Re: Children 'should sleep with parents until five' [Archive]

Notchalk

May 18th 06, 03:25 PM

On 2006-05-17 19:32:01 +0800, "Babypar" > said:

> Sleeping with your young baby is a contributory factor in SID
> http://www.baby-parenting.com/baby/cot_death.html

Nope.
Sleeping with your baby in a 'safe sleeping environment' is protective of SIDS.

Read this recommendation again:

Don't sleep with your baby if you smoke, feel very tired, have been
drinking, taking drugs or medication which could cause drowsiness.

It does not say that sleeping with your baby contributes to SIDS. The
smoker's breath in close proximity is a risk factor of SIDS, but the
other behaviours may contribute to infant death, - NOT SIDS.

Why do you think it is called "Cot Death"? Most babies die of SIDS
alone in their cots.

Jo
--
Woman, Wife, Mother, Midwife

[email protected]

May 18th 06, 05:23 PM

In misc.kids.breastfeeding Linz > wrote:
: Mark Probert wrote:
:> wrote:
:>> In misc.kids.breastfeeding Babypar > wrote:
:>>> Sleeping with your young baby is a contributory factor in SID
:>>> http://www.baby-parenting.com/baby/cot_death.html
:>>
:>> This is absolutely unproven bull****, and some studies have shown
:>> taht co-sleeping prevents SIDS.
:>>
:>> Try again,
:>> Larry
:>
:>
:> It was posted by John, the embarrassed owner of the infamous whale.to
:> website, Usenet's largest suppository of mis- and dys-information.

: No, Larry was responding to Babypar's bull****, not john's.

So what!? Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. This was his
minute!

:-)
Larry

Jan Drew

May 18th 06, 07:22 PM

"Mark Probert" > wrote in message
...
> Linz wrote:
>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>> In misc.kids.breastfeeding Babypar > wrote:
>>>>> Sleeping with your young baby is a contributory factor in SID
>>>>> http://www.baby-parenting.com/baby/cot_death.html
>>>> This is absolutely unproven bull****, and some studies have shown
>>>> taht co-sleeping prevents SIDS.
>>>>
>>>> Try again,
>>>> Larry
>>>
>>> It was posted by John, the embarrassed owner of the infamous whale.to
>>> website, Usenet's largest suppository of mis- and dys-information.
>>
>> No, Larry was responding to Babypar's bull****, not john's.
>
> So much bull**** it gets confusing...

Poor, Mark...

Posting all day instead of working.

LOL!

Mark Probert

May 18th 06, 07:29 PM

Jan Drew wrote:
> "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Linz wrote:
>>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> In misc.kids.breastfeeding Babypar > wrote:
>>>>>> Sleeping with your young baby is a contributory factor in SID
>>>>>> http://www.baby-parenting.com/baby/cot_death.html
>>>>> This is absolutely unproven bull****, and some studies have shown
>>>>> taht co-sleeping prevents SIDS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Try again,
>>>>> Larry
>>>> It was posted by John, the embarrassed owner of the infamous whale.to
>>>> website, Usenet's largest suppository of mis- and dys-information.
>>> No, Larry was responding to Babypar's bull****, not john's.
>> So much bull**** it gets confusing...
>
> Poor, Mark...
>
> Posting all day instead of working.

Incorrect. Between serious matters I like to read your posts since a
spot of humor is always in order. I go right to your posts because they
are the funniest.

Jan Drew

May 19th 06, 03:04 AM

"Mark Probert" > wrote in message
...
> Jan Drew wrote:
>> "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Linz wrote:
>>>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> In misc.kids.breastfeeding Babypar > wrote:
>>>>>>> Sleeping with your young baby is a contributory factor in SID
>>>>>>> http://www.baby-parenting.com/baby/cot_death.html
>>>>>> This is absolutely unproven bull****, and some studies have shown
>>>>>> taht co-sleeping prevents SIDS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Try again,
>>>>>> Larry
>>>>> It was posted by John, the embarrassed owner of the infamous whale.to
>>>>> website, Usenet's largest suppository of mis- and dys-information.
>>>> No, Larry was responding to Babypar's bull****, not john's.
>>> So much bull**** it gets confusing...
>>
>> Poor, Mark...
>>
>> Posting all day instead of working.
>
> Incorrect. Between serious matters I like to read your posts since a spot
> of humor is always in order. I go right to your posts because they are the
> funniest.

