How old is to old?

[mia1181]

Thanks. going to

now.....

 

[katebar]

I breastfed my son till he was 2 and it was a comfort thing first thing in the morning and last thing at night. I stopped when I was 3 months pregnant (what on earth was I thinking!!!) as I was just too fatigued.
It was no big deal to stop he coped very well. Interestingly he has a clear memory of being fed and WILL NOT DISCUSS it ever!
I have asked him over the years (he''s now 20) but he refuses to talk about it. I used to think it was embarrassment but now i don''t know.

 

[diamondfan]

want to add that I am all for nuture and connection, but think there are other ways to accomplish it once a child has reached a point that the nutritive value of it is diminishing. It is a wonderful thing to do for your child if it works for you, no judgements there, it is the best option if it works. But to go on for years when a child has teeth and can chew food etc just seems to be more about the needs of the mother than the needs of the child.I also was in a playgroup with a gal who was nursing a one year old plus child. No biggie, but she would not give him ANY food at all, just breast milk. No solids at all. He looked frail and pale to all of us. Nutrionally it did not seem sound at all and she had no interest in weaning him and starting him on solids.

 

[vespergirl]

Date: 1/3/2009 8:08:30 PM
Author: kennedy

Date: 1/3/2009 7:03:36 PM
Author: vespergirl
I don''t mean to judge anyone, but for me, I would not BF for more than one year. I was only able to BF my son until 3 months for medical reasons. I know that the WHO recommends BFing until age 2, and I think that''s the best source of nutrition for children in developing countries without other food options, but I understand that women who do extended BFing in this country (past one year) need to give their children vitamin supplements, which tells me that they need more than breastmilk by that age.

Just to clarify, the WHO doesn''t recommend EXCLUSIVE breastfeeding into the second year; of course a child needs more than breastmilk by the time it reaches two and I doubt anyone would argue differently.

I''ve never heard of an across the board recommendation to give vitamin supplements to children who breastfeed past a year. Most children over a year eat a variety of table foods in addition to some kind of milk source (breast, formula, cow''s milk). Are you suggesting that drinking breastmilk past a year creates some kind of vitamin deficiency? I''ve never heard of such a thing and it certainly doesn''t make any sense from a biological standpoint given that babies are designed to breastfeed past a year. I do know that many doctors recommend giving breastfed babies iron supplements starting at birth, but there is a fair amount of controversy surrounding this recommendation. Honestly, I think it would be very difficult to argue that infant formula and/or cow''s milk is somehow more nutrtitious for a baby or toddler than breastmilk.

To answer your question, of course I don''t think that BFing creates a vitamin deficiency. If you carefully read my post, your would see that I stated that children need more than breast milk by age one, not that they need to eliminate it, but that they need to supplement it with solid foods. However, I do know some women who exclusively BFed past 1 year, and their doctors recommended vitamin supplements because breast milk by itself does not provide complete nutrition once a child is past one year of age. I never suggested that formula is more nutritious than breastmilk, so please read my posts more carefully in the future and refrain from putting your words into my mouth.

Also, my parents were born in a third world country where extended BFing was common, because there wasn''t enough food to go around to feed the parents & older children, never mind the babies. So, children were often BFed there until age 4 because that was frequently the only food available to them. I think that this is the situation in much of the developing world. Trust me, no one in my family would have been able to pay for baby formula, no matter how badly the formula manufacturing corporations tried to sell it to them. When they immigrated here, my family members generally BFed from 6-12 months, because at that point most children are able to start taking solids, and they could afford to feed their children table food.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 1/3/2009 10:41:38 PM
Author: mia1181

Date: 1/3/2009 8:08:30 PM

Author: kennedy

ETA It''s my understanding that breastfeeding rates in many third world countries are not very high at all because of the formula industry''s massive marketing campaigns to convince mothers (mostly uneducated) that science can do better than their own bodies. The WHO and other humanitarian organizations are currently working very hard to reverse this way of thinking as lower breastfeeding rates, especially in underdeveloped countries, have very serious public health implications.

