Quick opinions please

[-pixie]

I can't find a link to the story, but it was a couple of weeks ago now. A mother flew to the USA and flew all the way back because her 12 month old girl refused to take a bottle from her father, she wanted her mothers breast. It cost her quite a lot of money. I remember thinking at the time how utterly stupid it was. This woman was being hailed as the ultimate mother, but all I could think of was how stupid she was. I mean, if the child was refusing to feed, I'd have left them to it. A child isn't going to starve itself - it will eat in the end. Its stomach will win over anything else at the end of the day!

 

[Guest]

if the baby is hungry enough i would have thought , it would have taken the bottle,(my god how some people panic)

 

[lettie]

This woman is obviously simple. I wouldn't be fooled into thinking that she's done it for the child, she's obviously done it for herself. I can't understand these mums who prolong feeding past the age of 12 months. This child no longer needs breastmilk and should be on solid food. There is an argument based in psychology about prolonged feeding which supports the notion that the mother is trying to keep her child at the baby stage rather than allowing progress.