Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hi - not sure this will help but I had a very sleepy, jaundiced baby first time around who would fall asleep after feeding for just a few minutes. What I found helped was stripping him off before a feed so he was a bit cooler, changing his nappy before a feed to make sure he was really awake or during a feed after he'd nodded off. If he still nodded off, I rubbed his palm, walked my fingers up his spine or gently rubbed/tickled his feet. Sometimes in desperation, I'd gently blow on his face which also seemed to work for a little while. It's so frustrating but hope it gets better for you and your partner.

Is a shame that the community midwives haven't been helpful - in 2008 after similar problems I had some great one-to-one feeding support at home from one of them. My little one had lost a fair amount of weight and was screaming constantly in hunger for the first few days, poor thing.


Some good tips she gave (others have already mentioned most of them) included expressing small amounts then syringing some into the baby's mouth at the start of a feed (which helped calm her down - she was going into big rages / screaming with frustration, which wasn't helping with the latch-on), stripping her / me down to cool her down / keep her awake, feeding when she was calm rather than already hungry and agitated and using lots of skin-to-skin contact to help calmness.


In terms of technique, it also proved helpful to lift up the boob from below and shove a big mouthful of nipple / boob into her mouth! Felt quite odd at first, but did the trick!


Sounds like you're making progress, hope things settle down soon.

She's doing really really well now thank you. Perhaps some engorgement returning last night but was soon addressed.


Second Widwife appointment was this last week and she'd managed to put on 6 oz in the previous 6 days which is incredible. Think our child is actually a guzzler and seems to feed far quicker than Gina expects her to.


Thanks again

Well done. I'm really pleased too. It is definitely worth sticking it out. Good luck with the rest of the journey.


For the record - I cried almost everyday for the first 2 months of breastfeeding. It was extremely difficult for both me and my daughter due to latching problems and 'low' weight gain issues. We received amazing help and got through our bad patch. This was 18 months ago now and we are going stronger than ever, still! There is definitely light at the end of the tunnel.


All the best.

Digression but, why oh why does Mother Nature make bf so hard that so many women need bf counsellors? So many women do need them. Babies elsewhere in the world depend totally on bf, so it's an awful thought that they might fail to thrive.


not so clever Mother Nature!

new mother Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Digression but, why oh why does Mother Nature make

> bf so hard that so many women need bf counsellors?

> So many women do need them. Babies elsewhere in

> the world depend totally on bf, so it's an awful

> thought that they might fail to thrive.

>

> not so clever Mother Nature!


I am not sure that's quite the case. I think we just find ourselves isolated without support from other women, mothers, aunts etc who have breastfed... and the media/society has unrealistic expectations about what bf/life with a newborn is like (expecting to feed every 4h, that sort of thing)


I think also because formula is portayed via advertising etc as "as good as breast milk" there isn't much incentive for women to persist when they face difficulties... I wonder how many women in countries where there is no ready alternative, find they can't produce enough milk?

a lot of babies don't ask to be fed. Sometimes for very long periods. I had no problem with my milk 'flow' just that the baby was latching on properly and not taking in enough milk, Plus he slept for long periods of time.


i did exactly what i was told which was to 'feed on demand'.


i had no idea that he was getting more and more dehydrated and his deterioration in health was alarming

he ended up in special care for 7 days


the nurse in special care told me HALF the babies in special care were in there for dehydration


edit to say - i then saw a bfing coach and she was amazing. I just wish i'd had access to her earlier and not just the midwives (who aren't trained in bfing)

Interesting, study of 1678 children in Africa and length of bf


http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/25/1/115.pdf


"only five of the children

in the study never breastfed. One did not breastfeed

because the mother died while giving birth, one

mother became paretic after birth, one child was born

with cleft lip/palate and two did not start because the

mothers believed their milk was bad and would harm

the child...


These results concur with previous studies

.....only one child in a cohort of 1148 healthy, singleton children failed to

breastfeed at all."


This is interesting, because if the number of babies who couldn't successfully bf in a poor country such as Guinea Bissau is so low, why are so many women in a country like ours, with much better nutrition and healthcare, convinced that they have no milk?

Saila Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> a lot of babies don't ask to be fed. Sometimes for

> very long periods. I had no problem with my milk

> 'flow' just that the baby was latching on properly

> and not taking in enough milk, Plus he slept for

> long periods of time.

>

> i did exactly what i was told which was to 'feed

> on demand'.

>

> i had no idea that he was getting more and more

> dehydrated and his deterioration in health was

> alarming

> he ended up in special care for 7 days

>

> the nurse in special care told me HALF the babies

> in special care were in there for dehydration


Yes, feeding on demand is a misnomer... again, if we had mothers, sisters, aunts who had bf, or more accurate info about the realities of the early days, or better hands on support, we would know that a sleepy baby needs to be made to feed... i had one of these babies (twin II) and I am sure she would have been readmitted to hospital if she had been my first child... we had to feed her by syringe for the first couple of weeks.