I''d like to see some information on this. It doesn''t seem realistic that all the millions of impoverished mothers in China and Africa trek to the market to buy formula for their babies with the little money they have. It seems much more realistic that they eat and feed their children breastmilk as much as possible. Anyway, if you can point me to this info I''d really be interested to read.

The reason it happened is because companies like Nestle gave out tons of free formula in these countries to new moms. They DIDN''T tell the moms however that by formula feeding their own milk would dry up, thus forcing these moms to continue to formula feed.

So it was a trick really, not that these moms are choosing to go to the market and buy formula.

 

[kennedy]

Date: 1/4/2009 8:37:32 AM
Author: vespergirl

Date: 1/3/2009 8:08:30 PM

Author: kennedy

Date: 1/3/2009 7:03:36 PM

Author: vespergirl

I don''t mean to judge anyone, but for me, I would not BF for more than one year. I was only able to BF my son until 3 months for medical reasons. I know that the WHO recommends BFing until age 2, and I think that''s the best source of nutrition for children in developing countries without other food options, but I understand that women who do extended BFing in this country (past one year) need to give their children vitamin supplements, which tells me that they need more than breastmilk by that age.

Just to clarify, the WHO doesn''t recommend EXCLUSIVE breastfeeding into the second year; of course a child needs more than breastmilk by the time it reaches two and I doubt anyone would argue differently.


I''ve never heard of an across the board recommendation to give vitamin supplements to children who breastfeed past a year. Most children over a year eat a variety of table foods in addition to some kind of milk source (breast, formula, cow''s milk). Are you suggesting that drinking breastmilk past a year creates some kind of vitamin deficiency? I''ve never heard of such a thing and it certainly doesn''t make any sense from a biological standpoint given that babies are designed to breastfeed past a year. I do know that many doctors recommend giving breastfed babies iron supplements starting at birth, but there is a fair amount of controversy surrounding this recommendation. Honestly, I think it would be very difficult to argue that infant formula and/or cow''s milk is somehow more nutrtitious for a baby or toddler than breastmilk.

To answer your question, of course I don''t think that BFing creates a vitamin deficiency. If you carefully read my post, your would see that I stated that children need more than breast milk by age one, not that they need to eliminate it, but that they need to supplement it with solid foods. However, I do know some women who exclusively BFed past 1 year, and their doctors recommended vitamin supplements because breast milk by itself does not provide complete nutrition once a child is past one year of age. I never suggested that formula is more nutritious than breastmilk, so please read my posts more carefully in the future and refrain from putting your words into my mouth.


Also, my parents were born in a third world country where extended BFing was common, because there wasn''t enough food to go around to feed the parents & older children, never mind the babies. So, children were often BFed there until age 4 because that was frequently the only food available to them. I think that this is the situation in much of the developing world. Trust me, no one in my family would have been able to pay for baby formula, no matter how badly the formula manufacturing corporations tried to sell it to them. When they immigrated here, my family members generally BFed from 6-12 months, because at that point most children are able to start taking solids, and they could afford to feed their children table food.

My apologies -- I didn''t realize you were talking about exclusive extended breastfeeding when you referred to vitamin supplements.

As Neatfreak mentioned, the real problem with the formula companies'' marketing campaign is that it had very real physical consequences. They would give just enough formula to dry out the mother''s own milk supply so that she literally had no choice but to buy formula, whether she could afford it or not (and usually she couldn''t). I''m not sure which countries were impacted most.

 

[iheartscience]

I knew this would be a hot thread-interesting responses. But it seems like even some of the proponents of extended breast feeding in this thread think breast feeding at age 7 is too old. Or am I reading that wrong?

 

[steph72276]

This thread is so interesting with all the differing opinions....
Just curious to those mental health professionals and social workers that have stated that they think there is nothing wrong with a 7 year old breastfeeding, at what age do you draw a line and say something is wrong with it. I jokingly said age 17, but really at some point it does become wrong, so where do you draw that line in the sand if you feel like 7 is okay?

 

[Tacori E-ring]

Date: 1/4/2009 12:03:40 PM
Author: thing2of2
I knew this would be a hot thread-interesting responses. But it seems like even some of the proponents of extended breast feeding in this thread think breast feeding at age 7 is too old. Or am I reading that wrong?

