# New Study from University of ******* on co-sleeping and the risk of SIDS.



## Jeslynb (Jun 8, 2005)

Flame away if you like - I am just passing along the article. I happen to find it compelling, but then, I don't subscribe to any of the current "movements" in infant-care (AP or otherwise).

Here is the link:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...685210,00.html


----------



## ber (Apr 5, 2005)

That's always a reassuring way to start a post...

I would wonder if you were lost, but the very fact that you referred to flames right of the bat convinces me otherwise.

What exactly about this article is compelling?


----------



## Llyra (Jan 16, 2005)

I don't see how it is compelling-- it doesn't describe the study, or the nature of the evidence, or the researchers' findings, AT ALL. I would be willing to thoughtfully consider EVIDENCE, but this doesn't mean anything to me.


----------



## ber (Apr 5, 2005)

I wanted to add - I've read that snippet of an article about 5 times now, and I still feel like I'm missing something. Maybe if there were more facts presented, I'd feel like I understood what's being said.

Quote:

John McClure, chairman of the Scottish Cot Death Trust, said: "Until recently it was thought that bedsharing was a risk only if parents were smokers.
This part jumped out at me because there are a lot other factors beyond smoking that interfere with the safety of co-sleeping, such as co-sleeping while taking certain medications or while under the influence of alcohol.

It's just a strange article in general. It seems like it's trying to be anti-co-sleeping, yet it doesn't seem to have all the facts, and it also says that "the risk diminishes sharply" after the first 3 months - so to me it almost sounds like more of a "be extra cautious the first 11 weeks" more than "don't ever do it."


----------



## ber (Apr 5, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *llyra*
I don't see how it is compelling-- it doesn't describe the study, or the nature of the evidence, or the researchers' findings, AT ALL. I would be willing to thoughtfully consider EVIDENCE, but this doesn't mean anything to me.

exactly.


----------



## AllyRae (Dec 10, 2003)

Hmmmm...first off, I thought the risk of SIDS was greatest from 3-6 months? This article states otherwise. Second, it's old news that smoking/drinking increases the risk of SIDS/suffocation/entrapment. That's been shown in co-sleeping research for years...

I'd like to see a citation of the actual article. I've done a lot of research into co-sleeping for my master's degree and after 2 years of research, I have only found *one* study that conclusively showed that "co-sleeping was dangerous" and it turned out that study was funded by the JPSC and considered sleeping in a recliner as co-sleeping. Of course, that's the study cited by anti-cosleeping resources. The study was poorly conducted and the results skewed.

So, in order to determine the legitimacy of the article, the full study needs to be seen...how did they research it, what was considered co-sleeping, what was considered SIDS (MANY studies attempt to classify entrapment, suffocation, etc. as SIDS, and it's not), who funded the study, and how big was the sample?

This article doesn't say anything new...most people know that safe co-sleeping means no smoking or drinking...


----------



## flitters (Sep 18, 2003)

Welcome to MDC!

That was a very small article... makes it difficult to say whether or not the study itself was compelling. I searched the Journal of Pediatrics (possibly the wrong one?) and couldn't find the study. I also went to the site for the Scottish Cot Death Trust but couldn't find a reference to it there either. I'm not saying it doesn't exist, I just would like to see the study, rather than just a very short article about it. It is interesting and often very informative to see how the studies are conducted. It also struck me that the conclusion was drawn for babies under 11 weeks, especially when earlier studies have shown the mean age of SI death in non-bedsharing infants to be 12.7 weeks while in bedsharing infants to be 9.1 weeks (see link below).

http://pediatrics.aappublications.or...ode=pediatrics

By the way, I don't think it was your intention, but beginning you post with "Flame away" seems slightly inflammatory. Also, your comment about AP and "current 'movements' in infant-care" reads in a slightly condescending way by categorizing then trivializing the parenting philosophy most people on this board embrace. A lot can be lost in non-face-to-face communication...

Anyway, thank you for sharing the pointer to this article. I hope people join in this thread - infant studies are so interesting to discuss.

eta, I type slowly. People *have* joined this thread in the meanwhile!!!


