# Milwulkees awful anti cosleeping ad



## BubblingBrooks (Dec 29, 2009)

http://news.yahoo.com/milwaukee-runs-provocative-ads-wake-parents-dangers-co-213117311.html
I cannot believe how misleading this is!

*The second-leading cause of infant mortality in Milwaukee is SIDS, or sudden infant death syndrome, which often results from "unsafe sleep," according to the health department's website. A form of "unsafe sleep" is bed-sharing with parents.*

Why do they have to say that SIDS equals suffocation?


----------



## thegoodearth (Jun 6, 2011)

i saw this too. it was on the front cover of yahoo. i didn't read the entire article, but i found the ad to be pretty misleading. i was pretty shocked at the imagery they used. just wow!


----------



## miasandhadleysmom (Jul 24, 2006)

This ad makes me so so angry. Have they looked into who has funded all of the studies about this. I am sure it is companies that make baby furniture!


----------



## Adaline'sMama (Apr 16, 2010)

Not only do I find this ad completely absurd and infuriating, people are reposting it on Facebook to the point where it has made me realize who needs to come off my friends list. I hate the fact that it is getting so much attention and making people question those of us who choose to cosleep safely.


----------



## Arete (Aug 1, 2010)

SO counterintuitive: Milwaukee has higher infant death rates than third world countries. Well OF COURSE! People co-sleep in third world countries. Hence, they have lower infant death rates. Next they'll be saying puppies can't sleep with the mama dog.


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

I saw it. So terrible.

My second baby was a non-sleeper. Bringing him to bed with me literally saved my life because I was able to get some sleep in between his erratic nighttime napping schedule.

And I don't know about you guys but I used the bed so that he was never in any danger of me over-lying him. I put him closer to the solid headboard and I scooched down. He had his own covers and I had mine. I had pillow, he didn't. And healthy babies protest if you accidentally squeeze them.


----------



## BubblingBrooks (Dec 29, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *philomom*
> 
> I saw it. So terrible.
> My second baby was a non-sleeper. Bringing him to bed with me literally saved my life because I was able to get some sleep in between his erratic nighttime napping schedule.
> And I don't know about you guys but I used the bed so that he was never in any danger of me over-lying him. I put him closer to the solid headboard and I scooched down. He had his own covers and I had mine. I had pillow, he didn't. *And healthy babies protest if you accidentally squeeze them.*


Ain't that the truth!

If we had not co-slept, we the parents would not have got any sleep for the first few months.


----------



## maself (Oct 19, 2011)

Oh my gosh!! I just saw this article on Yahoo! and was appalled!! The picture is just horrific!


----------



## whozeyermamma (Oct 11, 2007)

So offensive.










The thing that makes me the most angry is the fact that new moms, especially first-time moms, are so worried to begin with. It's telling them "the thing that feels the most natural to you in the world is dangerous."

Ugh.


----------



## ThinkGlobalMama (Nov 28, 2009)

I came over here and logged into my Mothering community (which I haven't done in a LONG time) because of a nasty little debate going on on FB about this. I'm so over it. I too, would like to see who is the sponsor of this so-called public health campaign. Anyone know? Because the $600 crib that we bought in our pre-baby excitement, never got used anyway, but then was recalled after more than 2 babies died in it as a result of poor construction. (Details are sketchy as the parents have settled out of court, so we really don't know how many babies died.) Simplicity is out of business. Good thing for us, the only thing that slept in it consistently was Bear, Eeyore and Dolly. 

The ad is so offensive. Mothering Mag always did a good job of publishing the best research on the real risk factors. Why are people so into these scare tactics? The same people who would criticize me for co-sleeping are the same people who give up on breastfeeding, feed their toddlers crap and over-medicate for "behavior." It's just so irritating. The trouble is, I feel like "big brother" is watching us all the time too- when ads like this gain pop culture status, those of us who don't fall into line become in danger of being accused of abuse or worse. So while the individuals who disagree with me I can deal with- it is the larger societal implications I struggle with.


----------



## motherhendoula (Feb 13, 2009)

i cant beleive they seem to say that SIDS and suffocation are the same thing...a baby could suffocate in a bed ...(if a drunk person is maybe also in bed with them and baby is very very young)....any baby can die of SIDS anywhere - unless i have missed something - they really dont know much about WHY SIDS occurs correct?

However, they do know that it happens more often in homes where one or more parent smokes cigarettes. Maybe Milwaukee should set up a free 'Nicorette smoking cessation" hotline - interesting how that was not mentioned - maybe the picture should have the cute baby cuddled up with a pack of smokes.....


----------



## Partaria (Sep 7, 2010)

I'm so glad that someone posted about this here. I live in WI and could not freaking believe this.

First of all, isn't it the case that lower SIDS rates occur when people co-sleep? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11245994?dopt=Abstract/

Second of all, has any research been done at all to find out how many people in Milwaukee are actually co-sleeping? It seems like there's a HUGE assumption here that b/c the mortality rate is higher, *obviously* it must be a bunch of backward co-sleeping freaks causing the problem. But where's the data to show that there's a correlation between these two things in the Milwaukee population?

Infant mortality can be tied to a number of factors ranging from parents who smoke to children born into impossible poverty. Where's the data on poverty rates and their link to the mortality rate in Milwaukee? Where's the data on how many Milwaukee parents are breastfeeding, or doing other things that help reduce infant mortality rates?

Why didn't the money spent on these stupid ads go to breastfeeding initiatives, infant care education courses, or basic food programs that would provide breastfeeding mamas and babes with decent nutrition?

This just seems like a colossal waste of money and something that is absolutely not evidence based.

As for the idiotic imagery of these ads, I can assure everyone out there that a responsible co-sleeping parent is much, much safer than a meat clever next to a baby in bed. Sheesh.


----------



## redbirdlady (May 12, 2011)

I did a little Googling, because I couldn't understand why Milwaukee could have such a high rate of infant mortality attributed to co-sleeping. I found lots of news articles reporting deaths of children. And in those articles, I found lots of mothers/caregivers who were drinking, lots of babies sleeping with people other than their mothers, lots of deaths that occurred on couches.

It seems that rather than educate women on how to co-sleep APPROPRIATELY, they'd rather just assume that all mothers are stupid and should put their kids in cribs, because they are too ignorant to grasp the concept of safe co-sleeping.

It's akin to abstinence-only education, and it ticks me off. Especially since I'm 32 weeks pregnant and now I have to listen to uninformed people who see ads like this attack me for co-sleeping.

Oddly enough, the biggest infant mortality problem in Milwaukee isn't co-sleeping, it's deaths attributed to poor health care.


----------



## Partaria (Sep 7, 2010)

Quote:


> Oddly enough, the biggest infant mortality problem in Milwaukee isn't co-sleeping, it's deaths attributed to poor health care.


This is totally what I'm saying. Why didn't the time and resources that went into those billboards go into free clinics or helping low income folks access health care?


----------



## APToddlerMama (Oct 5, 2009)

Alright, I'll bite. Having lived in Milwaukee in one of the zip codes the campaign is targeting, and having worked in child welfare there, I don't see a huge problem with their anti-co-sleeping campaign at all. I'm also a co-sleeper. Yes, the campaign in simplistic and does not lay out all of the facts, but it targets a specific population and I'm certain it will save lives in Milwaukee. The city is impoverished with nearly half of children growing up in poverty. The violent crime rates are high. Breastfeeding rates are extremely low. Drug and alcohol abuse rates are very high. Teen pregnancy rates are high. None of those things mix that well with *safe* bedsharing.

It would be really great if there could be a comprehensive plan in Milwaukee to teach parents about safely bedsharing, but the resources do not exist. It would be fantastic if Milwaukee could address their serious issues with poverty, access to health care, breastfeeding, crime, etc., but that is going to take time and why should more babies be suffocated by drunk relatives sleeping on a couch while everyone waits for Milwaukee to make improvements to the quality of life there? With super low rates of breastfeeding, high rates of addiction, and people just straight up not having access to things like mattresses for mom and baby due to poverty, I can see why people would want to start a campaign that targets the reality of the situation for a significant portion of the population.

This isn't about crib companies making money or any other silly conspiracy theory. It is about the well-being of parents and children of a city with a completely unacceptable infant mortality rate. It turns out it is actually about people who *care* about parents and kids in Milwaukee trying to make a difference in suffocation rates, and who hope fewer parents will wake up to suffocated babies. If the city had the resources to end poverty, crime, and addiction and support every mother in breastfeeding and other parenting goals, they could work on a more comprehensive plan to educate the public on safe bedsharing. Obviously they don't, so they're doing what they can to decrease the infant mortality rates which is to throw out a blanket statement that co-sleeping is unsafe. Which it happens to be for a very large portion of the city.

Plenty of bedsharing, elitist, middle class faux hippies love to scream about how awful these campaigns are but your reality isn't the reality of plenty of other parents living in Milwaukee and elsewhere.