I am kinda confused to.

ETA: Also I read a few of the articles (well actually ignored the ones that were 10-30 years old) and I would NEVER defend Nestle's practices *but* let's be honest...the babies get sick and/or die because of the dirty water and bottles NOT b/c of the formula itself. Also I think the doctors are JUST as much to blame by not educating the women better. Yes, Breast IS best. Is it best for 3,4,5,6,7+ years??? *I* personally do not think so. I have not heard or read anything to convince me it is. Furthermore to say it is abuse NOT to breastfeed is very cruel to all the women on this board who tried and couldn't. BFing for me was one of the HARDEST things I have ever done. It did not come easy. Somehow I got through of the months of pain and clogs only to have my VERY independent little girl ween herself at 6.5 months. Go figure! So for all of you mamas who BFed for the time YOU felt was right for you and your child good for you! For those who yet have children but should perhaps run for president of LLL, I sincerely hope BFing comes naturally to you and your child. And for those mamas who are currently or did feed your children formula know you *ARE* doing what is best for you and your child.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 1/4/2009 12:45:50 PM
Author: Tacori E-ring

Date: 1/4/2009 12:03:40 PM

Author: thing2of2

I knew this would be a hot thread-interesting responses. But it seems like even some of the proponents of extended breast feeding in this thread think breast feeding at age 7 is too old. Or am I reading that wrong?

I am kinda confused to.


ETA: Also I read a few of the articles (well actually ignored the ones that were 10-30 years old) and I would NEVER defend Nestle's practices *but* let's be honest...the babies get sick and/or die because of the dirty water and bottles NOT b/c of the formula itself. Also I think the doctors are JUST as much to blame by not educating the women better.

Tacori, I totally agree that some babies die because of dirty water, etc. BUT one of the main points about the Nestle scandal was that these women should have been breastfeeding because it is all they could afford and/or the water was not safe, not that formula itself is unsafe/bad. Instead, the formula companies gave the new moms free formula to use touting it as good for the babies but did NOT tell the moms that their own milk would dry up if they stopped BFing and used the free formula. Thus, the moms used the formula and then tried to go back to breastfeeding, realized they couldn't because their milk had dried up and then either had to try and find a way to buy formula or their babies died/got sick because they couldn't feed them anymore or their child contracted an illness from unsafe water.

For the most part (except for the crazies in a few of the articles) no one is saying that formula is bad or causes kids to get sick. Just that the situation was dishonest and thus THAT caused the kids to get sick/die.

 

[Blenheim]

I can't speak for everyone, obviously, but I can say how I feel. Going into it, I'm planning on BFing until 2-3 years old. I'm going to introduce solids around 6 months or so, and after a year the babe will be getting most of his/her nutrition from food with breastmilk as a supplement. And I plan to set limits on BFing a toddler, rather than just allowing frequent sips in public. (This is, of course, assuming that I'm able to breastfeed and that the baby wants to BF that long - if not, I'll definitely wean earlier!)

However, I think that the right age to wean depends so much on the mom and child. Someone upthread (too lazy to look up who) didn't plan on BFing as long as she did, but a lot of stressful things came up and it didn't seem like the right time to wean. I won't know if I'm in that situation until I'm there, and that's the kind of thing that mom can judge best - not me. Other people might not live in areas where there's good, steady nutrition and the same attititudes about boobs that there are here, and BFing until 7+ might make the most sense for them. I don't think that there's a definite line in the sand of when is okay and when is not. However, 7 in this country is pretty unusual, and I have a hard time seeing circumstances in which it would be best to continue to BF that long... if that makes sense.

Disclaimer - I didn't watch 20/20, so I don't know that particular family's situation. I'm more responding to the "how old is too old" question being asked.

Edit, in response to what Tacori just wrote - since the topic is "how old is too old", I've been working under the assumption that there are no problems with breastfeeding and that the kid wants to continue - otherwise, it's a moot point whether the kid is BFing too long. Nothing I've written has been meant to judge women who don't breastfeed (my brother was never able to latch on, some women never produce milk, some women just don't want to breastfeed and that's definitely their right) or to judge women who wean before 1-2 years for whatever reason. I've just been trying to point out that there are reasons to continue BFing past 1 year if that's what mom and kid want, because there are a lot of people here saying that it's unnecessary after 9-12 months. I really hope that I'm not coming across as militant lactavist, because I certainly don't feel that way and don't intend to.