Once aging Mark shows us he is DTABOR...

He wasn't replying to anything I wrote.....

David Wright

May 19th 06, 03:19 AM

In article >, john > wrote:
>
>"Babypar" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> Sleeping with your young baby is a contributory factor in SID
>> http://www.baby-parenting.com/baby/cot_death.html
>>
>
>"Experts do not know exactly what causes cot death"
>
>See: Experts http://www.whale.to/a/experts.html
>
>See: http://www.whale.to/vaccines/sids.html
>
>"Scientific evidence shows that babies can have severe adverse reactions to
>vaccinations at critical intervals following their shots, and that
>vaccination is the more likely cause of cot death and shaken baby syndrome.
>"---VACCINATION AND THE DYNAMICS OF CRITICAL DAYS by Viera Scheibner, PhD

Scheibner wouldn't recognize good evidence if it walked up and spit in
her eye.

New Zealand's SIDS rate was much higher when their vaccination rate
was lower. Rates in the US have dropped considerably despite high
vaccination levels.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

May 19th 06, 12:44 PM

David Wright wrote:
> In article >, john > wrote:
>
>>"Babypar" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>>>Sleeping with your young baby is a contributory factor in SID
>>>http://www.baby-parenting.com/baby/cot_death.html
>>>
>>
>>"Experts do not know exactly what causes cot death"
>>
>>See: Experts http://www.whale.to/a/experts.html
>>
>>See: http://www.whale.to/vaccines/sids.html
>>
>>"Scientific evidence shows that babies can have severe adverse reactions to
>>vaccinations at critical intervals following their shots, and that
>>vaccination is the more likely cause of cot death and shaken baby syndrome.
>>"---VACCINATION AND THE DYNAMICS OF CRITICAL DAYS by Viera Scheibner, PhD
>
>
> Scheibner wouldn't recognize good evidence if it walked up and spit in
> her eye.
>
> New Zealand's SIDS rate was much higher when their vaccination rate
> was lower. Rates in the US have dropped considerably despite high
> vaccination levels.
>
> -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
> These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
> "If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
> -- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

We are the second highest nation of newborn infant death in the world. I
don't think we have dropped enough.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/

Jo

john

May 19th 06, 02:01 PM

"Jo" > wrote in message
...

>> Scheibner wouldn't recognize good evidence if it walked up and spit in
>> her eye.

try dealing with the evidence one day

>>
>> New Zealand's SIDS rate was much higher when their vaccination rate
>> was lower. Rates in the US have dropped considerably despite high
>> vaccination levels.

absoulte ********, as jo says USA death rate is dire, purely due to
vaccination, and looks to be getting WORSE from 2004
http://www.whale.to/m/infant.html

>
>
> We are the second highest nation of newborn infant death in the world. I
> don't think we have dropped enough.
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/
>
> Jo
>

David Wright

May 20th 06, 03:09 AM

In article >,
Jo > wrote:
>David Wright wrote:
>> In article >, john > wrote:
>>
>>>"Babypar" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>
>>>>Sleeping with your young baby is a contributory factor in SID
>>>>http://www.baby-parenting.com/baby/cot_death.html
>>>>
>>>
>>>"Experts do not know exactly what causes cot death"
>>>
>>>See: Experts http://www.whale.to/a/experts.html
>>>
>>>See: http://www.whale.to/vaccines/sids.html
>>>
>>>"Scientific evidence shows that babies can have severe adverse reactions to
>>>vaccinations at critical intervals following their shots, and that
>>>vaccination is the more likely cause of cot death and shaken baby syndrome.
>>>"---VACCINATION AND THE DYNAMICS OF CRITICAL DAYS by Viera Scheibner, PhD
>>
>>
>> Scheibner wouldn't recognize good evidence if it walked up and spit in
>> her eye.
>>
>> New Zealand's SIDS rate was much higher when their vaccination rate
>> was lower. Rates in the US have dropped considerably despite high
>> vaccination levels.
>>
>We are the second highest nation of newborn infant death in the world. I
>don't think we have dropped enough.
>
>http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/parenting/05/08/mothers.index/

I don't either, but that article is talking about deaths from all
causes, not SIDS.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

David Wright

May 20th 06, 03:11 AM

In article >, john > wrote:
>
>"Jo" > wrote in message
...
>
>>> Scheibner wouldn't recognize good evidence if it walked up and spit in
>>> her eye.
>
>try dealing with the evidence one day

Why? Scheibner never does.

