5% can't breastfeed?

Quote:
I didn't do any of those things, but I couldn't produce enough to keep my dd alive, so we had to supplement. That doesn't mean I was DESIGNED to fail.. under different circumstances I am sure I could breastfeed and I certainly am determined to try again if I should ahve another. But, after the traumatic birth I had, the hemorrhaging and severe anemia, retained placenta, blah blah, I just couldn't produce enough milk no matter how I tried.

I think 5% could be right if you consider the people like me - not born flawed but with "circumstantial" inability.

I just wanted to pipe up and say it doesn't necessarily mean that the women are doing anything 'wrong' (not cosleeping, being away from baby and not pumping, etc) and it also doesn't mean that there is some fundamental boob flaw that they were born with. If we were talking fundamental failure in design, I agree 5% is way too high.

Maybe there are a lot of women who can't exclusively breastfeed for a long time...

Both my girls, around 5 months old, were just so hungry and I could not keep up with them. With #1, I was a student, so I was pumping a lot and out of the house, but with #2 I was a SAHM and demand-feeding round the clock, babywearing, co-sleeping, etc. and still, she would nurse and nurse and nurse until no milk would come out and she would still be hungry. So both kids started solid foods at around 5-6 months, which isn't too early, but a lot of people here say they never started solids until 9-12 months.

At the LLL meetings I go to, most of the 1-year-olds are eating a few solid foods - bananas, bread, maybe a veggie. My youngest is 1 and she eats whole meals with several different foods in them.

So I don't know if it was them or me...maybe it had to do with exercise. I was very active and lost weight quickly.

I can also see how a traumatic birth could get in the way, but I think people should be trying to prevent birth trauma instead of just saying "Oh well, there's formula." (Not that anyone on this thread did; but if birth trauma were prevented, that would be fewer women with bf troubles.)

Quote:
My daughter was born with a tracheal-esophageal fistula, which is a congenital defect that in her case was expressed as a hole between her trachea and her esophagus. Some of everything she swallowed ended up in her lungs, obviously not a good thing. She did have surgery to repair the hole, we were very lucky that it was a mild form of TEF. But she could not take breastmilk at all until she was 3 weeks old, she survived on IV feedings until she could begin tube feedings.

I bring this up for two reasons. First, it was difficult as a brand new never lactated before mom to establish a good supply with just a pump. I did it, but I was lucky in that my body was (and still is ) good at lactating. I would never fault a mama who actually had problems with low supply, etc, for giving up in the same situation.

Second, I think that a infant like my daughter would be classified as a infant who could not breastfeed in a study that looked at breastfeeding success/failure rates in this and other industrialized countries. But in a setting with little to no medical care available, she would have not been diagnosed with a feeding problem. She would have developed pneumonia and died.

So my point is, there are congenital defects (including babies with bm allergies) that might drive the percentage down in countries where more moms breastfeed but there is less available medical care, and that would drive the percentage up in the US. Admittedly rare, but taken together they could be significant.