----------



## APToddlerMama (Oct 5, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Partaria*
> 
> This is totally what I'm saying. Why didn't the time and resources that went into those billboards go into free clinics or helping low income folks access health care?


Because it isn't just about health care. The cost of this campaign is probably about 1/10000000th of the cost of changing all the factors that impact safe bedsharing in the city. They're trying to get the most bang for their buck because they have very limited resources.


----------



## APToddlerMama (Oct 5, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *redbirdlady*
> 
> It seems that rather than educate women on how to co-sleep APPROPRIATELY, they'd rather just assume that all mothers are stupid and should put their kids in cribs, because they are too ignorant to grasp the concept of safe co-sleeping.


I don't think this campaign is assuming that mothers are too ignorant to grasp the concept of safe bedsharing. I think that the campaign is addressing the reality that there are a lot of factors that contribute to safe or unsafe beyond just *education.*


----------



## redbirdlady (May 12, 2011)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Partaria*
> Where's the data on poverty rates and their link to the mortality rate in Milwaukee?


The mortality rate among babies/children in Milwaukee is apparently tied to particular zip codes, and is heavily skewed toward the African American population (which has more than double the mortality rate for babies as Caucasians. LINK) Further, the mortality rate there is linked to socioeconomic status (Link for that one - here.)

Based on all of the studies, it looks like Milwaukee's biggest issue in terms of infant mortality is health care, followed by smoking. There's also alcohol and drug abuse mixed in there as well. I mean, handing out Pack and Plays is all good, especially since there are people who cannot afford cribs, except when the mom doesn't have access to decent health care, or is drunk. Because I'm sure someone who has a drinking problem is going to stop before they pass out and think, "I need to put the baby in the Pack and Play before I pass out." (If you google the news stories for individual deaths, one of them was smothered by a grandmother on a couch who had had EIGHT beers. I'm sorry, but I don't think it's fair to label something like that a co-sleeping death.)

And after reading all of that data, I'm even more ticked that these morons decided it would be a better idea to have an anti-co-sleeping campaign, rather than focus a campaign on maternal health care, smoking cessation, etc. I agree with you that the money could have been MUCH better spent elsewhere.


----------



## BubblingBrooks (Dec 29, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *APToddlerMama*
> 
> *Plenty of bedsharing, elitist, middle class faux hippies love to scream about how awful these campaigns are but your reality isn't the reality of plenty of other parents living in Milwaukee and elsewhere. *


My reality is none of the above. Except for the bed sharing during the early months of our babies life.

Again, they should not have played the SIDS card. It is unbelievably misleading.


----------



## Adaline'sMama (Apr 16, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *APToddlerMama*
> 
> Plenty of bedsharing, elitist, middle class faux hippies love to scream about how awful these campaigns are but your reality isn't the reality of plenty of other parents living in Milwaukee and elsewhere.


To be fair, this doesnt even remotely apply to some of the people concerned about this ad. Honestly, this ad has been all over facebook and I have had to defend cosleeping to several of my family members and middle class, faux hippy friends. Ive seen several people put it up on their facebooks and blogs with comments like "Hello! This is why cribs were invented..." or "I breastfed my kid for two years and never ever let him sleep in our bed even though it would have been more convenient. Safety first!" No, this is why drug and alcohol intervention programs were invented.

I understand that Milwaukee has a ridiculously high rate of infant death, but this ad has gone far and wide and at this point, it is all over the country on social media form. And it sucks. Ill bet it wont really help the death rate that much, and there will be a lot of terrified first time moms who are already having to defend their decision to co sleep to their husband or other family members. All Im saying is, I dont think the target audience is the one that is going to be the most affected by this ad.


----------



## APToddlerMama (Oct 5, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BubblingBrooks*
> 
> My reality is none of the above. Except for the bed sharing during the early months of our babies life.
> 
> Again, they should not have played the SIDS card. It is unbelievably misleading.


Okay. So that may be fine for your culture and your community, but who are you (collective you, not specifically you OP) to say that bedsharing is the right thing for a community plagued by addiction, poverty, lack of access to health care/breastfeeding support, etc? In the end, every parent wants to wake up to a living baby, even if that parent happens to struggle with addiction or does not have a safe place to bedshare. So what may be right for a significant portion of your community may not be right for a significant portion of another community.

And "playing the SIDS card"? Please. I don't think anyone is trying to be misleading. Could they have used the word "suffocation" instead? Yes. But does it really matter? Probably just to bedsharing purists who don't want to be lumped into some campaign going on in some other community that really doesn't affect them whatsoever. If a person outside of the community cannot see that there can be a benefit to doing something differently in a community with a different set of needs, that is too bad. And to get on one's high horse preaching about how appalling the campaign is ignores the needs of a specific community.


----------



## APToddlerMama (Oct 5, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adaline'sMama*
> 
> To be fair, this doesnt even remotely apply to some of the people concerned about this ad. Honestly, this ad has been all over facebook and I have had to defend cosleeping to several of my family members and middle class, faux hippy friends. Ive seen several people put it up on their facebooks and blogs with comments like "Hello! This is why cribs were invented..." or "I breastfed my kid for two years and never ever let him sleep in our bed even though it would have been more convenient. Safety first!" No, this is why drug and alcohol intervention programs were invented.
> I understand that Milwaukee has a ridiculously high rate of infant death, but this ad has gone far and wide and at this point, it is all over the country on social media form. And it sucks. Ill bet it wont really help the death rate that much, and there will be a lot of terrified first time moms who are already having to defend their decision to co sleep to their husband or other family members. All Im saying is, I dont think the target audience is the one that is going to be the most affected by this ad.


Milwaukee has been doing this campaign for several years with absolutely no national attention. Their old billboards featured the head board of the family bed as a grave stone for babies. The national attention is brand new. The ad targets Milwaukee. I truly believe it will save lives in Milwaukee. To put that priority under the priority of you or I not to be bothered by friends, family, or people on FB questioning our choices seems unfair to parents for whom this campaign can benefit. I don't have a problem educating people about safe bed-sharing. In fact, I am happy that the media attention from things like this gives me an opportunity to explain how bedsharing can be safe and can work out.


----------



## BubblingBrooks (Dec 29, 2009)

Yes, it does matter. They should have used the word suffication, because it is not at all the same as SIDS.

A better Ad would have shown the baby with the real reason they are dying. Drugs and alcohol.
The campaign does not create a thought process of "if I abuse a substance and in the intoxicated state lay on a baby, I will kill that baby".
Instead, it states loud and clear that sleeping with the baby is the problem.
It is likely that education and good critical thinking skills are going to be lacking in the area targeted, so seeing through the Ad is not going to happen for most.


----------



## APToddlerMama (Oct 5, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BubblingBrooks*
> 
> Yes, it does matter. They should have used the word suffication, because it is not at all the same as SIDS.
> 
> ...


Well send them a letter then explaining the proper terminology. I'm serious. I doubt anyone would object to it.

As to your second point, I think you are right about education. To say that critical thinking skills are lacking in a community seems pretty bold and condescending. However, if you do believe that, I would assume you would also believe the community members not to have the critical thinking skills nor education to be able to pick up on all the "rules" that make bedsharing safe.

Not to mention, it is not just drugs and alcohol causing bedsharing deaths. If it were, the campaign would probably target that. There are a billion other factors including people other than mom bedsharing, low rates of breastfeeding, people not having safe sleeping surfaces and sleeping instead on couches, with numerous children in bed close to baby, etc.


----------



## Adaline'sMama (Apr 16, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *APToddlerMama*
> 
> Milwaukee has been doing this campaign for several years with absolutely no national attention. Their old billboards featured the head board of the family bed as a grave stone for babies. The national attention is brand new. The ad targets Milwaukee. I truly believe it will save lives in Milwaukee. To put that priority under the priority of you or I not to be bothered by friends, family, or people on FB questioning our choices seems unfair to parents for whom this campaign can benefit. I don't have a problem educating people about safe bed-sharing. In fact, I am happy that the media attention from things like this gives me an opportunity to explain how bedsharing can be safe and can work out.


In 2009
50% of the infant deaths were due to complications after premature births.
20% are due to birth defects and their complications
and
20% died because of SIDS or an unsafe sleep environment

So, it seems to me that the MAJOR problem in Milwaukee is premature birth. WHY are all these babies being born prematurely? How much money are they spending to educate women on ways to help make sure their baby is born full term?

Note how many programs the city has for "Safe sleep" vs. how many programs the city has for education about drug, alcohol, and tobacco use during pregnancy.
http://city.milwaukee.gov/SafeSleep
http://city.milwaukee.gov/Prematurity.htm

Why is there now awareness campaign about the insanely high rate of premature births?
In Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and District of Columbia the top priority for awareness has been smoking cessation and a focus on getting mother's prenatal care to prevent premature birth (the # 1 cause of infant death in all four locations.). Since this is the top cause of infant death in Miluakee, why do you think they are spending less time and money on prenatal awareness and smoking cessation than they are focusing on "Safe Sleep"? It just doesnt make the most sense.