>>> New Zealand's SIDS rate was much higher when their vaccination rate
>>> was lower. Rates in the US have dropped considerably despite high
>>> vaccination levels.
>
>absoulte ********, as jo says USA death rate is dire, purely due to
>vaccination, and looks to be getting WORSE from 2004
>http://www.whale.to/m/infant.html

Citing your brain-damaged web site is not evidence. And you're
talking about all-cause mortality on that web page, not SIDS,
dimbulb. The page says nothing about SIDS rates or trends, no
numbers, just your "must be due to vaccination" blather.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

Mark Probert

May 20th 06, 09:39 PM

Jan Drew wrote:
> "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Jan Drew wrote:
>>> "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> Linz wrote:
>>>>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> In misc.kids.breastfeeding Babypar > wrote:
>>>>>>>> Sleeping with your young baby is a contributory factor in SID
>>>>>>>> http://www.baby-parenting.com/baby/cot_death.html
>>>>>>> This is absolutely unproven bull****, and some studies have shown
>>>>>>> taht co-sleeping prevents SIDS.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Try again,
>>>>>>> Larry
>>>>>> It was posted by John, the embarrassed owner of the infamous whale.to
>>>>>> website, Usenet's largest suppository of mis- and dys-information.
>>>>> No, Larry was responding to Babypar's bull****, not john's.
>>>> So much bull**** it gets confusing...
>>> Poor, Mark...
>>>
>>> Posting all day instead of working.
>> Incorrect. Between serious matters I like to read your posts since a spot
>> of humor is always in order. I go right to your posts because they are the
>> funniest.
>
> Once aging Mark shows us he is DTABOR...
>
> He wasn't replying to anything I wrote.....

Incorrect. I was responding to your comment about posting all day
instead of working.

Clearly, I was t*oo* figurative for you, again.

Sarah Vaughan

May 21st 06, 12:28 AM

wrote:
> In misc.kids.breastfeeding Babypar > wrote:
> : Sleeping with your young baby is a contributory factor in SID
> : http://www.baby-parenting.com/baby/cot_death.html
>
> This is absolutely unproven bull****,

That's putting it considerably too strongly. Of the studies that have
actually compared SIDS babies to non-SIDS babies with respect to
co-sleeping, three have now shown a link between co-sleeping and SIDS
(although several others have not). All of these are retrospective
studies, which means that the positive results may have been due to
confounding factors; and it's noticeable that the best-designed study
I've yet seen from the POV of controlling for confounding factors (the
BMJ study from 1999) shows no difference in risk from co-sleeping, which
means it's quite probable that the results of the abovementioned studies
*were* in fact due to confounding factors. (Or, in plain English for
those who don't like statisticalese - there is some evidence for a link
between SIDS and co-sleeping, although it isn't conclusive evidence.)

But I would definitely say that the jury is not yet in on this one.
Unproven, yes - but not bull****.

All the best,

Sarah

--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com

"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell

Jan Drew

May 21st 06, 02:12 AM

"Mark Probert" > wrote in message
...
> Jan Drew wrote:
>> "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> Jan Drew wrote:
>>>> "Mark Probert" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> Linz wrote:
>>>>>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> In misc.kids.breastfeeding Babypar > wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Sleeping with your young baby is a contributory factor in SID
>>>>>>>>> http://www.baby-parenting.com/baby/cot_death.html
>>>>>>>> This is absolutely unproven bull****, and some studies have shown
>>>>>>>> taht co-sleeping prevents SIDS.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Try again,
>>>>>>>> Larry
>>>>>>> It was posted by John, the embarrassed owner of the infamous
>>>>>>> whale.to
>>>>>>> website, Usenet's largest suppository of mis- and dys-information.
>>>>>> No, Larry was responding to Babypar's bull****, not john's.
>>>>> So much bull**** it gets confusing...
>>>> Poor, Mark...
>>>>
>>>> Posting all day instead of working.
>>> Incorrect. Between serious matters I like to read your posts since a
>>> spot of humor is always in order. I go right to your posts because they
>>> are the funniest.
>>
>> Once aging Mark shows us he is DTABOR...
>>
>> He wasn't replying to anything I wrote.....
>
> Incorrect. I was responding to your comment about posting all day instead
> of working.
>
> Clearly, I was t*oo* figurative for you, again.

