or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › A friendly debate?????
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

A friendly debate????? - Page 5

Poll Results: Do you allow your children to CIO?

 
  • 0% (0)
    Yes, on a regular basis
  • 11% (33)
    Sometimes, usually for sleeping purposes
  • 88% (264)
    No, never
297 Total Votes  
post #81 of 149

some quotes

I wish Dr. Sears was here to give his 2 cents on this very matter, so I thought I would try to bring him to us through words form some of his books/site....
don't know if this will help anything....


From Dr. Sears:

a tired couples journey of a consistant night waker:
........tired parents let little one resettle himself before responding immediatley-but put no time limit on how long to let him cry and set no rigid rules on "not giving in." If the cries hit the red alert button they responded. Every night they waited a bit longer and when they did comfort their little one they gave "it's ok message." They also increased their daytime attachment to little one. And they used their baby as their barometer to the method they used, pulling back their nightitme weaning anytime he became more distant or showed daytime upset.

Sleep problems in babies-and adults- have reached epidemic proportions. There are now sleep-disorder centers in nearly every major city, yet the same forced-sleep techniques continue.

"nighttime responsiveness sends your child the message "We care about you at night, just as we care about you during the day.

"up to age three or so, crying once or twice at night is not uncommon. Everyone wakes during the night-when a child wakes and cries it may mean he is experiencing seperation anxiety."

AP is a starter style. There may be medical or family circumstances why you are unable to practice all of these baby B's. Attachment parenting implies first opening your mind and heart to the individual needs of your baby, and eventually you will develop the wisdom on how to make on-the-spot decisions on what works best for both you and your baby. Do the best you can with the resources you have – that's all your child will ever expect of you. These baby B's help parents and baby get off to the right start. Use these as starter tips to work out your own parenting style – one that fits the individual needs of your child and your family. Attachment parenting helps you develop your own personal parenting style.

AP is an approach, rather than a strict set of rules. It's actually the style that many parents use instinctively. Parenting is too individual and baby too complex for there to be only one way. The important point is to get connected to your baby, and the baby B's of attachment parenting help. Once connected, stick with what is working and modify what is not. You will ultimately develop your own parenting style that helps parent and baby find a way to fit – the little word that so economically describes the relationship between parent and baby.

co-sleeping issue
The physiological effects of sleep-sharing are finally being studied in sleep laboratories that are set up to mimic, as much as possible, the home bedroom. Over the past few years, nearly a million dollars of government research money has been devoted to sleep-sharing research. These studies have all been done on mothers and infants ranging from two to five months in age. Here are the preliminary findings based on mother-infant pairs studied in the sleep-sharing arrangement versus the solitary-sleeping arrangement (Elias 1986, McKenna 1993, Fleming 1994; Mosko 1994):

1. Sleep-sharing pairs showed more synchronous arousals than when sleeping separately. When one member of the pair stirred, coughed, or changed sleeping stages, the other member also changed, often without awakening.

2. Each member of the pair tended to often, but not always, be in the same stage of sleep for longer periods if they slept together.

3. Sleep-sharing babies spent less time in each cycle of deep sleep. Lest mothers worry they will get less deep sleep; preliminary studies showed that sleep-sharing mothers didn't get less total deep sleep.

4. Sleep-sharing infants aroused more often and spent more time breastfeeding than solitary sleepers, yet the sleep-sharing mothers did not report awakening more frequently.

5. Sleep-sharing infants tended to sleep more often on their backs or sides and less often on their tummies, a factor that could itself lower the SIDS risk.

6. A lot of mutual touch and interaction occurs between the sleep-sharers. What one does affects the nighttime behavior of the other.
post #82 of 149
apmamma, thank you! May I ask which book/edition you are using?

I'm not sure how much we are allowed to post due to copyright laws. I'll summarize my edition of The Baby Book, which says:

The two most important aspects of nighttime attachment parenting are 1) organizing and mellowing your baby during the day and 2) sleeping close to your baby at night.

He goes on to describe ways to get the baby to sleep, with sections titled :calming down, wearing down, nursing down, fathering down, nestling down, rocking down, and a bed on wheels (driving to sleep).

He then goes on to describe CIO in much the way he seems to advocate it above. He gives a laundry list of reasons why even mild CIO hurts attachment, and reasons to avoid it.

One quote: "Even an occasional incorrect response (for example, offering to feed a baby who only wants to be held) is better than no response, because it encourages your baby to keep working with you".

He also says "The style of parenting called "self soothing" which is creeping into the "Lets have babies conveniently mindset, emphasizes teaching babies techniques of how to soothe themselves--by leaving them alone or setting them up to devise their own methods--rather than allowing babies to rely on mother or father."

There was actually another thread about the problem of Dr. Sears contradicting his own definition of attachment parenting in various articles and publications.