----------



## nancy926 (Mar 10, 2003)

Not impressed by the study. Small sample size, and they defined "bedsharing" to also include cots and couches, of all things. Sleeping w/a baby on a king-sized bed is worlds apart from sleeping w/one on a COUCH.

Also not sure what current "movement" the OP is referring to. Bedsharing? It's been going on for centuries, and in some countries is the norm, rather than an exception that some researchers have to constantly try to shoot down as being "unsafe".


----------



## flitters (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nancy926*
Not impressed by the study. Small sample size, and they defined "bedsharing" to also include cots and couches, of all things.

Did you find the study mentioned in the OP or is this the study from my post above? The above study wasn't so much about "is bedsharing safe" as it was a study about age (and other factors) at death. There was no attempt to control or compare *numbers* of bedsharing deaths (30 in that study) versus *numbers* of non-bedsharing deaths (54 in that study). I just mentioned it because of the limited scope of the conclusion in the OP (babies < 11 weeks).

Ummm, sorry for the tangent.

Still curious if anyone has the text of the study.

Been reading "Three in a Bed" lately, so this kind of thing is even more on my mind than normal.


----------



## InochiZo (Aug 17, 2004)

I also looked at the study. I agree that the study is small and that the definition of "bedsharing" may be large. I also wonder what the definition of SIDs is for this study. To determine factors in "parental bedsharing in SIDS-like deaths." It sounds like they are determined by the coroner, which would not have any consistency/interrater reliability. Under the limitations section it states:
"We believe that our study provides additional evidence that the spectrum of deaths classified under the rubric of "SIDS" is not a single entity...Furthermore, although it may be desirable to designate these deaths as SIDS and thus provide comforting reassurance to the parents, misclassification compromises pursuit of the causes of true SIDS."
Another limitation is that the sociecomic status of the people used is low. I don't agree with the authors about the "causation" factors found in this study based on the limitations provided.
I like another article that popped up on the Journal of Peds seach on co-sleeping earlier research on co-sleeping.
How Good is the Evidence?

Good Co-sleeping to you all!!!


----------



## InochiZo (Aug 17, 2004)

Bedsharing Promotes Breastfeeding
It also talks about a reduction in SIDs with bedsharing.


----------



## flitters (Sep 18, 2003)

Ack...

The link I posted wasn't for the study mentioned in the OP.

It was just a reference for the age data point which was one of many reasons the study in the OP seemed questionable to me.

Sorry for the confusion!


----------



## InochiZo (Aug 17, 2004)

Flitters - I am pretty sure the study you linked is the study that the article is based on. Again a newspaper takes a small study to promote what it thinks should be the norm in the western world. I think that articles like the one in the Times are very irresponsible,


----------



## flitters (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *InochiZo*
Bedsharing Promotes Breastfeeding
It also talks about a reduction in SIDs with bedsharing.

Yes, I thought that was a good study too!


----------



## flitters (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *InochiZo*
Flitters - I am pretty sure the study you linked is the study that the article is based on. Again a newspaper takes a small study to promote what it thinks should be the norm in the western world. I think that articles like the one in the Times are very irresponsible,

hahaha, crosspost extravaganza.

I think they are different. I searched that journal (probably the same search you did) for bedsharing and found nothing from ******* researchers. That study was in Kentucky I think. ???


----------



## InochiZo (Aug 17, 2004)

Yeah, I couldn't find anything from *******, so I have no idea what research that article was taking information from.
Good discussion, anyway.


----------



## Leilalu (May 29, 2004)

Well, people have been co-sleeping for thousands of years and humanity has managed to survive. I see no evidence in that article, therefore nothing compels me in it. I also don't understand what a "modern " concept of parenting is to you. Alll kids of parenting styles have been around since the beginning of time I am sure, as everyine has diiferent ideas about kids. So, you practice old-school parenting?I really don't understand..... I don't get your angle.


----------



## Plummeting (Dec 2, 2004)

I don't find it compelling at all.