 

[Tacori E-ring]

NF, I totally understand that but I think only part of the problem is Nestle. Where are these women''s doctors and nurses? Why aren''t they being educated? I BFed in the hospital and got sent home with formula. I think the comment about being abuse to those who don''t BF really got me angry especially b/c I have not seen ONE comment saying formula is better.

 

[neatfreak]

Date: 1/4/2009 1:24:18 PM
Author: Tacori E-ring
NF, I totally understand that but I think only part of the problem is Nestle. Where are these women's doctors and nurses? Why aren't they being educated? I BFed in the hospital and got sent home with formula. I think the comment about being abuse to those who don't BF really got me angry especially b/c I have not seen ONE comment saying formula is better.

I think these are just two different situations. We are talking third world countries here...doctors and education about these things just aren't readily available like they are here.

And I agree about the abuse comments being thrown around...either way quite frankly it's inappropriate.

 

[jas]

Because I like taking things far off topic (and love to get this icon:

from other people ) --

My thought on this right away was, if the mammas want to give their babies the benefits of breast milk at age 7, why not pump? I understand the bonding issue with BFing (I BF my little guys for as long as I could, which, admittedly, was not long). However, I agree with the posters who stated that 7 year olds need to work on coping skills and independence and bonding in ways with mommy other than nursing.

Were the moms who were profiled pumping? Willing to pump? Or did they do it for the nurturing/bonding/comforting factor?

And yes, I know pumping is tricky and you may or may not get the same quantity.

Personally, I don''t think bfing a 7 year old is my cuppa milk. I would probably be very startled to see a 7 year old nursed.

 

[iheartscience]

Interesting point, jas. As far as I know these mothers were not pumping. And really, by age 7 is there any real value to continuing to get breast milk? I get that it''s beneficial up to age 2, but what does a 7 year old kid need nutritionally from breast milk that he or she couldn''t get from food?

In my opinion, when a child is 1-2 years from puberty it''s creepy at the very least to continue to breast feed them. Yes, breasts are meant for food, but they are sexualized in our society whether we like it or not. Growing up in a family who doesn''t sexualize them isn''t going to keep a child from learning that breasts are sexual in our society.

I wonder when the mother of the 7 year old is going to stop breast feeding him? When his voice starts cracking? I wish I had seen the show-I wonder if they asked her how long she was going to continue?

 

[jas]

Date: 1/4/2009 2:52:20 PM
Author: thing2of2
Interesting point, jas. As far as I know these mothers were not pumping. And really, by age 7 is there any real value to continuing to get breast milk? I get that it''s beneficial up to age 2, but what does a 7 year old kid need nutritionally from breast milk that he or she couldn''t get from food?

In my opinion, when a child is 1-2 years from puberty it''s creepy at the very least to continue to breast feed them. Yes, breasts are meant for food, but they are sexualized in our society whether we like it or not. Growing up in a family who doesn''t sexualize them isn''t going to keep a child from learning that breasts are sexual in our society.

I wonder when the mother of the 7 year old is going to stop breast feeding him? When his voice starts cracking? I wish I had seen the show-I wonder if they asked her how long she was going to continue?

Agreed.

 

[Blenheim]

Jas, I''ll give you a

just cause you asked, but you do raise a good point.

I''m having a hard time finding any concrete nutritional benefits to breastfeeding past age 2 (assuming that we''re not talking about people in developing countries) - it seems to be mostly emotional at that point. So I''m not really sure if it would make sense to pump for an older child. Although they might still get benefits from mom''s immune system? Anyone know?

I''m curious about the people on the show too. Did they mention why they''re still BFing and how long they plan to continue? And was their kid homeschooled, by any chance? If not, did they mention reactions from others at school?

 

[steph72276]

I was wondering if these poor kids were homeschooled too...I sure hope so, or they are going to probably get beaten up or made fun of horribly after their classmates saw that.