Clearly you were confused BEFORE.. I posted in this thread.

DTABOR!

Jen

May 21st 06, 09:07 AM

On Sun, 21 May 2006 00:28:53 +0100, Sarah Vaughan wrote:

> wrote:
>> In misc.kids.breastfeeding Babypar > wrote:
>> : Sleeping with your young baby is a contributory factor in SID
>> : http://www.baby-parenting.com/baby/cot_death.html
>>
>> This is absolutely unproven bull****,

>
> But I would definitely say that the jury is not yet in on this one.
> Unproven, yes - but not bull****.

This has just been on the news today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5001694.stm

The SIDS foundation supports this research.

Jeni

Happy Hunter

May 23rd 06, 12:52 PM

"Jen" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Sun, 21 May 2006 00:28:53 +0100, Sarah Vaughan wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>> In misc.kids.breastfeeding Babypar > wrote:
>>> : Sleeping with your young baby is a contributory factor in SID
>>> : http://www.baby-parenting.com/baby/cot_death.html
>>>
>>> This is absolutely unproven bull****,
>
>>
>> But I would definitely say that the jury is not yet in on this one.
>> Unproven, yes - but not bull****.
>
> This has just been on the news today:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5001694.stm
>
> The SIDS foundation supports this research.
>
> Jeni

but those aren't SIDS deaths, they are smothering deaths, and he ESTIMATES
the number of deaths. He's seen 12 cases in 2 years and has then guestimated
a uk wide figure. It's not exactly scientific.

Many many things can kill us, we all have to weigh up the risks and decide
what is reasonable to us and what isn't. If we reacted to everything that
could possibly or remotely kill us, then we'd never leave the house.

May 23rd 06, 04:44 PM

Happy Hunter wrote:
> "Jen" > wrote in message
> . ..
>
>>On Sun, 21 May 2006 00:28:53 +0100, Sarah Vaughan wrote:
>>
>>
wrote:
>>>
>>>>In misc.kids.breastfeeding Babypar > wrote:
>>>>: Sleeping with your young baby is a contributory factor in SID
>>>>: http://www.baby-parenting.com/baby/cot_death.html
>>>>
>>>>This is absolutely unproven bull****,
>>
>>>But I would definitely say that the jury is not yet in on this one.
>>>Unproven, yes - but not bull****.
>>
>>This has just been on the news today:
>>
>>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5001694.stm
>>
>>The SIDS foundation supports this research.
>>
>>Jeni
>
>
> but those aren't SIDS deaths, they are smothering deaths, and he ESTIMATES
> the number of deaths. He's seen 12 cases in 2 years and has then guestimated
> a uk wide figure. It's not exactly scientific.
>
> Many many things can kill us, we all have to weigh up the risks and decide
> what is reasonable to us and what isn't. If we reacted to everything that
> could possibly or remotely kill us, then we'd never leave the house.
>
>
Those are cases where safe co-sleeping was not practiced. In countries
where co-sleeping is the norm, there is no such thing as cot / crib death.

Even Ferber has been saying oops he made a mistake about co-sleeping.

It might not be right for some, but for others it is a perfectly natural
way to raise a child.

I can't understand why those who choose not to, get so upset with those
who do. It can almost be like a form of paranoia. As if saying our
choice was okay made them wrong.