I don't subscribe to *any* parenting "movement", as you like to call them. However, I believe every baby deserves caring parents who will respond to their needs promptly and nurturingly 100% of the time, whether it is during the day or at night. That includes meeting the baby's need for nighttime comfort and nourishment. Some babies do just fine in cribs, most don't, IMO. Therefore, regardless of whether or not you subscribe to any parenting "movement", if your baby needs the comfort of human touch during the night, (s)he not only deserves it, but is *entitled* to it. I don't see how meeting a baby's needs is part of any "movement". It's just the right way to care for a helpless infant.


----------



## Avena (May 27, 2005)

I too found this article short of lets say.... REAL FACTS!!!!
Have we forgotten about all the other cultures and other mammals that co-sleep???







And who's really behind this lame article anyway????


----------



## Avena (May 27, 2005)

Did anyone read the article on SIDS being linked to vaccines??
How do we know that the above article on co-sleeping babes were not recently vaccinated????
I'm trying to find that article on the Vacc's thread so you all can read it.


----------



## Avena (May 27, 2005)

Here's the link www.aapsonline.org/nod/newsofday188.htm


----------



## MrsMoe (May 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Jeslynb*
Flame away if you like - I am just passing along the article. I happen to find it compelling, but then, I don't subscribe to any of the current "movements" in infant-care (AP or otherwise).

Here is the link:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...685210,00.html


If you don't like alternative parenting, why would you be attracted to this forum?


----------



## MrsMoe (May 17, 2005)

50-70% of babies co-sleep either all of the time or sometimes

2,700 babies die each year from SIDS;

90% of SIDS deaths are crib sleeping infants - only 10% of these cases are co-sleeping infants
(That is well over 2000 SIDS deaths per year related to sleeping in a crib)

Japan has the lowest rate of SIDS in the world. Japanese babies routinely share their parent's beds (McKenna 1998)


----------



## stafl (Jul 1, 2002)

I searched pubmed and Journal of Pediatrics and could not find the study the article is supposedly quoting. I can't take any article seriously until I have read the study myself. Too often reporters get the facts mixed up. Not only did the reporter not give his name, but did not give the source for his (erroneous) information. How in the world someone could find such an article "compelling" is beyond my comprehension. I never take just one person's word for anything, I would much rather look up the evidence myself and make an educated decision.


----------



## chicagomom (Dec 24, 2002)

The article is coming out in the July issue, which has not yet been posted to the website.

This particular researcher (Dr. David Tappin) has published these sort of retrospective 'analysis' papers before (where he takes a group of infant deaths and tries to figure out trends), and got dismissed when he suggested a used crib mattress increases the risk of SIDS. Why? The critics said these sorts of retrospective studies don't fully control for other factors that might actually be the cause. Same with this study. Poor controls means you really can't conclude anything.

Here's one of them: http://www.hon.ch/News/HSN/509998.html

The most ridiculous thing about the new study is this:

Quote:

Only 11 percent of the infants were reported to routinely sleep in their parents' bed. But, 52 percent of the babies had shared a bed, cot,couch or other surface *at some point during the day or night that they died*.
So it includes in the 'co-sleeping deaths' babies who were alone in their cribs at time of death but who had "at some point" shared some surface with someone else.


----------



## InochiZo (Aug 17, 2004)

Well, I have to thank the OP for giving me an opportunity to read good and bad research on co-sleeping. I have found nothing compelling about the research showing negative effects of co-sleeping.

Quote:

So it includes in the 'co-sleeping deaths' babies who were alone in their cribs at time of death but who had "at some point" shared some surface with someone else.
Serious problems with this research.


----------



## Dechen (Apr 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chicagomom*
So it includes in the 'co-sleeping deaths' babies who were alone in their cribs at time of death but who had "at some point" shared some surface with someone else.

I don't know whether to laugh or cry.


----------



## onlyboys (Feb 12, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *chicagomom*
The most ridiculous thing about the new study is this:

So it includes in the 'co-sleeping deaths' babies who were alone in their cribs at time of death but who had "at some point" shared some surface with someone else.

Oh good lord.


----------



## Maderella (Mar 20, 2005)

oops, meant to post a new thread, sorry.


----------



## LoveChild421 (Sep 10, 2004)

this is one of the most poorly designed "studies" I have ever seen!