 

[swingirl]

edit

 

[Mrs Mitchell]

Date: 1/4/2009 12:05:10 PM
Author: steph72276
This thread is so interesting with all the differing opinions....

Just curious to those mental health professionals and social workers that have stated that they think there is nothing wrong with a 7 year old breastfeeding, at what age do you draw a line and say something is wrong with it. I jokingly said age 17, but really at some point it does become wrong, so where do you draw that line in the sand if you feel like 7 is okay?

I would be very hesitant to suggest a chronological age at which breastfeeding is wrong in every case. Every child and every family is different. In saying it''s ''wrong'' at a particular age, we''d effectively be saying it''s harmful at that age. Practice must be evidence based (if any intervention is to be lawful under Scots law) and there is no evidence that I am aware of to say that there is a chronological age beyond which breastfeeding causes harm. I can''t state categorically that it causes no harm, because I don''t have proof of that either, but utlimately, that''s not enough for intervention if BFing is the only issue of concern. It may be different in other legal systems.

On a personal level, I should probably say that I posted in this thread (which I would otherwise have left well alone) because I have a friend who still BFs her 6 year old daughter. She has special needs. It is sometimes the only thing that can calm her daughter''s severe distress, especially when she appears to be in pain, a symptom of her complex condition. Physically, this little girl looks like a much, much younger child but chronologically, well, she''s 6 going on 7. She can use other coping skills only up to a point. While I personally have no wish to BF my own child beyond infancy, I can''t find it in me to condemn my friend for doing so, not least because her little girl''s life expectancy is heartbreakingly low. Having a cut off point based only on age doesn''t sit comfortably for me, mostly because of this.

Anyway, we all do our best for our children and I certainly didn''t intend to offend anyone over this, so I really hope that I haven''t.

Jen

 

[oobiecoo]

Date: 1/4/2009 4:52:10 PM
Author: Mrs Mitchell

Date: 1/4/2009 12:05:10 PM
Author: steph72276
This thread is so interesting with all the differing opinions....

Just curious to those mental health professionals and social workers that have stated that they think there is nothing wrong with a 7 year old breastfeeding, at what age do you draw a line and say something is wrong with it. I jokingly said age 17, but really at some point it does become wrong, so where do you draw that line in the sand if you feel like 7 is okay?

I would be very hesitant to suggest a chronological age at which breastfeeding is wrong in every case. Every child and every family is different. In saying it''s ''wrong'' at a particular age, we''d effectively be saying it''s harmful at that age. Practice must be evidence based (if any intervention is to be lawful under Scots law) and there is no evidence that I am aware of to say that there is a chronological age beyond which breastfeeding causes harm. I can''t state categorically that it causes no harm, because I don''t have proof of that either, but utlimately, that''s not enough for intervention if BFing is the only issue of concern. It may be different in other legal systems.

On a personal level, I should probably say that I posted in this thread (which I would otherwise have left well alone) because I have a friend who still BFs her 6 year old daughter. She has special needs. It is sometimes the only thing that can calm her daughter''s severe distress, especially when she appears to be in pain, a symptom of her complex condition. Physically, this little girl looks like a much, much younger child but chronologically, well, she''s 6 going on 7. She can use other coping skills only up to a point. While I personally have no wish to BF my own child beyond infancy, I can''t find it in me to condemn my friend for doing so, not least because her little girl''s life expectancy is heartbreakingly low. Having a cut off point based only on age doesn''t sit comfortably for me, mostly because of this.

Anyway, we all do our best for our children and I certainly didn''t intend to offend anyone over this, so I really hope that I haven''t.

Jen

I think we are mostly talking about a "cut off point" for average, healthy children who are developing at a normal rate. I doubt many here would think badly of your friend who is still breastfeeding her special needs child since it is a special case and you said she is really unable to cope in other ways. To me, that is more understandable given her developmental difficulties.

 

[steph72276]

Date: 1/4/2009 5:25:42 PM
Author: oobiecoo

Date: 1/4/2009 4:52:10 PM

Author: Mrs Mitchell

Date: 1/4/2009 12:05:10 PM

Author: steph72276

This thread is so interesting with all the differing opinions....