The example by Sears at the top of your article doesn't sound attachment based at all. Letting a baby go without response until their cries "hit the red alert button" is something Sears specifically stresses to avoid in my publications, for the obvious reason that it encourages babies to associate "getting a response" with "hysterical screaming", short circuiting their need to develop other, calmer ways of signalling for attention.

Maybe his popularity has caused him to play around with his idea of ap, making it more amenable to the mainstream? At any rate, Ferber could have given that description of the parents withholding a response to sleep train their baby, and that is really sad coming from Sears.
post #83 of 149

Re: some quotes

[QUOTE]Originally posted by apmamma co-sleeping issue

3. Sleep-sharing babies spent less time in each cycle of deep sleep. Lest mothers worry they will get less deep sleep; preliminary studies showed that sleep-sharing mothers didn't get less total deep sleep.


4. Sleep-sharing infants aroused more often and spent more time breastfeeding than solitary sleepers, yet the sleep-sharing mothers did not report awakening more frequently.

Even the studies quoted by Dr. Sear's show that babies aroused more and slept less deeply when co-sleeping. (While showing that this did not make their mothers sleep less or less deeply)

I saw even more dramatic evidence in the studies that I read that babies did not sleep as well when they co-slept and also had more trouble falling asleep. I was never very concerned about my own sleep, just that of my babies.

This does not mean that I think that co-sleeping is wrong or bad. But for me it was a side of the scale that I had to weigh. I balanced things differently than other parents. But please at least acknowledge that these issues are out there.
post #84 of 149
alexa--some of the research suggests the sleeping pattern described in apmammas post is actually better for babies than deep uninterrupted sleep, and may reduce the chance of SIDS.

There are other research articles which suggest that babies are hard wired to sleep near other humans, helping them regulate their sleep cycles, attune to the breathing patterns of the nearby sleeping adult, and wake (or partially awake) more due to the movements and changes in breathing patterns around theml. It is thought that undisturbed, "sensory deprived" sleep allows babies to slip into an unnaturally deep, stimulant free sleep that may increase their chances of SIDS, simply due to immature breathing/sleep pattern that are not designed for such an experience.

Apparently much of this research comes from studies on co sleeping cultures with much lower incidence of SIDS compared to cultures in which babies are more likely to sleep alone.
post #85 of 149
alexa I want to agree with you that there is another side to this issue which does discourage parents from co sleeping.

I mentioned in another post a very well publicized study last year, I think by the CDC, which announced co sleeping increased the chance of infant death by a shockingly high percentage. Later, reviews of the study found serious flaws, which rendered it nil in scientific circles (Second hand accounts were accepted as case studies. No attempt was made to distinguish whether the baby died on a sleeping or non sleeping surface, whether the adult even knew the baby was present in the bed, whether the adult was taking drugs or alchohol, whether the person who overlayed the baby was the parent, a sibling, or non related adult etc.). But the damage was definitely done and many parents heard the awful pronouncement about the "dangers of the family bed" before anyone stopped to see what the researchers actually recorded.

Then a few months ago Dr. Sears had his name on an article in (I think) BabyTalk magazine, about the family bed. The very first statement in the article began with something like "The safest place for baby to sleep is in a crib." Ap parents were outraged and demanded to know why he of all people would publish a statment like that. The next issue published an apology from him. Apparently he didn't proofread his own article, and someone "slipped that in". But who reads the editors column? The damage was done.

It's a wonder anyone co sleeps in this country.
post #86 of 149

Re: Re: some quotes

Quote:
Even the studies quoted by Dr. Sear's show that babies aroused more and slept less deeply when co-sleeping.
True. However, the scientists who performed these studies (and others) believe that frequent arousal and light sleep is normal and, importantly, healthy for babies. In fact, there is a credible hypothesis linking deep sleep and insufficient arousal to Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Given the complex neurological mechanisms underlying something so apparently benign as sleep (which involves voluntary paralysis, cycling through various states of sub-conciousness, monitoring of the external environment, etc.), not to mention breathing (which requires the brain to detect rising levels of blood carbon dioxide concentration and trigger the diaphragm to contract), and the neurologically immature state of the human infant (relative to both human adults and other primate infants), I feel this hypothesis is definitely worth considering.

It is, in fact, why the thought of my baby sleeping alone in a crib scares me (...but then maybe I'm just a wimp ).

Quote:
I saw even more dramatic evidence in the studies that I read that babies did not sleep as well when they co-slept and also had more trouble falling asleep.
How did the researchers define "slept well"? I don't think it is appropriate to apply adult sleep patterns and cycling behaviour to infants, whose brains are as yet not fully developed. I was also wondering if you had the reference info for these studies (names of authors?). I ask this because when I was doing my own literature searches on the subject I had a hard time finding any other than Jim McKenna's work and I have a collection of references for my own personal database (yup, I'm a nerd!).