Soooooo many confounds, no correlations and certainly no causal relationships can be established.

1. extremely small sample
2.

Quote:

However, only 11 percent of infants regularly slept in their parents' bed
. so this study is not representative of parents who co-sleep on a regular basis.
3. poorly defined operational definition of co-sleeping- includes couch sleeping which we all know is not safe...
4. does not control for other factors such as immunization status

I'm an undergrad and even I would get an F on that study- these people are supposed to be professional researchers...

Quote:

So it includes in the 'co-sleeping deaths' babies who were alone in their cribs at time of death but who had "at some point" shared some surface with someone else.
oh the logic! that's like saying that if I ate a salad that day and later died choking on a french fry that eating the salad caused or contributed to my death...


----------



## katallen (Jan 4, 2005)

That a compelling article, it is the same wording that all articles done by people against co-sleeping have written. We had a woman in our La Leche League group that works for Health and Welfare and part of her job is to research research and co-sleeping was one of the things she did research on and she said there none of the studies show that it is dangerous to co-sleep unless you are under the influence of something sedating. Furthermore, to be valid research it must be unbiased and they need to outline how they did the studies, and tell whether the parents regularly expose their children to other things that lead to SIDS, like cigarette smoke even if it is just on people's clothes, pollutants, etc... in addittion to co-sleeping, and they didn't do any of these things. And if you are so against attachment parenting and co-sleeping (which are ancient parenting techniques done in "uncivilized" societies where children have value) why are you on a parenting site that is all for closeness and bonding and being gentle with their children.


----------



## PatchyMama (Dec 6, 2002)

I thought I read somewhere that the JOP was connected to some major crib manufacturers... making the study a bit biased perhaps?
ETA : nevermind i think im thinking of the JMPA :LOL


----------



## Mommiska (Jan 3, 2002)

I've only skimmed the replies, but I just thought I'd mention this...

I live just south of *******, and I work with moms with drug/alcohol dependencies and their children. Almost all of these moms will co-sleep with their infants - it is part of their culture (mostly because it is easier, which we'd all agree with!).

Almost no one else I know here in this area co-sleeps with their children. And they look at me like I have two heads if it ever comes up that I co-slept with my babies.

Given that background, I would be very interested in/suspicious about the group of parents who were used in this study who were co-sleeping. I'm guessing there is a fairly good chance there were other factors contributing to the cot deaths, rather than the co-sleeping.


----------



## DarkHorseMama (Mar 8, 2003)

Quote:

So it includes in the 'co-sleeping deaths' babies who were alone in their cribs at time of death but who had "at some point" shared some surface with someone else.
WTF is that supposed to mean?!?







:

Idiotic comment


----------



## neverdoingitagain (Mar 30, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MrsMoe*
50-70% of babies co-sleep either all of the time or sometimes

2,700 babies die each year from SIDS;

90% of SIDS deaths are crib sleeping infants - only 10% of these cases are co-sleeping infants
(That is well over 2000 SIDS deaths per year related to sleeping in a crib)

Japan has the lowest rate of SIDS in the world. Japanese babies routinely share their parent's beds (McKenna 1998)

Actually, its Singapore, I looked it up :LOL (Either way, still not sure why?Does anyone here know much about parenting practices in Singapore?)

I agree with many pp, this article is pretty skimpy. I mean, I had to read it about three times, thinking I missed something, and scanned to the end of the page looking for the rest of the article!








Not going to change what I do anyways.
Tannis
Shekinah 5/10/04(I co-sleep, and LOOK! I'm still alive!)


----------



## honeysucklemama (Jun 28, 2005)

If it weren't so pathetically sad, it would be funny.

"The researchers found that 90 percent of the babies died while sleeping at night. Only 11 percent of the infants were reported to routinely sleep in their parents' bed. But, 52 percent of the babies had shared a bed, cot,couch or other surface at some point during the day or night that they died."

This is the same researcher who believes, steadfastly, that "germs" in a previously slept on mattress somehow account for some SIDS deaths.

AND of course, the media is all over this touting how it "shows" that co-sleeping is dangerous.