----------



## Partaria (Sep 7, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *APToddlerMama*
> 
> *Plenty of bedsharing, elitist, middle class faux hippies love to scream about how awful these campaigns are but your reality isn't the reality of plenty of other parents living in Milwaukee and elsewhere.*


But the billboard doesn't say "Hey Milwaukee parents who tend to smoke, drink, and do drugs: co-sleeping with that kind of lifestyle kills." It just says, basically "co-sleeping, in and of itself, kills."

And that's just not true.

I mean, why not have drunk driving prevention billboards that tell people that driving, in and of itself, is a horrible idea and no one should do it? Don't even bother to mention the alcohol.

Also, for the record, there are plenty of bedsharers out there who aren't elitist, middle class faux hippies who also love to scream about this.


----------



## APToddlerMama (Oct 5, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adaline'sMama*
> In 2009
> 50% of the infant deaths were due to complications after premature births.
> 20% are due to birth defects and their complications
> ...


Premature birth isn't a matter of educating women on ways to make sure their babies are born full term. I've gone into preterm labor twice...at 35 weeks and 29 weeks. I'm educated on preterm birth and educated in general. There is very little information on why preterms births occur and how to prevent it. It is a little insulting to suggest that those of us who have had premature babies could have prevented it if someone had just spent some money to educate us.

That said, lack of prenatal care, stress, substance abuse, poor nutrition, poverty, etc., do contribute to preterm birth and I agree Milwaukee and other cities should focus on those factors as well. Preterm birth is much more challenging to predict and prevent than unsafe bedsharing. It is pretty clear what causes bedsharing deaths. 20% is no small number, especially considering 9 babies have already died in the city this year. There are over 100 infant mortality initiatives in the city to try to decrease the infant mortality rate. The anti-co-sleeping campaign is just one of them. I honestly think it is pretty smart to use money that way. If you can give someone a packnplay and an opportunity to choose to put their baby there instead of on the couch with three other kids or a drunk grandma, you can make a difference for a kid for about $25. Dealing with preterm birth is a great goal, and I hope a lot of money is poured into more research and prevention of preterm birth. I don't know why anyone would want to forget the other 20% of deaths in the city due to totally preventable causes.

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *BubblingBrooks*
> 
> Yes, it does matter. They should have used the word suffication, because it is not at all the same as SIDS.


I took your word for it that they are using the word SIDS in the ads, but then I looked it up myself, and there is absolutely no mention of SIDS at all. It says "Your baby sleeping with you can be just as dangerous (as sleeping with a knife...). Babies can die while sleeping in adult beds." It does not say SIDS. And when you go to the City's website or the Health Depts website, they state specifically that the majority of the deaths are in unsafe sleeping environments and refer to it as Sudden Unexplained Death in Infancy, not SIDS. Check your facts before you post that. What you quoted in your OP was from ABC, not the Health Department or city. They state:

In Milwaukee around 20% of infant mortality is attributable to a combination of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), and Sudden Unexplained Death in infancy (SUDI). Of these deaths the majority die in an unsafe sleep environment.

The City of Milwaukee Health Department strongly advises parents NOT to share a bed with their infant. This is based on an American Academy of Pediatrics 2011 Policy Statement which states that the risk of SIDS has been shown to be reduced when the infant sleeps in the same room as the mother, but the AAP recommends that infants not share a bed with parents or anyone else, due to increased risk.

*Co-Sleeping Defined*

The term "co-sleeping" can be confusing, as it is used both to refer to sharing a bed and sharing a room. To clarify the distinction, many pediatric experts now refer to "bed-sharing" (referring to a infant who is sleeping in the same bed, couch, or other surface where parents or others are sleeping), and "room-sharing" (referring to a infant who is sleeping in the parents' room, but in their own crib or bassinet).


----------



## redbirdlady (May 12, 2011)

Quote:


> But the billboard doesn't say "Hey Milwaukee parents who tend to smoke, drink, and do drugs: co-sleeping with that kind of lifestyle kills." It just says, basically "co-sleeping, in and of itself, kills."
> 
> And that's just not true.


Exactly.


----------



## APToddlerMama (Oct 5, 2009)

Okay, I am just about done, but I have to add....why not blame the AAP instead of people who believe everything the AAP has to say? The city and health department are just following the AAP's guidelines as part of their strategy to improve outcomes for infants and children. Honestly, that isn't that ridiculous of a plan. Here at MDC we might think the AAP is full of crap, but the majority of people don't think so and I don't think there is anything sinister about a campaign that follows their advice in an effort to reduce infant mortality.


----------



## Adaline'sMama (Apr 16, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *APToddlerMama*
> 
> *Premature birth isn't a matter of educating women on ways to make sure their babies are born full term. . *
> 
> ...


Obviously.

However, since Milwaukee has a much higher infant death rate than most cities, and most of those deaths are due to complications with premature births, I think my point stands. Im sorry if I offended you. I only meant that I think education would decrease more number of deaths by educating women and with smoking cessation programs than with terrifying ad campaigns that will likely result in mothers all over the country not sleeping with their babies and possibly making nursing more difficult for them.


----------



## APToddlerMama (Oct 5, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adaline'sMama*
> 
> Obviously.
> However, since Milwaukee has a much higher infant death rate than most cities, and most of those deaths are due to complications with premature births, I think my point stands. Im sorry if I offended you. I only meant that I think education would decrease more number of deaths by educating women and with smoking cessation programs than with terrifying ad campaigns that will likely result in mothers all over the country not sleeping with their babies and possibly making nursing more difficult for them.


They have smoking cessation programs. Like I said, there are over 100 initiatives in the city to reduce infant mortality rates. I don't see a problem with an approach that targets multiple causes of infant deaths. Smoking cessation programs are not going to save the lives of babies whose parents can't afford a packnplay and who end up sleeping in a recliner with a passed out dad.


----------



## Imakcerka (Jul 26, 2011)

I don't know, if you can't handle the heavy responsibility of being healthy while you're carrying your baby. Maybe you need someone to simply say it's best you don't cosleep either. Sounds harsh but I've got family that act like you just can't get the trailer/ghetto outta them. I got a cousin that would see a sign like that and probably put her 9th kid the only one she has with her right now in a pack n play after a night of coke and partying. Because she honestly needs to be told. No joke. When she came to see me she had 7 kids already and she was in awe of the fact that I nursed my baby. " I didn't know you could do that, you nasty "name", that baby is all over your titties". "You know you got to feed that baby some real food soon she's gonna starve". She wanted to hold her but then got bored of her and put her on the couch and got up to go make a phone call while her boyfriend at the time fell asleep on my couch and I was using the bathroom. Baby rolled off... She had already had practice with 7... still didn't get it.

Sometimes lack of education, a lifestyle and a disregard for the safety of a child needs to be shown in pictures and slowly! I like to say I'll show you in constructions paper and crayons. Just to be clear, I couldn't get mad at her for it. baby was ok, startled but ok. When she found out that the baby fell off the couch she blamed it on her sleeping boyfriend.


----------



## Adaline'sMama (Apr 16, 2010)

Yep. Ive been wrong all along. You _should_ have to apply for a permit to breed.


----------



## McGucks (Nov 27, 2010)

I wonder what parent offered their child up to be included in that add. Not that it matters, it just occurred to me.

I think APToddlerMama's perspective is both founded and interesting. APTM is obviously knowledgeable about the community this ad targets and what has already been done in that area to decrease infant mortality.

As a PP said, I am afraid for the moms who are doing co-sleeping knowledgeably, carefully, and safely...and how some of those women's parters/DH's (and MILs!) will use the ad to support their arguments against co-sleeping.

I am glad again today that I do not and have never had a Facebook account. An acquaintance told me that when some "data" came out against extended breastfeeding, she had over 30 "friends" slam her on Fb for EBFing. I don't need that kind of judgment in my life, not from "friends" or enemies, thank you very much.


----------



## Imakcerka (Jul 26, 2011)

Sometimes I think this is true. Or atleast I feel this way when I read or see something that makes my stomach turn. Especially with my family. There are too many close family members that apparently missed the bus on parenting. I think at one point my mom had 2 different sisters kids as fosters.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adaline'sMama*
> 
> Yep. Ive been wrong all along. You _should_ have to apply for a permit to breed.


----------



## Arete (Aug 1, 2010)

Facebook "friends." Ugh. But I wholeheartedly agree with Partaria: drunk driving billboards need to start a new campaign. "Driving anywhere, ever, under any circumstances, is exactly the same as riding a unicycle along a cliff edge." If these women are as willfully ignorant as some are claiming, after 8 beers they sure as heck are not going to remember or care about this campaign. And I would like to know, if it's a matter of education, poverty, etc, how billions of women in slums and mud huts from Uganda to Cambodia manage to co-sleep safely. For that matter, how did our ancestors do it in the dim and distant past?