Just curious to those mental health professionals and social workers that have stated that they think there is nothing wrong with a 7 year old breastfeeding, at what age do you draw a line and say something is wrong with it. I jokingly said age 17, but really at some point it does become wrong, so where do you draw that line in the sand if you feel like 7 is okay?

I would be very hesitant to suggest a chronological age at which breastfeeding is wrong in every case. Every child and every family is different. In saying it''s ''wrong'' at a particular age, we''d effectively be saying it''s harmful at that age. Practice must be evidence based (if any intervention is to be lawful under Scots law) and there is no evidence that I am aware of to say that there is a chronological age beyond which breastfeeding causes harm. I can''t state categorically that it causes no harm, because I don''t have proof of that either, but utlimately, that''s not enough for intervention if BFing is the only issue of concern. It may be different in other legal systems.


On a personal level, I should probably say that I posted in this thread (which I would otherwise have left well alone) because I have a friend who still BFs her 6 year old daughter. She has special needs. It is sometimes the only thing that can calm her daughter''s severe distress, especially when she appears to be in pain, a symptom of her complex condition. Physically, this little girl looks like a much, much younger child but chronologically, well, she''s 6 going on 7. She can use other coping skills only up to a point. While I personally have no wish to BF my own child beyond infancy, I can''t find it in me to condemn my friend for doing so, not least because her little girl''s life expectancy is heartbreakingly low. Having a cut off point based only on age doesn''t sit comfortably for me, mostly because of this.


Anyway, we all do our best for our children and I certainly didn''t intend to offend anyone over this, so I really hope that I haven''t.


Jen

I think we are mostly talking about a ''cut off point'' for average, healthy children who are developing at a normal rate. I doubt many here would think badly of your friend who is still breastfeeding her special needs child since it is a special case and you said she is really unable to cope in other ways. To me, that is more understandable given her developmental difficulties.

Exactly. I would in no way say anything is wrong with how a mom cares for her special needs child. And I am not talking about underdeveloped countries. I am talking about developed countries, and healthy children. At some point there is a cut off point to where it is not good for the child...

 

[Jas12]

MrsM--and your example is EXACTLY why it is so hard to make blanket statements like "breast feeding a 7 year old is disturbing...wrong....or something someone should be arrest for"!! I am sure your friend is exactly the opposite of a mom we should be disgusted over.

Although i too stated that i would not BF for that long, as with all things, and esp parenting, there are exceptions to the rule and we can''t be so rigid in our attitudes.

I asked my mom about this topic today while we were shopping, she raised me in a very relaxed almost hippy like environment (a small town) and most moms BF till around 3 (far cry from 7, but still quite extended) she remembers the judgement her friends got if they weaned before the first year--so it just goes to show how vastly different our perspectives can be.

Thing2of2--yep, at least that''s what i feel--7 is *very* extended, not what most would do and iam sure it is so uncommon it''s not really worth getting too worked up about, but ialso don''t think there is an age when someone should stop. For one mom it may be 3 months--for another--3 years. It''s very individual IMO

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 1/4/2009 5:37:23 PM
Author: Jas12

Thing2of2--yep, at least that''s what i feel--7 is *very* extended, not what most would do and iam sure it is so uncommon it''s not really worth getting too worked up about, but ialso don''t think there is an age when someone should stop. For one mom it may be 3 months--for another--3 years. It''s very individual IMO

Well what would you think is too old? 8? 9? There must be a line drawn somewhere, right?

 

[Dreamer_D]

Date: 1/4/2009 5:52:22 PM
Author: thing2of2

Date: 1/4/2009 5:37:23 PM
Author: Jas12

Thing2of2--yep, at least that''s what i feel--7 is *very* extended, not what most would do and iam sure it is so uncommon it''s not really worth getting too worked up about, but ialso don''t think there is an age when someone should stop. For one mom it may be 3 months--for another--3 years. It''s very individual IMO

Well what would you think is too old? 8? 9? There must be a line drawn somewhere, right?