Jo

Welches

May 23rd 06, 05:36 PM

"Jo" > wrote in message
...
>>>
> Those are cases where safe co-sleeping was not practiced. In countries
> where co-sleeping is the norm, there is no such thing as cot / crib death.
>
Not arguing or objecting or anything, but I'd be interested to see the
research for that.
Debbie

May 23rd 06, 06:38 PM

Welches wrote:
> "Jo" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Those are cases where safe co-sleeping was not practiced. In countries
>>where co-sleeping is the norm, there is no such thing as cot / crib death.
>>
>
> Not arguing or objecting or anything, but I'd be interested to see the
> research for that.
> Debbie
>
>
>
Hi Debbie,

There is a ton of information out there.
http://www.asklenore.info/parenting/sleep/cosleeping.html

You can even search medical sites. They will have the actual statistics.
In the cases where their has been a problem, it is because they have
followed unsafe practices such as heavy quilts, pillows, smoking, drugs,
alcohol. etc...

There are also studies that show children who slept with their parents
safely, had regulated body temperatures and more even breathing because
they have mimicked their parents.

Even my pediatrician sleeps with her children, and back in NYC, my pedi
who was from Russia slept with his kids as well. It was just the norm.

Here is a document you might want to read. Keep in mind that SIDS is
different than suffocation or strangulation which has occurred when
parents who were not following safety rules. This would be no different
than putting a baby in a crib with a pillow or quilt.

Ronnie just got up from his nap, off for some play.

Jo

[email protected]

May 24th 06, 02:11 PM

Jo wrote:
> I can't understand why those who choose not to, get so upset with those
> who do. It can almost be like a form of paranoia. As if saying our
> choice was okay made them wrong.

I can't understand those who *persistently* reply to posts about
nursing or sleeping problems saying that co-sleeping will solve all
their problems - as if saying they are causing those problems by not
co-sleeping.Threre also a hint of perfect-baby-and-parent smugness in
some of these posts that I personally find unnecessary.

Personally I have nothing against co-sleeping. My sister did and and
some of my friends do and I have no issue with it whatsoever. I just
don't believe the idea (that has been told here as fact) that mums have
a natural intuition not to roll over and smother her baby in bed. If
there were concrete evidence that this were the case then it might be
different, but until there is, it bothers me that some co-sleeping
advocates insist anyone can 'learn' to do it - and therefore must be
defunct as a mother if they do not wish to learn.

It seems to me current research is at best confusing and incomplete, so
for me the best response is to keep an open mind and read *all* the
research, good or bad.

Jeni

May 24th 06, 03:11 PM

wrote:
> Jo wrote:
>
>>I can't understand why those who choose not to, get so upset with those
>>who do. It can almost be like a form of paranoia. As if saying our
>>choice was okay made them wrong.
>
>
> I can't understand those who *persistently* reply to posts about
> nursing or sleeping problems saying that co-sleeping will solve all
> their problems - as if saying they are causing those problems by not
> co-sleeping.Threre also a hint of perfect-baby-and-parent smugness in
> some of these posts that I personally find unnecessary.
>
> Personally I have nothing against co-sleeping. My sister did and and
> some of my friends do and I have no issue with it whatsoever. I just
> don't believe the idea (that has been told here as fact) that mums have
> a natural intuition not to roll over and smother her baby in bed. If
> there were concrete evidence that this were the case then it might be
> different, but until there is, it bothers me that some co-sleeping
> advocates insist anyone can 'learn' to do it - and therefore must be
> defunct as a mother if they do not wish to learn.
>
> It seems to me current research is at best confusing and incomplete, so
> for me the best response is to keep an open mind and read *all* the
> research, good or bad.
>
> Jeni
>

We have only started sleeping in separate rooms/beds in recent history.
We have thousands of years where this was the way people have slept.
If someone has a history of falling out of bed, then that would concern
me that they would "forget" there was an edge there and then would
forget there was a baby there.

I have nothing against sleeping in separate beds for others either. I
don't think it is right for everyone.

For thousands of year people have kept their babies in bed with them and
in other countries they still do. Without this method, we wouldn't
exist. Children would have been exposed to the elements and died. This
was the only way for people to keep warm and safe. Even in houses in
this century there are many with inadequate heating sources or even
rooms. Not everyone has luxuries, as a once homeless mother two decades
ago with two children, I have a complete understanding of what it is
like to not have anything, and then to have the bare minimum as a single
mother for two decades. We shared a room, a bed everything. I had a
choice of sharing my bed or putting my baby in a cardboard box at the
shelter for abused women.

The research shows where co-sleeping is not good for some and being I
personally don't fall into any of those categories that are of concern,
I feel comfortable in my decision.