----------



## TheDivineMrsM (Oct 5, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BubblingBrooks*
> 
> Ain't that the truth!
> 
> If we had not co-slept, we the parents would not have got any sleep for the first few months.


Same here! We coslept for a few months, and it was the best thing for us.

I saw this article and it made me crazy. Co sleeping is generally safe - and it's definitely safer than some of the other ways I've heard parents getting their baby to sleep. Ugh.


----------



## APToddlerMama (Oct 5, 2009)

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/134122838.html

Just an article from today I thought people might find interesting. Apparently the 10th "unsafe sleep" death of the year in the city just occurred today. They state that 7 infants were sleeping with an adult or other child and two were on unsafe surfaces or in unsafe positions. The 10th one died from being given prescription drugs by the grandma and happened to be co-sleeping with her. Interesting (and sad) article regardless of which "side" of the debate you're on.


----------



## Imakcerka (Jul 26, 2011)

Thanks for the link APToddlerMama

What happens to the parent or guardian at the time if a baby does die from their apparent sleeping conditions? I recall a while back a bit of backlash over SIDS, I think they made a bunch of lifetime movies out of it as well. Mothers smothering their infants and crying SIDS. Was that just another way to frighten us? Was stuff like that really rampant? I think uneducated information based on opinion can be dangerous for all involved. On one hand you have a mother who has just lost her baby to SIDS then a mother who just lost her baby to co sleeping... What should be done? How can you view that in any other way if you are given so much information that damns the parent? Or allows them to be let off with a reasonable explanation?

I don't think it's black and white. Though the fear mongering is very distasteful!


----------



## tntmom (Nov 30, 2007)

As to the point that Milwaukee has a high rate of infant deaths due to prematurity it could be attributed to the fact that Milwaukee is home to one of the largest Children's Hospitals in WI. So they get many babies from all over the state and occasionally even from different states. There are very few NICU's in the rest of the state that have the technology and space. With my first I was sent to Milwaukee and had my insurance not changed I would have been there for my second as well. Just food for thought.


----------



## Ginger Bean (Mar 10, 2011)

http://www.askdrsears.com/news/latest-news/dr-sears-addresses-recent-co-sleeping-concerns


----------



## alittlesandy (Jan 20, 2010)

I think it's interesting to note that the first thing Dr. Sears says about safe cosleeping is this:

*For safe co-sleeping:*


*We recommend using a bassinet that attaches safely and securely to parents' bed, which allows both mother and baby to have their own sleeping space, while baby still enjoys sleeping close to mommy for easier feeding and comforting.*


----------



## Arete (Aug 1, 2010)

Very good link. Substance abuse is, to no one's surprise, the main culprit and has been all along. I don't suppose the city would consider handing out co-sleepers instead of pack and plays? There is something else I've been wanting to say, and it may be controversial, but darn it, I'm tired and I don't care! Some posters, who I don't doubt are speaking the truth from experience, have painted a very grim picture of negligent, drunk/high moms, and the risks they subject their babies to. If such a woman is given a crib, designated "safe" by the powers that be, what are the odds she is EVER going to take the poor baby out of it again? Maybe drop a bottle in the top once or twice a day, and that is it. Isolation is terrible mental torture for an infant. If I were a baby and I had the choice, I would take my chances with my grandmother on the couch, just for some human contact, rather than spend the first year of my life in solitary confinement and come out of it emotionally maimed for life.


----------



## alittlesandy (Jan 20, 2010)

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Arete* 


> If such a woman is given a crib, designated "safe" by the powers that be, what are the odds she is EVER going to take the poor baby out of it again? Maybe drop a bottle in the top once or twice a day, and that is it. Isolation is terrible mental torture for an infant. If I were a baby and I had the choice, I would take my chances with my grandmother on the couch, just for some human contact, rather than spend the first year of my life in solitary confinement and come out of it emotionally maimed for life.


This is offensive on so many levels I don't even know where to begin.


----------



## APToddlerMama (Oct 5, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arete*
> 
> Some posters, who I don't doubt are speaking the truth from experience, have painted a very grim picture of negligent, drunk/high moms, and the risks they subject their babies to. If such a woman is given a crib, designated "safe" by the powers that be, what are the odds she is EVER going to take the poor baby out of it again? Maybe drop a bottle in the top once or twice a day, and that is it. Isolation is terrible mental torture for an infant. If I were a baby and I had the choice, I would take my chances with my grandmother on the couch, just for some human contact, rather than spend the first year of my life in solitary confinement and come out of it emotionally maimed for life.


That is really offensive. Some of what you're talking about definitely happens but having worked with parents who have struggled with addictions as well as led support groups for mothers who have and were continuing to abuse and neglect their children, I think you've really missed the boat. I've never met a parent who does not love their children and I've met plenty of parents who have worked hard to battle both their addictions as well as their tendencies to abuse/neglect their children. Many of them are able to implement small changes when given some opportunity. Plenty who struggle with addiction are able to make choices that do keep their children safer--like putting them in a packnplay.

Not only that, but suggesting substance abuse is the only cause of unsafe sleeping deaths is offensive and unfair.


----------



## Arete (Aug 1, 2010)

Maybe it's the lack of sleep from last night, but it does seem to me these days people are coming to this site for the sole purpose of being offended. I was NOT the one who recounted any of the horror stories in this thread, or suggested, even in jest, that people need a permit to breed. In fact, I probably have a lot more faith in the ability of ANY mother to co-sleep without smashing her infant than a lot of you. I've lived in "underdeveloped" countries where it is done routinely by women with less formal education and less disposable income than just about anyone in America. If substance abuse isn't the "MAIN" culprit, then I would sure like to know what is. I'm sorry, people, I haven't worked personally with the poor of Milwaukee, but you can't hammer us with the COPIOUS stories of neglect above and then freak out if I suggest someone is going to leave a crying baby in a crib hour after hour and day after day. And that is crueler than just about anything I can think of. I speak for myself, none other. I would rather be with my mom, or my grandmother, whom, I, if none of you, have SOME faith will allow billions of years of evolution to go to work and prevent her from crushing me, than be alone. Research has shown what this does to babies.


----------



## Ginger Bean (Mar 10, 2011)

Quote:


> I don't suppose the city would consider handing out co-sleepers instead of pack and plays?


I don't think that's really practical. They're expensive for one thing -- pack-n-plays are cheap. Also, you have to attach co-sleepers safely to a safe bed, same level, no crevices, etc. -- it's all too complicated and assumes a quality of life that isn't realistic. Mattresses on the floor or couches may be all that is available.

And if there's smoking/drinking/drugs involved, it's not really safe to have a baby in a co-sleeper next to you either.


----------



## alittlesandy (Jan 20, 2010)

Also, not every person who can't cosleep or bed share safely is an addict, alcoholic, or obese person. Some people need a ton of warm bedding because they live in a cold climate and don't have adequate heating. Some people have beds that are too small for two adults and a baby. Some people are simply heavy sleepers. Some people take legal, prescription medication (that they are not abusing) that interferes with sleep patterns.


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arete*
> 
> *Maybe it's the lack of sleep from last night, but it does seem to me these days people are coming to this site for the sole purpose of being offended.* I was NOT the one who recounted any of the horror stories in this thread, or suggested, even in jest, that people need a permit to breed. In fact, I probably have a lot more faith in the ability of ANY mother to co-sleep without smashing her infant than a lot of you. I've lived in "underdeveloped" countries where it is done routinely by women with less formal education and less disposable income than just about anyone in America. If substance abuse isn't the "MAIN" culprit, then I would sure like to know what is. I'm sorry, people, I haven't worked personally with the poor of Milwaukee, but you can't hammer us with the COPIOUS stories of neglect above and then freak out if I suggest someone is going to leave a crying baby in a crib hour after hour and day after day. And that is crueler than just about anything I can think of. I speak for myself, none other. I would rather be with my mom, or my grandmother, whom, I, if none of you, have SOME faith will allow billions of years of evolution to go to work and prevent her from crushing me, than be alone. Research has shown what this does to babies.


I'm not offended by your uninformed response, but I do have to chuckle because a lot of people responding to you have been around longer than you. Should they assume you came to this site solely to be offensive? No.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alittlesandy*
> 
> Also, not every person who can't cosleep or bed share safely is an addict, alcoholic, or obese person. Some people need a ton of warm bedding because they live in a cold climate and don't have adequate heating. Some people have beds that are too small for two adults and a baby. Some people are simply heavy sleepers. Some people take legal, prescription medication (that they are not abusing) that interferes with sleep patterns.


I think this needs to be repeated. Further, the people that choose not to sleep with their babies in their beds can still have amazing, attached relationships with their children.


