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.