Why? Why can''t each situation be looked at individually? Just the same way that some women cannot or choose not to ever BF and have their unique reasons, maybe extended BFing moms have their own unique reasons too? I am playing devil''s advocate to an extent, but I think the parallel is valid.

 

[Mrs Mitchell]

Date: 1/4/2009 5:25:42 PM
Author: oobiecoo

Date: 1/4/2009 4:52:10 PM

Author: Mrs Mitchell

Date: 1/4/2009 12:05:10 PM

Author: steph72276

This thread is so interesting with all the differing opinions....


Just curious to those mental health professionals and social workers that have stated that they think there is nothing wrong with a 7 year old breastfeeding, at what age do you draw a line and say something is wrong with it. I jokingly said age 17, but really at some point it does become wrong, so where do you draw that line in the sand if you feel like 7 is okay?

I would be very hesitant to suggest a chronological age at which breastfeeding is wrong in every case. Every child and every family is different. In saying it's 'wrong' at a particular age, we'd effectively be saying it's harmful at that age. Practice must be evidence based (if any intervention is to be lawful under Scots law) and there is no evidence that I am aware of to say that there is a chronological age beyond which breastfeeding causes harm. I can't state categorically that it causes no harm, because I don't have proof of that either, but utlimately, that's not enough for intervention if BFing is the only issue of concern. It may be different in other legal systems.


On a personal level, I should probably say that I posted in this thread (which I would otherwise have left well alone) because I have a friend who still BFs her 6 year old daughter. She has special needs. It is sometimes the only thing that can calm her daughter's severe distress, especially when she appears to be in pain, a symptom of her complex condition. Physically, this little girl looks like a much, much younger child but chronologically, well, she's 6 going on 7. She can use other coping skills only up to a point. While I personally have no wish to BF my own child beyond infancy, I can't find it in me to condemn my friend for doing so, not least because her little girl's life expectancy is heartbreakingly low. Having a cut off point based only on age doesn't sit comfortably for me, mostly because of this.


Anyway, we all do our best for our children and I certainly didn't intend to offend anyone over this, so I really hope that I haven't.


Jen

I think we are mostly talking about a 'cut off point' for average, healthy children who are developing at a normal rate. I doubt many here would think badly of your friend who is still breastfeeding her special needs child since it is a special case and you said she is really unable to cope in other ways. To me, that is more understandable given her developmental difficulties.

My concern with this is that if you state a clear cut off point, as in the point at which statutory intervention is legally permissible (and one of the consequences of this may be criminal liablity) how would you legislate for exceptions?* How could you word a statute that would make extended breastfeeding grounds for referral in a child protection context but only for children of average developmental rate? Who would decide what conditions would be sufficient to exclude a child from the general rule and protect their parents from prosecution? What level of severity within that condition?

This is part of what the first half of my post was about. If X is harmful, the endpoint is that we must, by law, protect children who are at risk of harm from X. To do this, we need proof that X is harmful, and certainly that the harm done by X will significantly outweigh any reasonably foreseeable harm that may be done by intervention. The absence of proof that is it not harmful is not sufficient in law. (Under the Children(Scotland) Act anyway, the only statutory CP framework I am familiar with - might be very different in other jurisdictions.)

Ok, so the legal / child protection issues are possibly not the main point of this discussion, but there was a specific question from Steph to people working in this field, and we work within a tight legal framework, so this is just my perspective on that.

Jen
*eta - how would you set the limit in the first place? Who's opinion is most valid, most correct? Is that opinion based on fact, medical science, psychology, morality, preferences, popular view? Who should be consulted? By what mechanism could the limit be reviewed, when and by whom?

 

[Steel]

Date: 1/2/2009 11:19:00 PM
Author: mia1181
Wow, I really feel a year old is quite enough. After that point children should be getting their nutrition from foods. It doesn''t really ''disturb'' me until after two though. I take the little girl I nanny to a music class and there is a child who has to be at least 4 years old and his mother is breastfeeding him in the class! It''s 45 minutes long! He really can''t make it that long without some milk? I have officially nicknamed him as ''the sipper'' because he literally goes back to mom for sips! Seriously though, it''s a problem. He''s always hitting

his mom if she won''t give him some and she always ends up giving in!