----------



## Arete (Aug 1, 2010)

When I got to this thread yesterday, I had just finished reading two others (one in Homebirth, one in Health), neither of which I was part of, where various people were claiming to be extremely offended, and I could not figure out why. Also, I have seen a number of posts from women who have been on this site longer than I complaining about an increasingly acrimonious climate. They, not I, have said Mothering isn't as supportive and friendly a place as it used to be, but I am certainly beginning to agree. I mentioned the co-sleepers because the Sears link, as a pp noted, listed it as the very safest way to co-sleep. I know they are expensive and cumbersome, but other co-sleeping options exist, more portable and cheaper. How effective they are I don't know, because I haven't tried them all. It's a funny comment about mattresses on the floor, since "a big mattress on the floor" was winning the poll on this site for favorite co-sleeping devices last time I checked in. And in an unheated room in a WI winter (yes, I live here too) one would absolutely have to bring the baby into bed to prevent him freezing to death. P.j.s don't come warm enough to withstand this cold. The fact is, public health authorities are simply not interested in fostering safe co-sleeping, whatever science people like Dr. Sears and Professor McKenna have to offer. It is still seen as weird. Our culture wants babies in cribs, in separate rooms if parents have them.

There has been a shift on this thread since it was begun. First it was about if the ads were distasteful and misleading. Then it was about the neglect, and shall we say, poor choices of parents quoted by pps, and why they necessitate such a campaign. Now, it seems to be about responsible parents, who because of medical conditions or other unavoidable circumstances, CANNOT safely co-sleep, but can't afford a crib. I was responding to the second of these topics, and only that. Like all of you, I know many loving moms and dads who use pack and plays for sleep or a 15 minute break for a much desired shower. But they would be fatally easy for a neglectful parent to use as a cage, yes, let me repeat that, CAGE. I have been deeply moved in the past by reports coming out of institutional orphanages in places like Eastern Europe, and other circumstances where infants spend literally months in cribs, taken out only to be fed and cleaned. They are severely traumatized by this, emerging devoid of empathy and incapable of forming loving relationships. And let me stop you before you ask me if I'd prefer the babies to be dead as a result of unsafe co-sleeping. No, I wouldn't! When a child is abused, do we say, that's okay, at least he's not dead? We try to stop the abuse. An old fashioned cradle, with only room for a sleeping baby (I know they likely wouldn't meet modern safety requirements), or a Moses basket, or anything that only accommodates SLEEP, would be a far better option to my mind. Every baby mammal and bird wants to be close to a parent at night, and the much-vilified parents of Milwaukee are in this sense obeying instinct, which is usually right. I wouldn't have thought on a thread called The Family Bed, this would be such a foreign concept.


----------



## Owen'nZoe (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adaline'sMama*
> 
> Obviously.
> However, since Milwaukee has a much higher infant death rate than most cities, and most of those deaths are due to complications with premature births, I think my point stands. Im sorry if I offended you. I only meant that I think education would decrease more number of deaths by educating women and with smoking cessation programs than with terrifying ad campaigns that will likely result in mothers all over the country not sleeping with their babies and possibly making nursing more difficult for them.


Milwaukee has also made major efforts recently to try to figure out why the rates of premature birth and infant deaths are so high, and solve the root causes. However, I have to agree with APT - the ads make sense given the realities in the area (I grew up in one of the targeted zip codes). Like many of you, I was taken aback by the ads at first - I coslept safely with my kids and would make the same choice again - but I think an education campaign like this has to be tailored to the sleeping conditions of the majority of families in the area - and from there, individual families can figure out what makes sense for them and what is safe for their family.


----------



## Ginger Bean (Mar 10, 2011)

Quote:


> It's a funny comment about mattresses on the floor, since "a big mattress on the floor" was winning the poll on this site for favorite co-sleeping devices last time I checked in.


Yes, but we're not the targeted community of this ad.

A mattress on the floor doesn't make co-sleeping safer if it's slept in by boyfriend/older siblings/grandma -- or if there's substance use involved.

EDIT:

I want to add: I bet breastfeeding rates for the targeted zip codes are very, very low. Professor James McKenna, who is a big advocate of bed-sharing (as we all know), does not recommend co-sleeping if you don't breastfeed. He has suggested before that co-sleeping deaths are associated with not breastfeeding.


----------



## _ktg_ (Jul 11, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tntmom*
> 
> As to the point that Milwaukee has a high rate of infant deaths due to prematurity it could be attributed to the fact that Milwaukee is home to one of the largest Children's Hospitals in WI. So they get many babies from all over the state and occasionally even from different states. There are very few NICU's in the rest of the state that have the technology and space. With my first I was sent to Milwaukee and had my insurance not changed I would have been there for my second as well. Just food for thought.


The Milwaukee Department of Health looks at the child/mothers originiating zip code with these cases and not just the zip code of where the death occured. CHOW is located on a suburban side of Milwaukee, and the target zip codes are located east of CHOW in central Milwaukee. The health department has a report posted with this data (2005-2008) on their website under Infant Mortality


----------



## Nicole730 (Feb 27, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *redbirdlady*
> 
> The mortality rate among babies/children in Milwaukee is apparently tied to particular zip codes, and is heavily skewed toward the African American population (which has more than double the mortality rate for babies as Caucasians. LINK) Further, the mortality rate there is linked to socioeconomic status (Link for that one - here.)
> 
> ...


Actually, they do have a variety of ads out right now about creating strong, healthy babies. Promoting prenatal care, quitting smoking, eating healthy, breastfeeding, and getting vaccinated. It's the Strong Baby campaign if you want to google it. I actually had to chuckle, because they were doing a casting call for strong babies and my baby didn't qualify because she's not up to date on her vaccinations. Oh well.

I'm definitely appalled by this ad too, I get why they are doing it, but I still think it sucks. There are a lot of other issues here, and they definitely blur the lines between actual bed sharing in a safe manner and also the whole SIDS thing bugs me too. If it was SIDS, then it wouldn't be classified as suffocation.

Sorry if I repeated anything someone else said, but I didn't read it all before responding.


----------



## APToddlerMama (Oct 5, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arete*
> 
> When I got to this thread yesterday, I had just finished reading two others (one in Homebirth, one in Health), neither of which I was part of, where various people were claiming to be extremely offended, and I could not figure out why. Also, I have seen a number of posts from women who have been on this site longer than I complaining about an increasingly acrimonious climate. They, not I, have said Mothering isn't as supportive and friendly a place as it used to be, but I am certainly beginning to agree. I mentioned the co-sleepers because the Sears link, as a pp noted, listed it as the very safest way to co-sleep. I know they are expensive and cumbersome, but other co-sleeping options exist, more portable and cheaper. How effective they are I don't know, because I haven't tried them all. It's a funny comment about mattresses on the floor, since "a big mattress on the floor" was winning the poll on this site for favorite co-sleeping devices last time I checked in. And in an unheated room in a WI winter (yes, I live here too) one would absolutely have to bring the baby into bed to prevent him freezing to death. P.j.s don't come warm enough to withstand this cold. The fact is, public health authorities are simply not interested in fostering safe co-sleeping, whatever science people like Dr. Sears and Professor McKenna have to offer. It is still seen as weird. *Our culture wants babies in cribs, in separate rooms if parents have them.*
> 
> There has been a shift on this thread since it was begun. First it was about if the ads were distasteful and misleading. Then it was about the neglect, and shall we say, poor choices of parents quoted by pps, and why they necessitate such a campaign. Now, it seems to be about responsible parents, who because of medical conditions or other unavoidable circumstances, CANNOT safely co-sleep, but can't afford a crib. I was responding to the second of these topics, and only that. Like all of you, I know many loving moms and dads who use pack and plays for sleep or a 15 minute break for a much desired shower. But they would be fatally easy for a neglectful parent to use as a cage, yes, let me repeat that, CAGE. I have been deeply moved in the past by reports coming out of institutional orphanages in places like Eastern Europe, and other circumstances where infants spend literally months in cribs, taken out only to be fed and cleaned. They are severely traumatized by this, emerging devoid of empathy and incapable of forming loving relationships. And let me stop you before you ask me if I'd prefer the babies to be dead as a result of unsafe co-sleeping. No, I wouldn't! When a child is abused, do we say, that's okay, at least he's not dead? We try to stop the abuse. An old fashioned cradle, with only room for a sleeping baby (I know they likely wouldn't meet modern safety requirements), or a Moses basket, or anything that only accommodates SLEEP, would bea far better option to my mind. Every baby mammal and bird wants to be close to a parent at night, and the much-vilified parents of Milwaukee are in this sense obeying instinct, which is usually right. I wouldn't have thought on a thread called The Family Bed, this would be such a foreign concept.