Quite a few women on here have had similar experiences.


i think in their eagerness to encourage bf take up, the official advice misses out a lot of key info... sleepy babies... need to feed every 2-3h.... breasts can get hugely engorged when milk comes in.. all that sort of stuff

Why does mother nature intend on making a lot of women throw up daily whilst pregnant? Or why do we have to go through monthly visits and men don't? Mother nature treated us women unfairly for unknown reasons, maybe she was on the looking out for a nice father nature?


Everything in life is practiced and learned really. Breastfeeding included. Some women take to it so naturally, others due to various problems (possibly mother nature being not so clever again) find it a struggle. Most women with a bit of support and advice tend to overcome their problems, after all mother nature cant stop us experiencing the our problems and getting through them to help out another women in our position.


Breastfeeding was never intended to be easy just because its natural, same as giving birth. If you overcome problems with anything in life the rewards are usually satisfying. Life ain't easy.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • BBC Homepage Skip to content Accessibility Help EFor you Notifications More menu Search BBC                     BBC News Menu   UK England N. Ireland Scotland Alba Wales Cymru Isle of Man Guernsey Jersey Local News Vets under corporate pressure to increase revenue, BBC told   Image source,Getty Images ByRichard Bilton, BBC Panorama and Ben Milne, BBC News Published 2 hours ago Vets have told BBC Panorama they feel under increasing pressure to make money for the big companies that employ them - and worry about the costly financial impact on pet owners. Prices charged by UK vets rose by 63% between 2016 and 2023, external, and the government's competition regulator has questioned whether the pet-care market - as it stands - is giving customers value for money. One anonymous vet, who works for the UK's largest vet care provider, IVC Evidensia, said that the company has introduced a new monitoring system that could encourage vets to offer pet owners costly tests and treatment options. A spokesperson for IVC told Panorama: "The group's vets and vet nurses never prioritise revenue or transaction value over and above the welfare of the animal in their care." More than half of all UK households are thought to own a pet, external. Over the past few months, hundreds of pet owners have contacted BBC Your Voice with concerns about vet bills. One person said they had paid £5,600 for 18 hours of vet-care for their pet: "I would have paid anything to save him but felt afterwards we had been taken advantage of." Another described how their dog had undergone numerous blood tests and scans: "At the end of the treatment we were none the wiser about her illness and we were presented with a bill of £13,000."   Image caption, UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024, according to the CMA Mounting concerns over whether pet owners are receiving a fair deal prompted a formal investigation by government watchdog, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA). In a provisional report, external at the end of last year, it identified several issues: Whether vet companies are being transparent about the ownership of individual practices and whether pet owners have enough information about pricing The concentration of vet practices and clinics in the hands of six companies - these now control 60% of the UK's pet-care market Whether this concentration has led to less market competition and allowed some vet care companies to make excess profits 'Hitting targets' A vet, who leads one of IVC's surgeries (and who does not want to be identified because they fear they could lose their job), has shared a new internal document with Panorama. The document uses a colour code to compare the company's UK-wide tests and treatment options and states that it is intended to help staff improve clinical care. It lists key performance indicators in categories that include average sales per patient, X-rays, ultrasound and lab tests. The vet is worried about the new policy: "We will have meetings every month, where one of the area teams will ask you how many blood tests, X-rays and ultrasounds you're doing." If a category is marked in green on the chart, the clinic would be judged to be among the company's top 25% of achievers in the UK. A red mark, on the other hand, would mean the clinic was in the bottom 25%. If this happens, the vet says, it might be asked to come up with a plan of action. The vet says this would create pressure to "upsell" services. Panorama: Why are vet bills so high? Are people being priced out of pet ownership by soaring bills? Watch on BBC iPlayer now or BBC One at 20:00 on Monday 12 January (22:40 in Northern Ireland) Watch on iPlayer For instance, the vet says, under the new model, IVC would prefer any animal with suspected osteoarthritis to potentially be X-rayed. With sedation, that could add £700 to a bill. While X-rays are sometimes necessary, the vet says, the signs of osteoarthritis - the thickening of joints, for instance - could be obvious to an experienced vet, who might prefer to prescribe a less expensive anti-inflammatory treatment. "Vets shouldn't have pressure to do an X-ray because it would play into whether they are getting green on the care framework for their clinic." IVC has told Panorama it is extremely proud of the work its clinical teams do and the data it collects is to "identify and close gaps in care for our patients". It says its vets have "clinical independence", and that prioritising revenue over care would be against the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons' (RCVS) code and IVC policy. Vets say they are under pressure to bring in more money per pet   Published 15 April 2025 Vets should be made to publish prices, watchdog says   Published 15 October 2025 The vet says a drive to increase revenue is undermining his profession. Panorama spoke to more than 30 vets in total who are currently working, or have worked, for some of the large veterinary groups. One recalls being told that not enough blood tests were being taken: "We were pushed to do more. I hated opening emails." Another says that when their small practice was sold to a large company, "it was crazy... It was all about hitting targets". Not all the big companies set targets or monitor staff in this way. The high cost of treatment UK pet owners spent £6.3bn on vet and other pet-care services in 2024 - equal to just over £365 per pet-owning household, according to the CMA. However, most pet owners in the UK do not have insurance, and bills can leave less-well-off families feeling helpless when treatment is needed. Many vets used not to display prices and pet owners often had no clear idea of what treatment would cost, but in the past two years that has improved, according to the CMA. Rob Jones has told Panorama that when his family dog, Betty, fell ill during the autumn of 2024 they took her to an emergency treatment centre, Vets Now, and she underwent an operation that cost almost £5,000. Twelve days later, Betty was still unwell, and Rob says he was advised that she could have a serious infection. He was told a diagnosis - and another operation - would cost between £5,000-£8,000.   