Milwulkees awful anti cosleeping ad - Page 4

[Mulvah]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 

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]

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]

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

[Storm Bride]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Turquesa 

Quote:

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.

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]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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..