Arete--Seriously. Do you realize how you sound and what broad assumptions you are making? First, I don't agree that our culture wants babies in separate rooms. In fact, Milwaukee has a website stating the AAP guidelines which are for babies to be in the same room as parents. To make a parallel between Eastern European orphanages and putting a baby in a packnplay in Milwaukee is ridiculous. Not to sound like a total know-it-all but I also have spent several months working in Eastern European orphanages and there is just no similarity between the two. To suggest that there is strikes me as really truly disgusting. My experience in the orphanages has been that kids have been completely an utterly deprived of everything except the most minimal requirements to keep them alive. That isn't the population Milwaukee is targeting, nor are the circumstances even close to similar, and I think it is really insulting to make a correlation between total deprivation and being in a "CAGE" and not being able to safely bedshare because maybe you are grandma, not mom, maybe you have only a couch and not a bed, maybe you didn't have the support to breastfeed but you lovingly bottle feed, maybe you have to work 16 hour days to make ends meet so you are seriously dead to the world and not alert enough to safely bedshare, maybe you have to take sleeping pills because your life is very stressful and you live in a dangerous neighborhood and you can't get a wink of sleep otherwise, or maybe you struggle with addiction and have to have a few drinks before bed every night which makes bedsharing dangerous but you're still able to get up during the day and be supermom.

This isn't an either-or type of thing. It isn't "either you bedshare or you're going to be completely traumatized, devoid of empathy, etc." That is what is insulting. And silly.


----------



## Arete (Aug 1, 2010)

Once again, APToddlermama, you are ignoring the fact that I was responding only to the second topic on this thread, the one about the neglectful parents, and not the third, the one about the parents who work long hours and/or have medical conditions. You must forgive me for not noticing we had left the one idea and moved to the other with startling abruptness. If you can vouch for the people of Milwaukee, that no one would never be so negligent, so be it. It seems to me that we are not as a people free from any such possibility. Horrible cases of abuse do occur here. And I cannot agree with you that mainstream America does not expect babies to have their own rooms. I live in a pretty lefty area, and yet when I was pregnant, people constantly asked me how I was decorating the nursery. If you insist on reading insults into my messages, then you will perceive an "either-or" situation. As a matter of fact, I am the only one in my extended family who co-slept, and yet I do not think of my relatives as abusive monsters. Please read back through this thread to check of the tales of neglect. They are, believe it or not, what caused a concern which I still think pardonable.


----------



## aHikaru (Apr 12, 2011)

Louisiana has an anti cosleeping ad also, I always turn of the radio, it makes me sick.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *APToddlerMama*
> 
> *Milwaukee has been doing this campaign for several years* with absolutely no national attention. Their old billboards featured the head board of the family bed as a grave stone for babies. The national attention is brand new. The ad targets Milwaukee. *I truly believe it will save lives in Milwaukee*.


How much has the infant mortality rate dropped since they started the ads?

My reality isn't middle-class, elitist or "faux hippie". My reality is blue collar. I've also had a large number of friends and relatives who struggle/struggled with addiction. And, I can't see any way in which an ad campaign like this is going to make any difference at all to people who aren't even deliberately bedsharing in the first place. When someone lies down (ie. passes out) on the couch with a baby after eight beers, it has nothing to do with bedsharing, and creepy visuals of gravestone headboards and infants sleeping with a knife aren't going to touch it. What on earth is the point of saying "don't bedshare" to people who aren't bedsharing in the first place?

You know...I've read at least one story of a bedsharing mom, who woke up when her son was having some kind of issue, and called 911, and got him the care he needed to save his life. (I'm afraid I don't remember the medical details, as I read it several years ago.) If that woman had been scared by these ads into putting her baby in a "safe" crib, he'd be dead. I firmly believe that bedsharing can save lives, and this campaign is dangerously misdirected.

Edited to remove something that I see was already addressed after the post I quoted above.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adaline'sMama*
> 
> Yep. Ive been wrong all along. You _should_ have to apply for a permit to breed.


If you had to apply for a permit to breed, poor people wouldn't be able to have children...ever. I don't trust the government as far as I can throw it, and the idea of giving them say in who can have a baby makes my stomach turn. (I actually think you were being sarcastic, though.)


----------



## ThinkGlobalMama (Nov 28, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *APToddlerMama*
> 
> because maybe you are grandma, not mom, maybe you have only a couch and not a bed, maybe you didn't have the support to breastfeed but you lovingly bottle feed, maybe you have to work 16 hour days to make ends meet so you are seriously dead to the world and not alert enough to safely bedshare, maybe you have to take sleeping pills because your life is very stressful and you live in a dangerous neighborhood and you can't get a wink of sleep otherwise, or maybe you struggle with addiction and have to have a few drinks before bed every night which makes bedsharing dangerous but you're still able to get up during the day and be supermom.


I agree. And I think it highlights the underpinnings of this entire thread, and of the larger discussion; both here and on the irritating platform of Facebook. (Ugh, "friends" indeed!) The idea of "intent" or being "intentional" about something.

So I want to co-sleep: I'm INTENTIONAL about reading research, getting the right resources, breastfeeding and creating my circle of support. These are the LEAST likely sort of cases to be dangerous for baby. (According to Dr. McKenna, and others.) This is why the ad (to circle back around to why this thread was started) is so offensive to some people: they are being intentional about their choices and the ad is saying that choice is wrong. What APTM and others have pointed out is that there is another side of this we HAVE to consider, and I admit, has made me rethink my own position on ads like this one. The unintentional co-sleeping arrangement is the dangerous one: poverty, addiction, non-mother or not BFing. But this is too complex of a message for a billboard, isn't it? Public Health in general is about the greater good, the most people, and blanket statements are part of that. The same debate exists on vaccinations, for instance. Just because a "few" (according to research) might have negative reactions, institutions must still promote vaccinations- as the "greater" good. So intentional co-sleeping might not be very dangerous, but the target audience of this ad is not those people.

On the issue that Arete brings up, which is neglectful behavior facilitated by a crib or packnplay- I just think that this type of behavior would exist anyway, regardless of the "device." I have lived in neighborhoods where 11 month-olds are out climbing down the front steps, alone, toddling along sidewalks or crawling around apartments unattended. Would it be safer for that child in a crib? It's like insult to injury- abuse and neglect are not excusable, and both are present when there's no human contact AND a dangerous street outside. But I sort of agree that even though the AAP might say babies should be in the room with parents, "culturally" (which of course is not quantifiable) there is definitely anti-cosleeping vibe. It comes across in small ways, with little comments from friends and family, commercials and movies that all show little babies and children all tucked in nicely to sleep in their own rooms and the plethora of bed-stuff for purchase.

I'm glad this thread exists, and that there is healthy debate. I have not felt offended at all, in fact, I come over here for the lively discussion and additional information that other people post. Not agreeing with someone is not a basis for being offended, I don't think.


----------



## Mulvah (Aug 12, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> *If you had to apply for a permit to breed, poor people wouldn't be able to have children...ever.* I don't trust the government as far as I can throw it, and the idea of giving them say in who can have a baby makes my stomach turn. (I actually think you were being sarcastic, though.)


Statements like this irritate me. If you're living in the U.S., yes, they would because they would receive assistance for the permit price, Medicaid would cover their pregnancy, and their child's health insurance costs. You know who wouldn't be able to breed? Middle class folks who make too much to get assistance, yet too little to pay for the permit. I guess that's good, though, because they can't afford health insurance, so they save themselves $10,000 in credit card debt from their pregnancy.

ETA: That isn't a statement on anything but the problems with the system in this country. It's broken.


----------



## Adaline'sMama (Apr 16, 2010)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> If you had to apply for a permit to breed, poor people wouldn't be able to have children...ever. I don't trust the government as far as I can throw it, and the idea of giving them say in who can have a baby makes my stomach turn. *(I actually think you were being sarcastic, though.)*












Id still love to see statistics about how much the mortality rate has dropped since the "safe sleep" campaign started. I cant find stats comparing last year to two to three years before it, and Im having a hard time believing that "this campaign will save lives" if the rate hasnt already begun to drop and the campaign has already been going on for several years.

Regardless of whose fault it is, I still believe that this ad is going to do more harm than good nationwide. Is it hadnt been pasted all over blogs and social media sites by people like us who are against it it wouldnt have been seen by so many people and probably wouldnt have freaked out a bunch of first time moms. But, if it hadnt been made in the first place it wouldnt have been pasted all over the internet.

Arete, I have to say that your posts are incredibly offensive.


----------



## Owen'nZoe (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


> Id still love to see statistics about how much the mortality rate has dropped since the "safe sleep" campaign started. I cant find stats comparing last year to two to three years before it, and Im having a hard time believing that "this campaign will save lives" if the rate hasnt already begun to drop and the campaign has already been going on for several years.


This doesn't specifically talk about the safe sleep campaign, but the chart on p 8 would suggest that AA infant deaths in the city have dropped in the time the campaign has been active. Whether or not it is connected, I don't know, but it is possible.

http://www.milwaukee.gov/FIMR2010


----------



## APToddlerMama (Oct 5, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arete*
> 
> Once again, APToddlermama, you are ignoring the fact that I was responding only to the second topic on this thread, the one about the neglectful parents, and not the third, the one about the parents who work long hours and/or have medical conditions. You must forgive me for not noticing we had left the one idea and moved to the other with startling abruptness. * If you can vouch for the people of Milwaukee, that no one would never be so negligent, so be it.*


Ha. Never in a million years would I state that I can vouch for the people of Milwaukee that no one would ever be so negligent. I worked in child welfare and lived in the central city. I've seen plenty of horrifying homes and situations. What I am saying is that you're throwing around a lot of broad generalizations and assumptions that I think are offensive. There is not *one* reason for bedsharing deaths in Milwaukee or anywhere else. Milwaukee is targeting the needs of their population as best as they can.