Image caption, Betty's owners were told an operation on her would cost £12,000 However, on the morning of the operation, Rob was told this price had risen to £12,000. When he complained, he was quoted a new figure - £10,000. "That was the absolute point where I lost faith in them," he says. "It was like, I don't believe that you've got our interests or Betty's interests at heart." The family decided to put Betty to sleep. Rob did not know at the time that both his local vet, and the emergency centre, branded Vets Now, where Betty was treated, were both owned by the same company - IVC. He was happy with the treatment but complained about the sudden price increase and later received an apology from Vets Now. It offered him £3,755.59 as a "goodwill gesture".   Image caption, Rob Jones says he lost faith in the vets treating his pet dog Betty Vets Now told us its staff care passionately for the animals they treat: "In complex cases, prices can vary depending on what the vet discovers during a consultation, during the treatment, and depending on how the patient responds. "We have reviewed our processes and implemented a number of changes to ensure that conversations about pricing are as clear as possible." Value for money? Independent vet practices have been a popular acquisition for corporate investors in recent years, according to Dr David Reader from the University of Glasgow. He has made a detailed study of the industry. Pet care has been seen as attractive, he says, because of the opportunities "to find efficiencies, to consolidate, set up regional hubs, but also to maximise profits". Six large veterinary groups (sometimes referred to as LVGs) now control 60% of the UK pet care market - up from 10% a decade ago, according to the CMA, external. They are: Linnaeus, which owns 180 practices Medivet, which has 363 Vet Partners with 375 practices CVS Group, which has 387 practices Pets at Home, which has 445 practices under the name Vets for Pets IVC Evidensia, which has 900 practices When the CMA announced its provisional findings last autumn, it said there was not enough competition or informed choice in the market. It estimated the combined cost of this to UK pet owners amounted to £900m between 2020-2024. Corporate vets dispute the £900m figure. They say their prices are competitive and made freely available, and reflect their huge investment in the industry, not to mention rising costs, particularly of drugs. The corporate vets also say customers value their services highly and that they comply with the RCVS guidelines.   Image caption, A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with the service they receive from vets A CMA survey suggests pet owners are happy with their vets - both corporate and independent - when it comes to quality of service. But, with the exception of Pets at Home, customer satisfaction on cost is much lower for the big companies. "I think that large veterinary corporations, particularly where they're owned by private equity companies, are more concerned about profits than professionals who own veterinary businesses," says Suzy Hudson-Cooke from the British Veterinary Union, which is part of Unite. Proposals for change The CMA's final report on the vet industry is expected by the spring but no date has been set for publication. In its provisional report, it proposed improved transparency on pricing and vet ownership. Companies would have to reveal if vet practices were part of a chain, and whether they had business connections with hospitals, out-of-hours surgeries, online pharmacies and even crematoria. IVC, CVS and Vet Partners all have connected businesses and would have to be more transparent about their services in the future. Pets at Home does not buy practices - it works in partnership with individual vets, as does Medivet. These companies have consistently made clear in their branding who owns their practices. The big companies say they support moves to make the industry more transparent so long as they don't put too high a burden on vets. David Reader says the CMA proposals could have gone further. "There's good reason to think that once this investigation is concluded, some of the larger veterinary groups will continue with their acquisition strategies." The CMA says its proposals would "improve competition by helping pet owners choose the right vet, the right treatment, and the right way to buy medicine - without confusion or unnecessary cost". For Rob Jones, however, it is probably too late. "I honestly wouldn't get another pet," he says. "I think it's so expensive now and the risk financially is so great.             Food Terms of Use About the BBC Privacy Policy Cookies Accessibility Help Parental Guidance Contact the BBC Make an editorial complaint BBC emails for you Copyright © 2026 BBC. The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read about our approach to external linking.
    • What does the area with the blue dotted lines and the crossed out water drop mean? No water in this area? So many leaks in the area.
    • You can get a card at the till, though, to get the discount. You don't have to carry it with you (or load it onto your phone), you can just get a different card each time. Not sure what happens if they notice 🤣
    • Yes..that may be the case but membership STARTING at £115 a month is still unafforable for many. Council gyms also have a large range of equipment and I had a  PT at Dulwich leisure centre when I was in Full Time employment who was incredible and even kept in contact during lockdown giving me a program I could do at home and checking in weekly at no charge or personal gain for herself. I dont doubt that Fit For may be a good gym (Its been in situ long enough so must be doing something right) However the cost of membership means it is affordable for the few not the many. If I could afford that kind of fee I would rather get a train to Canary Wharf and go to Virgin active where theres a pool and incredible classes and facilities 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...