Did you know that you can "prove" statistically that the number of televisions per capita in a country is directly related to the average life expectancy?? We did it as an exercise in our stats class a few years back to explore the fallacy of "causality" in statistical data. It is important to remember that you can't use statistics to "prove" anything. The two factors MAY be related, or may BOTH be related to some other unknown factor.

Remember there are lies, darned lies, and statistics.

;-)

I personally think this researcher is a nut. Sad thing is that we parents who co-sleep are considered to be MORE nuts. Strange but true.

His logic is GREAT for the mattress industry since it suggests we all ought to buy new mattresses for each baby to avoid all those nasty "germs". Or maybe we should just all get rid of all mattresses and sleep on the floor??

How funny that this comes up and up again and again in countries where we are SOOOOO wealthy we can afford separate rooms and beds for our progeny.

I am NOT against crib sleeping... you can sleep with your baby or not and it means nothing to me... but studies like this are simply rediculous, and the fact that the media just LOVES to tout these studies in every press release imaginable and make parents "afraid" makes me want to cry.


----------



## honeysucklemama (Jun 28, 2005)

The more I read this, the more it makes me laugh and be angry at the same time. The parents had shared "some other surface" with their infants?? The floor?? The wall? The table? The surface of the Earth? How can he POSSIBLY believe that sharing some surface DURING THE DAY is somehow related at all to SIDS death at some other time. Keep in mind that these babies were NOT sleeping with their parents when they died. The paper does not imply that they were. Just that they had, at SOME point during the day, slept "on some surface" with one of the parents. Oh yeah, and that was only 52%. 48% DIDN'T sleep "on some surface" with a parent. In most small studies such a difference would not be statistically relevant.

There is such a HUGE need for parents to have accurate information on something like SIDS. Why they let studies like this one plug up medical journals I'll never understand.

Gesh. I guess I'll just have to read the darned thing myself now.


----------



## dnr3301 (Jul 4, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *neverdoingitagain*
Actually, its Singapore, I looked it up :LOL (Either way, still not sure why?Does anyone here know much about parenting practices in Singapore?)

I agree with many pp, this article is pretty skimpy. I mean, I had to read it about three times, thinking I missed something, and scanned to the end of the page looking for the rest of the article!








Not going to change what I do anyways.
Tannis
Shekinah 5/10/04(I co-sleep, and LOOK! I'm still alive!)

Totally OT, but a very good friend of mine from high school is named Shekinah and I never thought I would see another in my life. She'll be so thrilled.


----------



## Trinitty (Jul 15, 2004)

Here's the press release I found:

===========================================

Sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) is the leading reason given for death among infants one month to one year old. Studies have shown that sharing a bed with parents who smoke increases the risk of SIDS. A study in the July issue of The Journal of Pediatrics found a relationship between SIDS and bedsharing among infants less than 11 weeks old, even if parents are non-smokers.

(I-Newswire) - David Tappin, MD, MPH and colleagues from University of ******* and Ecob Consulting evaluated 123 cases of SIDS in Scotland between 1996 and 2000. The parents of these infants provided information about the baby's exposure to smoking, the parents' routine infant-care practices, and the day or night of their infant's death. The researchers found that 90% of the babies died while sleeping at night. Only 11% of the infants were reported to routinely sleep in their parents' bed. 52% of the babies, however, had shared a bed/cot/couch or other surface at some point during the day or night that they died; of these, 87% were found in their parents' beds.

A relationship exists between SIDS, bedsharing, couchsharing, and the location of the infants when they died; this association is magnified when the babies are less than 11 weeks old, regardless of how long they shared a sleep surface, their proximity to parents, their location in the bed, or their exposure to smoke. 72% of the infants found in their parents' bed and 57% of the infants who shared a couch when they died were less than 11 weeks old. In this study, sleeping in a separate room did not increase the risk of SIDS, unless the parents were smokers.