----------



## APToddlerMama (Oct 5, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Storm Bride*
> 
> How much has the infant mortality rate dropped since they started the ads?
> 
> My reality isn't middle-class, elitist or "faux hippie". My reality is blue collar. I've also had a large number of friends and relatives who struggle/struggled with addiction. And, I can't see any way in which an ad campaign like this is going to make any difference at all to people who aren't even deliberately bedsharing in the first place. When someone lies down (ie. passes out) on the couch with a baby after eight beers, it has nothing to do with bedsharing, and creepy visuals of gravestone headboards and infants sleeping with a knife aren't going to touch it. What on earth is the point of saying "don't bedshare" to people who aren't bedsharing in the first place?


No clue about your first question. As far as your reality with blue collar friends/family who struggle with addiction...that is fine. But realize that addiction is not the entire story in Milwaukee or the entire bedsharing safety issue.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThinkGlobalMama*
> 
> So I want to co-sleep: I'm INTENTIONAL about reading research, getting the right resources, breastfeeding and creating my circle of support. These are the LEAST likely sort of cases to be dangerous for baby. (According to Dr. McKenna, and others.) This is why the ad (to circle back around to why this thread was started) is so offensive to some people: they are being intentional about their choices and the ad is saying that choice is wrong. What APTM and others have pointed out is that there is another side of this we HAVE to consider, and I admit, has made me rethink my own position on ads like this one. The unintentional co-sleeping arrangement is the dangerous one: poverty, addiction, non-mother or not BFing. But this is too complex of a message for a billboard, isn't it? Public Health in general is about the greater good, the most people, and blanket statements are part of that. The same debate exists on vaccinations, for instance. Just because a "few" (according to research) might have negative reactions, institutions must still promote vaccinations- as the "greater" good. So intentional co-sleeping might not be very dangerous, but the target audience of this ad is not those people.
> 
> I'm glad this thread exists, and that there is healthy debate. I have not felt offended at all, in fact, I come over here for the lively discussion and additional information that other people post. Not agreeing with someone is not a basis for being offended, I don't think.


Really good points about bedsharing being intentional. And the message that would need to be sent is way to complex for a billboard. It is pretty complex for anyone who isn't super interested in the pros and cons of bedsharing period.

I think this is a healthy debate as well. The fact that I don't agree with someone isn't a basis for being offended, but some assumptions made about the targets of the ad are really offensive.


----------



## Arete (Aug 1, 2010)

I've gone back over this many times now, but I will do it once more. When I spoke my fears about moms, dads, or caretakers using a crib as a vehicle for neglect, I was responding to the accounts on this post of abuse and, yes, neglect. A pp I cannot now find stated that she had looked up many of the stories behind the deaths, and found there was very often substance abuse involved. I took that statement in good faith and believed it. Is it really such a stretch, starting from that point, to believe that the people who DO abuse abuse drugs and alcohol would place the baby in the crib and then fail to respond to her for a long, long time? It does not need to be so severe a case as in the orphanages mentioned above--a day is too much, and it might be more than that. I speak from my heart here, not intending any insult to the poor who work extremely long hours and find child care where they can. I must beg everyone to please stop being offended. Babies aren't rationalists; they don't think things through and count the cost. This I am sure is true: if a baby could speak, he would say, Do not leave me all alone. If I cannot sleep next to you, let me sleep near you. Let me hear your breath, and can you at least put out a hand to stroke me when I cry, even if you are tired? Why is it an insult to say little babies feel fear and grief when they are alone for extended periods? (Not referring here to my relatives, and friends, and your relatives and friends, who place a baby to sleep in a crib, and then pick him up when he awakens--I am not insulting them either!) Maybe the choice is wrong (I guess I'm not a rationalist either), but I would make the same one. I can remember all too well the torment of lonliness from later in life, and I believe it to be worse for babies. So, I know, I've conflated the two issues again, because I am deeply moved--the parents who are neglectful, and those who simply struggling. But I still don't think free packn plays are answer, for the reason I have said. There has got to be some third option for people who should not bed-share (I was reminded, on re-reading the Sears link, that co-sleeping only means sleeping in close proximity to the babe, not in the same bed). Some safe vessel, if that is the right word, that can be set down beside a couch, or mattress, and that only accommodates sleep. This used to be function of a cradle in our grandparents' day. Yes, I support co-sleeping (not necessarily bed-sharing), because I think it is best and most compassionate, and I think pretty much anyone can do it. If anyone stills feels I am insulting them thereby, I am truly sorry.


----------



## justrose13 (Jun 23, 2009)

n case you haven't seen this article: http://thirdcoastdigest.com/2011/11/bad-democrat-barrett's-co-sleeping-red-herring/


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mulvah*
> 
> Statements like this irritate me. If you're living in the U.S., yes, they would because they would receive assistance for the permit price, Medicaid would cover their pregnancy, and their child's health insurance costs. You know who wouldn't be able to breed? Middle class folks who make too much to get assistance, yet too little to pay for the permit. I guess that's good, though, because they can't afford health insurance, so they save themselves $10,000 in credit card debt from their pregnancy.
> 
> ETA: That isn't a statement on anything but the problems with the system in this country. It's broken.


I wasn't saying poor people couldn't apply for a permit. I'm saying the "powers that be" (those who approved said permits) wouldn't give them out to poor people, because not having any money is considered to be a character defect.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *APToddlerMama*
> 
> No clue about your first question. As far as your reality with blue collar friends/family who struggle with addiction...that is fine. But realize that addiction is not the entire story in Milwaukee or the entire bedsharing safety issue.
> 
> Good point. But, I also think using ads showing beds, with lots of bedding, and fluffy pillows (while those are a bad idea while bedsharing) misses the mark. Making people aware of the dangers of falling asleep with their babies on recliners, couches, etc. seems like a much better starting place. And, honestly - you were talking about giving people Pack and Plays. If part of the problem is that these families don't have anywhere else to put their children down for a night's sleep, then creepy images like the ones in the ad aren't going to help in the slightest. Being convinced one's child is going to die if said child sleeps in your bed, but not having anywhere else to put that child, would be terrifying! Giving people Pack and Plays is a lot healthier than ads equating a loving parent to a deadly weapon.


----------



## WildKingdom (Mar 26, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arete*  Some safe vessel, if that is the right word, that can be set down beside a couch, or mattress, and that only accommodates sleep. This used to be function of a cradle in our grandparents' day. Yes, I support co-sleeping (not necessarily bed-sharing), because I think it is best and most compassionate, and I think pretty much anyone can do it. If anyone stills feels I am insulting them thereby, I am truly sorry.


Some safe vessel....like, maybe, a Pack n Play?


----------



## Kobaby (Mar 28, 2011)

Am I the only one who doesn't see a problem with an ad like that...?

I know I am not the target audience. I am confident that I am keeping my baby safe. I know this because as a new mother I was truly scared to follow my instincts, but I did my research and found this site, Dr. McKenna, etc. I'm sure anyone interested in bed-sharing *and* keeping their baby safe would follow the same path I would. Anyone not likely to put the effort into researching their choices probably just should listen to a billboard like that.


----------



## Monkey's Mum (May 6, 2009)

It would be nice to see a campaign that teaches about how to co-sleep safely. Does anyone know of any public campaigns like this?


----------



## Turquesa (May 30, 2007)

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *APToddlerMama*
> 
> Okay, I am just about done, but I have to add....why not blame the AAP instead of people who believe everything the AAP has to say? The city and health department are just following the AAP's guidelines as part of their strategy to improve outcomes for infants and children.


Respectfully, they're doing nothing of the sort. The AAP expressly states that in order to prevent SIDS, newborn infants need to sleep in the same room as their parents, in a bassinet and close enough to hear them breathe. (The AAP is against bed-sharing, but at least they acknowledge how critical this proximity is to infant safety). Are ad campaigns like the Milwaukee one and the Alone-Back-Crib crap in Ohio conveying this message to parents? This is not a multiple choice question: They're not. So there will inevitably be parents who heed these ads and go Old School, sticking their babies in that free, state-issued Pack N Play in a separate bedroom. As a result, this ad campaign may end up costing more lives than it saves.

Moreover, this campaign is simplistic, myopic, and dangerously short-sighted. For further information, head to our discussion in the Current Events forum.


----------



## Nicole730 (Feb 27, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Turquesa*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


I live in the Milwaukee area and whenever they have a professional on the news discussing these ads, which is often, they say that the baby should be sleeping in the same room as the adults, just not in the same bed. They also say that breastfeeding (and vaccinations) will help prevent infant death.

