Sooner or later it had to happen. It is so much the update about breastfeeding in recent years, the progress is such and the myths that are trying to tear down and still stand still that it was already rare for someone to hit the table and say that " because all life has been done like this and nothing has happened to us ".
One of those "sincedalavidasehachochoesí" that is not real, because if we try to know how breastfeeding has always been done, surely the norm is to breastfeed not one, but several years and the weird thing is precisely what is suggested in this book.
I speak of "Victims of breastfeeding: Neither dogmatisms nor trenches!", a recently published book, written by a pediatrician who has decided to entrench himself in past and outdated knowledge, fleeing from current scientific evidence, to get into the milk war chariot, if it exists, but putting himself on the side of the ones he calls "bad mothers" who bottle feed.
His name is José María González Cano and his credentials would suggest that his work would not be so loaded with errors and myths, since he is a pediatrician of the Pediatric Service of the General Hospital of Castellón, where for 30 years he has directed the Gastroenterology Unit, Hepatology and Child Nutrition of the aforementioned Hospital (the same is the problem, which has been in the same position for 30 years and has not dedicated itself to investigate a little about breastfeeding).
What's the book about
I do not have the book in my hands and I almost prefer that this moment never comes, because I will not know very well what to do with it, so to talk about it I rely solely on the text of the back cover, which despite being brief, says much. Too much, in fact. I quote what he says and I am adding my opinion.
Breast milk is the "gold standard" for the first months of life, but many mothers and children are "victims of poorly understood breastfeeding." They are pressed to breastfeed even if they have hypogalactia, cracks in the nipple, etc. They even raise moral issues for their return to working life. It is disrespectful and they have to bear the qualification of "bad mothers" to those who opt for Artificial Breastfeeding.
The breast milk is the gold standard for the first two years of life. During the first 6 months it must be given exclusively, but from that age it is recommended that it be supplemented with other foods. From the year on, it is breast milk that complements the food, but it is recommended to continue breastfeeding because it is still the best food of all possible, with an addition, it provides immune cells to the baby, something that no other food does, supplement, vitamins, or syrup, although many mothers are eager to offer their children anything to make them sick less.
Victims of breastfeeding misunderstood? It is possible that there are professionals who misunderstand and pressure mothers to continue breastfeeding despite everything, but those who often do this are clear that the first thing is not to press, but help mothers who have hypogalactia, cracks in the nipple, etc., to breastfeed if possible And if it is your wish. Because hypogalactia exists, but it is a very rare condition and often has a solvable cause, and because the cracks can be due to a bad position, and it is often solved with a little help. Obviously, if the mother decides to quit, she can do it (and should be able to do it without anyone's pressure).
Moral dilemmas for the return to work life? Sure, but not because nobody misunderstands breastfeeding, but because the woman returns to work when the baby is only 16 weeks old. He is still as dependent as the first day and yet he has to leave him with someone to take care of him. I believe that most parents feel that moral dilemma, breastfeed or not.
The bad mothers say it, Mr. Gonzalez. A professional breastfeeding expert never call a mother who decides not to breastfeed. In fact, we help them to make the artificial milk feeding successful, explaining well how to prepare the bottles (you know, heating the water before mixing it with the powder to avoid Cronobacter Sakazakii and the Salmonella... I don't know if he talks about it in his book).
The Prolonged LM is generating a lot of income in the Hospitals by excess. It is not the same to breastfeed three months than to give it for six and let's say nothing if it lasts over the year of life. Because it can be done, it can be done. But is it good or bad for children? Isn't a two-year-old boy of average malnutrition, with stunted and anemic stigmas, not a "victim" of current dogmatism?
What is prolonged LM? Because if it is advisable to give up to two years, I imagine it will refer to those who breastfeed beyond two years. Is there really a lot of hospital admissions because two-year-olds still drink breast milk? Do they not eat anything else? On the other hand, don't you know that height is one of the factors that are least affected by nutrition? It takes a lot, but very hungry for there to be a waste. You only have to keep an eye on those who live in Africa. Those are hungry and, look, many are taller than us, the Spanish.
"Two-year-old boy, half malnourished, with stunted and anemic stigmas." I do not say that there are not, but if there are, they are not victims of dogmatism, but of a mother who has not understood the recommendations and blindly trusts the tit, how old the baby is, or of a baby who refuses to eat: from the year on, breast milk complements the food. If the child eats a variety and also drinks a tit, it is impossible to end up like that child you are commenting on. If you do not eat varied, because you refuse to eat (there are cases), before the year should be seen by a pediatrician to assess the risk of suffering from anemia, just as it should be assessed in children who take a bottle and also They refuse to eat.
And that is not to mention the severe Oedipus complexes that are emerging before such prolonged breastfeeding. Contrary to current recommendations, I believe that in developed countries, total or partial weaning should be done at four months of age. From that moment comes the first cereal porridge and progressively fruit, vegetables etc. If weaning is later, there are almost always problems with the porridge and that inevitably leads to nutritional deficiencies and to turning these children into "victims" of current dogmatism.
With Freud we have encountered. Severe Oedipus complexes that are emerging? Do you see that in your Child Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition unit? Do they derive them there? Or do they tell you? Or is it directly what you imagine?
Against the recommendations, he considers that a child should be weaned at four months. Well, okay, and another pediatrician will say that at five, another will consider that at 7 and another maybe at 10. That's why there are some global evidence-based recommendations, so that everyone does not say what they think best based on their opinion.
If weaning is later there are problems with the porridge, he says, and in part he is right. That is why it is commonly said that children who breastfeed pass "from the tit to the macaroni", because they prefer to eat as older people rather than as babies, and prefer to eat chunks rather than porridge.
About turning children into victims of current dogmatism, well yes, is the culmination of his speech, but is that dogmatism is not such. We talk about recommendations, not dogmas. According to current evidence, what is desirable for a baby is what I have commented (six months exclusive, until the year complemented and from the year complementing). It is the "gold standard" as you call it.
If then you cannot, or do not want to follow, it is the decision of each mother and each family based on the situation of each moment. And professionals should be there to always support the mother and help her make the best decision for everyone. There are neither bad mothers, nor is there really war, although I suppose that for your book to be sold you need to explain that it exists and you need to victimize the mothers who bottle feed to make the professionals who advocate for babies to receive the "evil" gold pattern. "