Although SIDS cannot be prevented, parents can take precautions to reduce their infant's risk by stopping smoking during and after pregnancy and placing their infant on his/her back to sleep. Sharing a couch to sleep, sleeping in a room alone, and sleeping in bed with parents are also associated with increased risk. Sleeping between parents may put extra stress on the infant and could position the baby too close to or underneath pillows or blankets. Dr. Tappin reminds caregivers of the advice given by the U.K. Department of Health: "The safest place for your baby to sleep is in a cot [crib] in your room for the first six months."

###
The study is reported in "Bedsharing, roomsharing, and sudden infant death syndrome in Scotland: A case-control study" by David Tappin, MD, MPH, Russell Ecob, SCRT STAT, MSc, and Hazel Brooke, MA. The article appears in The Journal of Pediatrics, Volume 147, Number 1 ( July 2005 ), published by Elsevier.


----------



## woobysma (Apr 20, 2004)

It's been a long time since I've taken a statistics course, but isn't it misleading to only look at babies who actually died from SIDS in your "sample"?

If you look at 100 babies, 70 who co-sleep exclusively, 10 who co-sleep sometimes, and 20 who always sleep alone........ then 10 die from SIDS, 3 co-sleepers, 4 sometimes co-sleepers, and 3 loners......... you could say that 70% of SIDS deaths happened to babies that co-sleep at least part of the time, more than double the rate of those that never co-slept. BUT, when compared to the entire sample, only 4% of co-sleeping babies died of SIDS, compared to 40% of sometimes co-sleepers and 15% of babies that always slept alone............
so, is this study really telling us anything if it doesn't compare the deaths to the general population?


----------



## mandalamama (Sep 1, 2004)

here's another place the article's shown up:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161965,00.html

here's the sources from the bottom of the article:
_SOURCES: Tappin, D. Pediatrics, July 2005; vol 147: pp 32-37. News release, American Academy of Pediatrics. American Academy of Pediatrics: "Reducing the Risk of SIDS in Childcare."_

this is causing a big to-do on a lot of parenting boards, sort of a "see! see! we TOLD you those AP people are crazy" kind of thing.

actually, for the first 11 (or more) weeks of Willow's life, we didn't truly co-sleep, as in, she wasn't beside me in bed as she is now. she was either in her car carrier at first, then in her beside Arm's Reach co-sleeper, and after nursing she fell asleep on my chest while i laid on my back semi-awake, after wrapping her to my body sling-style with a light sheet. we never had an accidents, i was too aware of her. i took no risks at all. yet because of the new "findings," i get accused of not caring about my baby when she was tiny









i mean, how many of you put a newborn beside you without taking some precautions? like using less pillows, or sleeping with only a light sheet, or no sheets at all? i can't think of anyone i know that just plunks a newborn down in a bed without making sure it's safe. and those that are unsafe, are the ones in this study, i think.


----------



## woobysma (Apr 20, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mellybean*
i mean, how many of you put a newborn beside you without taking some precautions? like using less pillows, or sleeping with only a light sheet, or no sheets at all? i can't think of anyone i know that just plunks a newborn down in a bed without making sure it's safe. and those that are unsafe, are the ones in this study, i think.

Good point! I'm all for being informed, but unless you know all the details about a situation, it's irresponsible to just take a "statistical fact" and run with it. I made a lot of "modifications" to my bed and the surrounding area before I let Jack sleep there. It's not as though I just plunked him down and fell asleep.


----------



## chicagomom (Dec 24, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *honeysucklemama*
The more I read this, the more it makes me laugh and be angry at the same time. The parents had shared "some other surface" with their infants?? The floor?? The wall? The table? The surface of the Earth? How can he POSSIBLY believe that sharing some surface DURING THE DAY is somehow related at all to SIDS death at some other time. Keep in mind that these babies were NOT sleeping with their parents when they died. The paper does not imply that they were. Just that they had, at SOME point during the day, slept "on some surface" with one of the parents.

I wonder if that includes a baby sleeping in your arms.

Of course the implication is that anyone who even *thinks* of napping with their babies is an irresponsible, dangerous person.

Is it okay if I sit next to my kids on the sofa, as long as I promise not to fall asleep?