I had a strong visceral reaction to these ads too and I still think they are going overboard, BUT, I do think their heart is in the right place. Just in the past week 2 more babies have died sleeping with an adult. One thing I think they should touch on is the babies should only be sleeping with their mamas. (I, personally, think dads are okay too, but I know the bed sharing recommendations say mom)


----------



## dreamingtree (Jun 30, 2011)

How do they (AAP) explain vaccinations preventing SIDS? Does anyone know?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nicole730*
> 
> I live in the Milwaukee area and whenever they have a professional on the news discussing these ads, which is often, they say that the baby should be sleeping in the same room as the adults, just not in the same bed. They also say that breastfeeding (and vaccinations) will help prevent infant death.
> 
> I had a strong visceral reaction to these ads too and I still think they are going overboard, BUT, I do think their heart is in the right place. Just in the past week 2 more babies have died sleeping with an adult. One thing I think they should touch on is the babies should only be sleeping with their mamas. (I, personally, think dads are okay too, but I know the bed sharing recommendations say mom)


----------



## PseudoDiva (Jun 15, 2009)

I have been following this thread with interest. I just gave birth to our second son 6 weeks ago. We co-slept but did not bedshare with our first, but I am bedsharing with our second. The difference in having the baby 3 feet away in a bassinet and right next to me in a sidecar is astounding. He is sleeping, I am sleeping, and his weight gain is great.

The reason why I am posting now is to ask a general question about the AAP. I was very frightened of their "decrees" with my first child and terrified of going against their advice (even though I still did it.) After a highly successful homebirth I am feeling empowered enough to start asking some serious questions: Who makes up the AAP, beyond the 60,000 pediatricians? What's their agenda? I no longer believe that they only have the safety and health of babies and children in mind. I am having trouble knowing where to start to find out more about this organization and how they came to have such a stranglehold on politics, doctors offices, and parents everywhere.


----------



## Nicole730 (Feb 27, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *infojunkie*
> 
> How do they (AAP) explain vaccinations preventing SIDS? Does anyone know?


I do not know. I know for the Strong Baby campaign there doesn't seem to be any sort of explanation. Just the basic breastfeed, vaccinate, eat healthy, don't sleep with your baby. I'm not the target audience, so I don't know if they give more explanation at clinics or offices in those neighborhoods.


----------



## Buzzbuzz (Aug 27, 2011)

I believe there have been studies showing a correlation between a reduction in SIDs and vaccinations, but the causation for it has not been established. I believe there was some posting on that point on the vaccinations board here.


----------



## ThinkGlobalMama (Nov 28, 2009)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PseudoDiva*
> 
> I have been following this thread with interest. I just gave birth to our second son 6 weeks ago. We co-slept but did not bedshare with our first, but I am bedsharing with our second. The difference in having the baby 3 feet away in a bassinet and right next to me in a sidecar is astounding. He is sleeping, I am sleeping, and his weight gain is great.
> 
> The reason why I am posting now is to ask a general question about the AAP. I was very frightened of their "decrees" with my first child and terrified of going against their advice (even though I still did it.) After a highly successful homebirth I am feeling empowered enough to start asking some serious questions: Who makes up the AAP, beyond the 60,000 pediatricians? What's their agenda? I no longer believe that they only have the safety and health of babies and children in mind. I am having trouble knowing where to start to find out more about this organization and how they came to have such a stranglehold on politics, doctors offices, and parents everywhere.


I don't know if this is the right thread to respond to this question or not- you might try to search some of the other threads on Mothering to find out if others are talking about the AAP. However, I will share what I found in a quick 8 minute trip over to their website.

Advertisements for the following:


Merck vaccinations
Sanofi Paseur Vaccines
Norditroprin (growth hormone)
Coca-Cola
Pfizer (also drugs/vaccines)
McNeil (hospital equipment I think)
Unilever (this is interesting as Unilever products are very high on the toxicity scale according to Environmental Working Group Skin Deep Database)
American Dietetics Association (also interesting as a major proponent of licenses, etc and prohibiting naturopathic docs from advising patients on diet)

Also, the "latest news" section is 6 different stories all drug-related; either pro-vaccine or stories related to recalls or safety of drugs. I'm not one to say that the AAP is a boogey-man at all- but I like to read between the lines and take any information I find with a grain of salt. You are correct to start asking questions- one of my professors in college always said, "Follow the money!" If there is a money trail from any so-called authority for information, especially to do with your health, I get really suspicious. At my military health clinic I started asking about alternative vaccine schedules (my son is currently not vaxed at all.) The answer I got was a bit shocking, but is related to the CDC and AAP and drug-company relations: I can't do an alternative schedule because they do not know what vaccine they will be getting from x, y or z company. It is "whatever company sends us the most." So if drug company A sends 100 doses of the first shot of the Y vaccine, then the clinic is hooked into purchasing the second and third shots of the same brand- with colorful posters to hang all over the office with the AAP, CDC and drug names all over them. I don't throw all the information they provide out the window, because some of it is good and relevant. But I have serious ethical questions too.


----------



## PseudoDiva (Jun 15, 2009)

Thanks for this, *ThinkGlobalMama*! I agree, you need to follow the money. I guess it never occurred to me before that maybe the AAP isn't 100% altruistic. Live and learn..


----------



## alittlesandy (Jan 20, 2010)

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *ThinkGlobalMama*
> 
> I don't know if this is the right thread to respond to this question or not- you might try to search some of the other threads on Mothering to find out if others are talking about the AAP. However, I will share what I found in a quick 8 minute trip over to their website.
> 
> ...


Just to play devil's advocate, the Mothering website has had ads for Bounty Paper Towels, Coca-Cola's Family Game Night, Tostino's Pizza Rolls, Pop Tarts, Fanta Soda, etc.

I'm no huge fan of the AAP, and take what they say with a grain of salt, but just out of curiosity, who should fund research? The government can little afford to fund all research, and when they do they are accused of having an agenda. I work at a university and the scientists I know are desperate to have their research funded. There are few people out there stepping up to do it, so if Merck offers a grant, most scientists I know will jump at the opportunity. And I know for a fact that they are not given the money on the condition that their findings reflect a certain bias.


----------



## WildKingdom (Mar 26, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alittlesandy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


----------



## Super~Single~Mama (Sep 23, 2008)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alittlesandy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...










Seriously. Grant money is not conditional on reaching a specific conclusion. And the results aren't usually published by the company or organization that provides the grant, its usually published by a scientific journal.


----------



## Turquesa (May 30, 2007)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alittlesandy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> ...


To counter your anecdote about your university experience, my scientist friend just left her PhD program feeling discouraged and disenchanted. The reason: Her advisor made her run an experiment repeatedly until she came up with results that were satisfactory to their corporate grantor.

This problem doesn't exist in an anecdotal vaccuum. You stated:

Quote:


> And I know for a fact that they are not given the money on the condition that their findings reflect a certain bias.


But most of the evidence out there is stacked against this "fact."

http://discovermagazine.com/2007/oct/sciences-worst-enemy-private-funding

http://www.experiment-resources.com/publication-bias.html

http://www.center4research.org/2010/04/ghostbusting-exposing-drug-company-hired-ghostwriters-in-medical-journals/ (scroll down to see citations backing the stories of ghostwriters hired to yield favorable results for drug companies).

http://www.jabfm.org/content/18/5/414.full.pdf

Quote:


> The end result: among even the highest quality
> 
> clinical research (included in Cochrane reviews) the
> 
> ...


And some more specific-and fascinating-case studies are in this position paper from the American Association of University Professors, who are deeply concerned about corporate funding compromising academic freedom:

http://www.aaup.org/NR/rdonlyres/488F7EE3-1A5D-466E-9556-878B36650844/0/CorporateFundingonAcaResearch.pdf

You should also read this scathing piece by an insider and former NEJM editor.

http://bostonreview.net/BR35.3/angell.php

Now while I agree with the concept of evaluating studies on their merits, given the aforementioned links, it's more than fair to call into question the "objectivity" of corporate-sponsored research.

I also agree that MDC has tons of ads that don't reflect the values of this site. But Fanta and the others aren't directly or even knowingly funding MDC; they turn up based on Google's word-search algorithms. For example--sadly-Google may pick up words like "parents" and "children" and post a Fanta ad to market to the latter. It's a rotten practice that I think needs to stop. But that's an apples-and-Orange Soda comparison to the case of a corporation directly and knowingly funding research on a topic relevant to its products, services, and profit margin; to my knowledge, MDC didn't run off and apply for a grant from Fanta.

So to bring this back around to the topic of this thread, if the allegations are true that the Consumer Products Safety Commission and AAP are receiving crib industry funding (and I'm honestly not sure that they are; I need to look into that), then yes, MDC moms have every right to raise a skeptical eyebrow at anti-bedsharing statements.

If given the choice between junk science and no science, sign me up for the latter. It is better to have unanswered questions than questions answered with spun data, deception, and ulterior motives.


----------



## PseudoDiva (Jun 15, 2009)

Turquesa, thank you for these articles. Bookmarking them for reading...


----------