 

[iheartscience]

Date: 1/4/2009 6:02:41 PM
Author: dreamer_dachsie

Date: 1/4/2009 5:52:22 PM

Author: thing2of2

Date: 1/4/2009 5:37:23 PM

Author: Jas12

Thing2of2--yep, at least that's what i feel--7 is *very* extended, not what most would do and iam sure it is so uncommon it's not really worth getting too worked up about, but ialso don't think there is an age when someone should stop. For one mom it may be 3 months--for another--3 years. It's very individual IMO

Well what would you think is too old? 8? 9? There must be a line drawn somewhere, right?

Why? Why can't each situation be looked at individually? Just the same way that some women cannot or choose not to ever BF and have their unique reasons, maybe extended BFing moms have their own unique reasons too? I am playing devil's advocate to an extent, but I think the parallel is valid.

Because at some point it seems clear that breast feeding would become emotionally unhealthy for the child. Should a healthy, average 12-year-old really be breast feeding? How about a 15-year-old?

 

[Rhea]

Date: 1/4/2009 4:52:10 PM
Author: Mrs Mitchell

Date: 1/4/2009 12:05:10 PM

Author: steph72276

This thread is so interesting with all the differing opinions....


Just curious to those mental health professionals and social workers that have stated that they think there is nothing wrong with a 7 year old breastfeeding, at what age do you draw a line and say something is wrong with it. I jokingly said age 17, but really at some point it does become wrong, so where do you draw that line in the sand if you feel like 7 is okay?

I would be very hesitant to suggest a chronological age at which breastfeeding is wrong in every case. Every child and every family is different. In saying it''s ''wrong'' at a particular age, we''d effectively be saying it''s harmful at that age. Practice must be evidence based (if any intervention is to be lawful under Scots law) and there is no evidence that I am aware of to say that there is a chronological age beyond which breastfeeding causes harm. I can''t state categorically that it causes no harm, because I don''t have proof of that either, but utlimately, that''s not enough for intervention if BFing is the only issue of concern. It may be different in other legal systems.


On a personal level, I should probably say that I posted in this thread (which I would otherwise have left well alone) because I have a friend who still BFs her 6 year old daughter. She has special needs. It is sometimes the only thing that can calm her daughter''s severe distress, especially when she appears to be in pain, a symptom of her complex condition. Physically, this little girl looks like a much, much younger child but chronologically, well, she''s 6 going on 7. She can use other coping skills only up to a point. While I personally have no wish to BF my own child beyond infancy, I can''t find it in me to condemn my friend for doing so, not least because her little girl''s life expectancy is heartbreakingly low. Having a cut off point based only on age doesn''t sit comfortably for me, mostly because of this.


Anyway, we all do our best for our children and I certainly didn''t intend to offend anyone over this, so I really hope that I haven''t.


Jen

MrsMitchell, your example and experiences in statutory child protection (where I used to work) are exactly why I worded my response as I did. I wouldn''t want to put an age limit on breastfeeding and appreciate you sharing the example of your friend and her daughter.

 

[Mrs Mitchell]

Date: 1/3/2009 4:48:50 PM
Author: Addy
I see nothing wrong in breastfeeding for an extended time, but when the child is old enough, emotionally, socially, and biologically, that they are breastfeeding for the comfort that it provides rather than the nutrition, I think it''s time to wean and help the child to bond and get comfort from other sources.

Addy, I looked back for your earlier post and I agree, totally 100%! You put it very well.

I think this takes us into questions of what to do / should something be done/ if so by whom etc when the child is not weaned as you describe. I think it''s really, really difficult territory professionally and legally. I''m on maternity leave at the moment, or i think I''d be discussing this in our practice group at work tomorrow. It''s more than likely going to come up at some point in our area, although it hadn''t to date when I went on leave (one of my roles is casework audit, so I''d have seen this if any of our staff had dealt with such a referral).

I''m curious - have you (or any other people working in this field) actually worked with a case where the only issue of concern was extended BFing? I''m guessing there may be cases where it''s part of a wider set of problems, but again I think that''s raising different issues.

Jen