----------



## morninglark (Mar 21, 2003)

Of course, the way I understand these studies is that class, education level and substance abuse have a lot to do with co-sleeping deaths, which never seems to be directly adressed in these studies. Or, more, in the reporting of these studies. No newspaper article says, "let's get the word out that co-sleeping is safe with a few simple precautions." I always thought I'd like to do a safe co-sleeping campaign like the "back to sleep" one that shows a bed that is properly prepared.

Another thing that bothers me about this study and the CPSC one from a few years ago --and please clear up the confusion for me if you have any insight--is that they group deaths from suffocation (e.g. smothered by pillows, rollover parents, getting caught between matress and wall, etc) with SIDS which is something different. This would elevate the true co-sleeping "SIDS" numbers.


----------



## Bufomander (Feb 6, 2005)

:


----------



## alegna (Jan 14, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mellybean*
i mean, how many of you put a newborn beside you without taking some precautions? like using less pillows, or sleeping with only a light sheet, or no sheets at all? i can't think of anyone i know that just plunks a newborn down in a bed without making sure it's safe. and those that are unsafe, are the ones in this study, i think.











I didn't do anything special. Now, I'm in Houston and she was born in August so needless to say there were no heavy blankets out.... but from day one she slept next to me, at boob height, with my usual pillow and my usual covers over her.







Honestly I think that the problem is when the babies are rolled over (which I knew wouldn't happen as I am very aware in sleep) Also she was on our very soft futon. AND I let her sleep on her tummy sometimes too.... the horror....









-Angela


----------



## neptuneaurora (Jul 3, 2005)

I didn't do anything special with my two either. Just my regular pillow and blanket. I can't think of anything that I should have done that would have kept them any safer. When they were newborns I was always hyperaware of them thoughout the night. I don't know how people can sleep when they can't reach out and touch their babies throughout the night. I would feel unsafe if they were anywhere other than in my bed where I can montitor them all night.


----------



## honeysucklemama (Jun 28, 2005)

Firstly, I DO want to keep reminding everyone that this reaseacher is the same one that believes that SIDS is caused by GERMS in a mattress.

Uh huh.

But, look here:

"Sleeping between parents may put extra stress on the infant and could position the baby too close to or underneath pillows or blankets."

In other words, this isn't SIDS at all, but suffocation resulting from unsafe co-sleeping. Anyone who regularly co-sleeps knows that baby should not be between the parents, and should not be UNDER blankets and pillows.

Gesh.

How is this SIDS at all and not overlying? And, did they even check to see if the parents had been drinking? If the bed was safe for co-sleeping? If the population was random?

I'm not going to talk too much about the stats until I read the original paper, but the 52% and 48% numbers really strike me. Try this at home. Take a coin and toss it 100 times and count the heads and tails. You won't get exactly 50/50. In fact, you MIGHT even get 52 and 48. Those numbers don't strike me as compelling at all, but rather almost random. In other words, the choice is "shared some surface" vs. "not shared some surface" and the distribution is nearly 50/50 or random.

Someone correct me if they are seeing something I am not here, but this really seems bizarre to me.

I think this researcher has an agenda.


----------



## AtThePark (Aug 27, 2004)

My son was born in Singapore - we lived there for 5 years and came back to the U.S. when Freddie was 11 weeks old.

I always thought the reduction in SIDS may have been environmental since it's a tropical climate and I thought lots of SIDS deaths were in colder months in Western countries.

At any rate many Singaporeans still spend a month after brith in bed on "confinement" - they have a lot of help from maids and relatives and most don't have the space for cribs - if they do have a crib it's never in a separate room becasue space is so limited.

Also interesting a lot of families have live-in maids who often sleep on tiny cots in these itsy closet-rooms off the back porch - if the baby needs something at night they often have the baby sleep with the maid - not "safe" practises by any means.

Anyway - these studies bug me - SIDS is aka "Crib Death" because that's where it usually happens.

Also in Singapore pregnant woman aren't supposed to eat pineapple and babies should be dressed in white for the first few months and the moms can't wash their hair for the month after the babies born. Maybe we should publish a report of such findings and advocte similiar routines for all mothers since it seems to reduce SIDS in Singapore.


----------