I don't drink alcohol, smoke, my weight is not such an issue that it
would cause a problem for my baby, I take all pillows and blankets off
the bed, I sleep with my mattress on the floor with the baby between
myself and the wall.
I do allow the youngest of his two older siblings to sleep with him, but
she is 19 years old and naps with him when she comes home from school on
a visit.

When I go camping, I sleep with my baby. When I go to motels I sleep
with my baby on the floor.

Again, for some this is not an option. I have friends who also have
sleep disorders out of their control and thrash about. This is not an
option for them at all.

When someone gives advice to try it, it is only to give the option. That
is what these groups are here for. So people can try different things.
You have the option to say, no thank you, that will not work for me.

Jo

Welches

May 24th 06, 06:37 PM

"Jo" > wrote in message
...
> Welches wrote:
>> "Jo" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>Those are cases where safe co-sleeping was not practiced. In countries
>>>where co-sleeping is the norm, there is no such thing as cot / crib
>>>death.
>>>
>>
>> Not arguing or objecting or anything, but I'd be interested to see the
>> research for that.
>> Debbie
>>
>>
>>
> Hi Debbie,
>
> There is a ton of information out there.
> http://www.asklenore.info/parenting/sleep/cosleeping.html
>
I've tried that and there isn't the research I'm looking for.
It says that in Japan where co-sleeping in the norm, there is the lowest
incidence of CIDS, not no SIDS at all.
I'm prepared to believe that the incidence is lower. But I would wish to see
research to back up your statement that there is NO cot death for
co-sleepers.. I can't find anything quickly myself, but I assume you must
have seen some, so I'd like to see the actual research.
Thanks:
Debbie

Donna Metler

May 25th 06, 12:40 AM

Let's use a little common sense here. It doesn't matter whether deaths when
a child is in a parent's bed are due to smothering/suffocation or SIDS-the
baby is still dead. You have to weigh the risk factors for you between the
two. In my case, I didn't feel I could co-sleep safely, so I felt having the
baby in a controlled crib was better than having her next to my uncontrolled
(I am very capable of rolling on a cat while asleep and have fallen out of
bed before), requiring having my head elevated in order to sleep at all
body.

--
Donna DeVore Metler
Orff Music Specialist/Kindermusik
Mother to Angel Brian Anthony 1/1/2002, 22 weeks, severe PE/HELLP
And Allison Joy, 11/25/04 (35 weeks, PIH, Pre-term labor)

[email protected]

May 25th 06, 08:51 AM

Jo wrote:

<snip> I don't disagree with anything you said here but this I do:

> When someone gives advice to try it, it is only to give the option. That
> is what these groups are here for. So people can try different things.
> You have the option to say, no thank you, that will not work for me.

If this were the way it were always presented then fine, but if you
want I can point you to various posts where it has been *insisted* that
co-sleeping is the best way to solve nursing and sleep problems and
that any mother can learn to do it. People have replied to the contrary
but a few posts later the same missive is repeated ad nauseum.

Jeni

CWatters

May 25th 06, 09:58 AM

"Donna Metler" > wrote in message
. ..
> Let's use a little common sense here. It doesn't matter whether deaths
when
> a child is in a parent's bed are due to smothering/suffocation or SIDS-the
> baby is still dead.

Exactly.

This from the NHS in the UK

http://www.nhsdirect.nhs.uk/articles/article.aspx?articleId=814

Selected quote:

It’s safest to sleep your baby in a cot in your bedroom for the first six
months.
The risk of cot death increases if you share a bed with your baby when you
or other bed sharers:
• are smokers (no matter where or when you smoke),
• have been drinking alcohol,
• take medication or drugs that make you drowsy, or
• feel very tired.
A recent study also identified that the risk of cot death to very young
babies (under 8 weeks old) is doubled if they share their parents’ bed, even
when the parents are non-smokers. Sleeping together on a sofa, armchair or
settee is not recommended, because the baby could get trapped.

