally Posted by Belle

So you have studies that say that breastfeeding is impacted by pacifiers. Then along comes study #30 that says that the conclusions drawn by those other studies is wrong because those moms "wanted to wean" How do you draw the conclusion that pacifiers have no impact on breastfeeding duration when the reviews of the studies clearly demonstrate that pacifier use = early weaning.

I feel like you are telling me that my son and I don't exist. We do. I'd like to make it to 2 years b/c of family medical history.

Whether we go beyond 2 years is between me and DS.

Originally Posted by yoginisarah

I definitely think it depends on the situation. In my case, I make a lot of milk, especially the first 6 months. So, I had 2 babies that wanted to comfort nurse, but would latch on and get a mouthfull of milk. They were already full and would pull off, spit out the milk and cry. Then try to latch back on just to suck and the cycle would continue. A pacifier really helped my babies be able to comfort suck when they were full. I always offered the breast before the pacifier.

This. DS is 20 mo old and still nursing strong, thank you very much. He loves his binky when his tummy is full and he just wants comfort, but he won't settle for the binky when he's hungry.

[ccohenou]

Originally Posted by Belle

I don't see how they came to the conclusion that pacifiers have no effect on breastfeeding when they say things like this. Don't they think that those "breastfeeding difficulties" could have been caused by the pacifier? How are they coming to this conclusion? They review 29 studies that say that pacifier use does interfere with breastfeeding and conclude that it doesn't. I see a clear lack of scientific method here.

It actually seems pretty plausible to me that the breastfeeding difficulties might be the cause of both the pacifier use and the early weaning. The reason why they are giving more weight in their review to the randomized controlled trials over the cohort or retrospective studies is that RCTs are sort of the gold standard for some kinds of medical research. They offer the best opportunity to control for extraneous factors and get the best shot at looking for causal links or lack thereof.

In general, if it turns out that pacifiers are not significantly harmful to breastfeeding, then yay. One less obstacle for mothers who prefer to give their babies a pacifier for cultural or baby-specific reasons.

[kcstar]

I think it all comes to statistics, and their interpretation.

See, statistically speaking, if the data is good, my mom has a <10% chance of making it through this month, because her cancer was found two years ago. Statistically speaking, she has a 0% chance of making it 3 more years. But medicine changes over time, and she has been an outlier (a point that doesn't fit the statistics) through much of her fight. She might be the first to survive more than 5 years.

Statistically speaking, pacifiers might influence early weaning. That would fit studies showing an association between pacifiers and early weaning.

That does not mean that they always cause early weaning.

"Always" and "never" are very rarely true.

ETA: Now, in my experience, pacifier use may have been the difference between "EBF" (except the days I had to pump-and-dump), and the ~10 oz of formula per week that DS usually received. But since we still have a nursing relationship, since when I am home we are ~95% EBF, I would call my situation a nursing success.

I know that this is the Lactivism forum, but I feel bothered / irritated by the assumption that lactivism must be an all or nothing thing, and that I can't be a lactivist because I supplemented, or I can't be a lactivist because I use a pacifier, or that I can't be a lactivist because I WOTH, or that I can't be a lactivist because DS wanted solids by 5 1/2 months. I want everyone to do what they can in the way of breastfeeding.

If it's EBF for 1 year, that's awesome. If it's not, any BF is better than none. Especially when it can continue the relationship into the toddler years.

ETA2:
I feel like setting up this "all or nothing" expectation actually discourages women from doing what they can in the way of nursing. It sets up the WOTH mom's to mistakenly think they have to WEAN their nursling when they go back to work, instead of nursing when they are home and doing what they can while they're at work. It discourages moms in general from finding what works for them, especially if they are struggling with nursing.

[PatioGardener]

Originally Posted by ccohenou

It actually seems pretty plausible to me that the breastfeeding difficulties might be the cause of both the pacifier use and the early weaning. The reason why they are giving more weight in their review to the randomized controlled trials over the cohort or retrospective studies is that RCTs are sort of the gold standard for some kinds of medical research. They offer the best opportunity to control for extraneous factors and get the best shot at looking for causal links or lack thereof.

: The one RCT that has been done (that I know about, I should say!) showed no causal association between pacifier use and early weaning. BUT more babies who weaned early got pacifiers, showing that pacifier use can be a 'red flag' for early weaning - a warning that breastfeeding may not be going well. I trust the results of that one RCT more than all 20 of the observational studies put together.

[alegna]

boo

-Angela