May 25th 06, 11:55 AM

wrote:
> Jo wrote:
>
> <snip> I don't disagree with anything you said here but this I do:
>
>
>>When someone gives advice to try it, it is only to give the option. That
>>is what these groups are here for. So people can try different things.
>>You have the option to say, no thank you, that will not work for me.
>
>
> If this were the way it were always presented then fine, but if you
> want I can point you to various posts where it has been *insisted* that
> co-sleeping is the best way to solve nursing and sleep problems and
> that any mother can learn to do it. People have replied to the contrary
> but a few posts later the same missive is repeated ad nauseum.
>
> Jeni
>

That isn't right either. My first pedi was like that about formula. Just
pushed it constantly said it was the only way to fix Jaundice. Sometimes
people get blindsided and think there is only one way to do things. I
left that pedi, just as when someone has a different parenting style
than mine, I listen, say thank you and then go find something that is
more appropriate towards how I am raising Ronnie.

Jo

Jamie Clark

May 25th 06, 06:00 PM

wrote:
> Jo wrote:
>
> <snip> I don't disagree with anything you said here but this I do:
>
>> When someone gives advice to try it, it is only to give the option.
>> That is what these groups are here for. So people can try different
>> things. You have the option to say, no thank you, that will not work
>> for me.
>
> If this were the way it were always presented then fine, but if you
> want I can point you to various posts where it has been *insisted*
> that co-sleeping is the best way to solve nursing and sleep problems
> and that any mother can learn to do it. People have replied to the
> contrary but a few posts later the same missive is repeated ad
> nauseum.
>
> Jeni

And you are still able to say, "Thanks for the advice." and then do whatever
you want.

I can INSIST that the sky is red, but that doesn't mean that it is.
--

Jamie
Earth Angels:
Taylor Marlys, 1/3/03
Addison Grace, 9/30/04

Check out the family! -- www.MyFamily.com, User ID: Clarkguest1,
Password: Guest Become a member for free - go to Add Member to set up
your own User ID and Password

Sarah Vaughan

May 26th 06, 12:20 AM

Michelle J. Haines wrote:

>> The risk of cot death increases if you share a bed with your baby when
>> you
>> or other bed sharers:
>> • are smokers (no matter where or when you smoke),
>> • have been drinking alcohol,
>> • take medication or drugs that make you drowsy, or
>> • feel very tired.
>> A recent study also identified that the risk of cot death to very young
>> babies (under 8 weeks old) is doubled if they share their parents’
>> bed, even
>> when the parents are non-smokers. Sleeping together on a sofa,
>> armchair or
>> settee is not recommended, because the baby could get trapped.
>
> I'm so, so tired of this. (not from you, in general) Smoking is a
> contributory factor to SIDS. But rolling on the baby is not SIDS, it's
> smothering. The baby getting trapped isn't SIDS, it's entrapment. They
> don't label deaths caused by cribs themselves because of poor design or
> a mattress that doesn't fit properly SIDS, and they shouldn't. So they
> should stop calling deaths that are smothering or entrapment in an adult
> bed SIDS, too.

This wasn't calling it SIDS. It said that sleeping on a
sofa/armchair/settee wasn't recommended because the baby could get
trapped, not because of the SIDS risk.

All the best,

Sarah
--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com

"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell

Michelle J. Haines

May 26th 06, 04:22 AM

Sarah Vaughan wrote:
>
> This wasn't calling it SIDS. It said that sleeping on a
> sofa/armchair/settee wasn't recommended because the baby could get
> trapped, not because of the SIDS risk.

She said "cot death" twice and listed three causes of smothering as
risks for "cot death".

Michelle
Flutist

Chookie

May 29th 06, 09:24 AM

In article >,
Jo > wrote:

> In countries
> where co-sleeping is the norm, there is no such thing as cot / crib death.

I challenge you to prove that!

Firstly, according to the Summary Report from "Sudden Unexpected Deaths in
Infancy: the New South Wales Experience", there is currently (2002) no
universally agreed definition for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

The following is a quotation from the summary report:

The study found that the proportion of incidents of SUDI in New South Wales
classified as SIDS is lower than reported in the literature. Two recent
studies showed that non-SIDS deaths comprised about 20 per cent to 32 per cent
of all SUDI. This compares with 59.1 per cent in New South Wales. One
pathologist described the considerations in making diagnoses.

ŒThe chances are very strong that unless there has been a specific suggestion
that there was documented smothering, accidental or otherwise, I would give
the cause of death as sudden infant death syndrome. I¹m pro-SIDS. It¹s a good
thing because it doesn¹t apportion blame, there is no evidence really, have
you any evidence that lying in the bed with that child on that occasion caused
the death. You know, it just makes it a better diagnosis for that family. The
kid¹s not coming back no matter what. So you know in a situation like that
where ³undetermined² has bad consequences, take your pick on cause of death
has bad consequences, I believe that SIDS is the right diagnosis ...
Other people will at the slightest suggestion that something having happened,
possibly, maybe in the bed, attribute it to that. And then you¹ve got the
fence sitters ...' (forensic pathologist).

This comment gives you a bad feeling about *all* the studies on causes of
SIDS, doesn't it? Back to my original point: your assertion that co-sleeping
cultures don't have SIDS looks unprovable -- but frankly, it's unbelieveable
too. Who studied every single cosleeping culture and found no SIDS?

--
Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
(Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)

"Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You may
start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
Kerry Cue

Engram

May 29th 06, 09:59 AM

Countries where co-sleeping is the norm have a lower rate of SIDS (not
non-existent, but lower) also have different sleeping practices that the
USA/Australia as well as different definitions of SIDS.

For example, in Japan SIDS was rarely reported. Partly due to the fact that
they tend to sleep on their backs, on firmer beds with not much blanketing
or covers. Additionally, their definition of SIDS was different that in the
USA/Australia and the fact that their doctors thought that SIDS was not all
that prevalent resulted in lower rate of SIDS being diagnosed. When these
doctors were better educated about SIDS the reported rate of SIDS rose
sharply.

http://sids-network.org/experts/bedshare.htm

Even Dr McKenna, the "guru" of co-sleeping research does not say that SIDS
is zero in cultures where co-sleeping is practiced. The statement that the
rate is zero is just not accurate in the smallest degree. In fact, experts
say that American parents need to learn how to sleep with their children -
on firm mattresses, on their backs, with only light coverings, no heavy
blankets or doonas, careful with the pillows, etc.

"Chookie" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Jo > wrote:
>
>> In countries
>> where co-sleeping is the norm, there is no such thing as cot / crib
>> death.
>
> I challenge you to prove that!
>
> Firstly, according to the Summary Report from "Sudden Unexpected Deaths in
> Infancy: the New South Wales Experience", there is currently (2002) no
> universally agreed definition for sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).
>
> The following is a quotation from the summary report:
>
> The study found that the proportion of incidents of SUDI in New South
> Wales
> classified as SIDS is lower than reported in the literature. Two recent
> studies showed that non-SIDS deaths comprised about 20 per cent to 32 per
> cent
> of all SUDI. This compares with 59.1 per cent in New South Wales. One
> pathologist described the considerations in making diagnoses.
>
> OThe chances are very strong that unless there has been a specific
> suggestion
> that there was documented smothering, accidental or otherwise, I would
> give
> the cause of death as sudden infant death syndrome. I¹m pro-SIDS. It¹s a
> good
> thing because it doesn¹t apportion blame, there is no evidence really,
> have
> you any evidence that lying in the bed with that child on that occasion
> caused
> the death. You know, it just makes it a better diagnosis for that family.
> The
> kid¹s not coming back no matter what. So you know in a situation like that
> where ³undetermined² has bad consequences, take your pick on cause of
> death
> has bad consequences, I believe that SIDS is the right diagnosis ...
> Other people will at the slightest suggestion that something having
> happened,
> possibly, maybe in the bed, attribute it to that. And then you¹ve got the
> fence sitters ...' (forensic pathologist).
>
> This comment gives you a bad feeling about *all* the studies on causes of
> SIDS, doesn't it? Back to my original point: your assertion that
> co-sleeping
> cultures don't have SIDS looks unprovable -- but frankly, it's
> unbelieveable
> too. Who studied every single cosleeping culture and found no SIDS?
>
> --
> Chookie -- Sydney, Australia
> (Replace "foulspambegone" with "optushome" to reply)
>
> "Parenthood is like the modern stone washing process for denim jeans. You
> may
> start out crisp, neat and tough, but you end up pale, limp and wrinkled."
> Kerry Cue