I just LOVE a good scientific debate! (where's the geek smiley?) :LOL)
post #87 of 149
Wow, this is quite the thread. Honestly, I do not even have time to read the whole thing, let alone debate the issue (I can't believe we are debating CIO at MDC!!!), but I just wanted to throw out one comment.

This is NATURAL family living. Picture yourself living as close to and as in sync with nature as possible. Picture Eve in the garden or Native Americans or even cave people- whoever you want that brings up that mental picture of harmony and natural living.

Are they building separate boxes to put their babies into to scream at night? I don't think so. I think they are sleeping on their sides with their babies latched on, or very close to it.

I think bad things happen when you go against nature, like SIDS (aka CRIB death). If a baby has a certain amount of deep sleep when sleeping with his mother, than a baby is MEANT to have that exact ammount of deep sleep. It is NOT too little. The crib babies are getting too MUCH, not the other way around. (Reminds me of BF vs FF. Breastmilk may have less iron, but is the exact right ammount and nature's perfect balance. More does not necessairly mean better!)

I do not believe God/nature made babies to cry for no reason. If they are crying at night because they are alone and scared, then that is obviously happening for a reason. If they were meant to sleep alone, they would be okay with it and would not need to CIO. If we were meant to force them to sleep alone even though they hate it, I don't think they would have the ability to cry (and alert every predator that they were alone and in need).

I know we are no longer primative, but obviously babies needs have not changed. (Continuum Concept is a great book on this, but I think common sence comes into play here as well.) Basic needs such as food, comfort, love, etc. do not go away because we are in a high-tech culture.

I think we need to remember what is and is not natural.
This is so basic and simple. Of course it is more natural for a momma and babe to sleep together!
post #88 of 149
Quote:
Originally posted by heartmama
apmamma, thank you! May I ask which book/edition you are using?
The example by Sears at the top of your article doesn't sound attachment based at all. Letting a baby go without response until their cries "hit the red alert button" is something Sears specifically stresses to avoid in my publications, for the obvious reason that it encourages babies to associate "getting a response" with "hysterical screaming", short circuiting their need to develop other, calmer ways of signalling for attention.

I got all of this info from The Baby book(the top article)
The Disicpline book
and from his site directly.

In all his books it says "may quote brief passages in review of book"...we are reviewing these subjects in his book

The top article in the baby book is discussing using baby as a barometer, and with an older baby (18 months) and a mother and father in a sleep deprived situation.
If Dr. Sears were discussing this technique with a baby under 12 months I would most definatley agree with you.

He says:
They also increased their daytime attachment to little one. And they used their baby as their barometer to the method they used, pulling back their nightitme weaning anytime he became more distant or showed daytime upset

Which to me clearly indicates AP parents by reading their little ones cues but still trying to maintain a balance in their family.

Balance and boundraries are a huge part of AP as well as having a happy well rested mother, that said AP still does not support CIO put them in close the door and let them cry or CIO with responsiveness to a "clock" or to the methods of any sleep baby training.

post #89 of 149
This is my first post here, so....

We never let dd (2) cry it out. She was born with bilateral clubfeet and had to endure four weeks of casting (painful) starting when she was 2 weeks old and we had enough crying from her then to last us the rest of her life. It was heartbreaking, but in the end her feet are perfect! DH and I decided then never to let her cry, we worried enough what that traumatic treatment would do to her at such a young age (We chose a non-surgical treatment for her and traveled to Iowa, living in a Ronald McDonald House for a month to have her feet corrected by the leader in the field). It was awesome, when someone would say something to dh about her sleeping in our room (we can't co-sleep because of the brace she still wears, but she slept in a co-sleeper and now is in a crib still in our room), he would say something like, You go through what we did and then try to tell us to let her cry. Luckily, my mom is totally supportive of all we do. Anyhow, that is why we don't let her cry...

Megan
with Olivia (5/1/01)
and ???? (EDD 7/20/03)
post #90 of 149
T I just wanted to say that I've really enjoyed this thread! It has been very informative & whether a person is for or against some form of CIO, it gives us all more information -- which I think is a VERY important thing to do.

Thanks!!
post #91 of 149
I have stated why CIO was right for my children in many threads. Thus I believe what I have done is very AP, in other words doing what best met MY children's needs. I do not believe anyone who does not believe in CIO should ever engage in this practice.

I, however, do object to the idea that you shouldn't even discuss the issue on an AP board. Refusing to debate a subject is never good.
post #92 of 149
First off, I don't think anyone should be allowed to outright condemn CIO unless their child has slept like mine. That said, I have one of the worst-sleeping babies the world has ever known, and while we resorted to nightweaning (which entailed letting him cry for up to 15 minutes at a time but in our arms with our soothing words and love) we have not done what I would consider CIO. I have never abandoned him to cry alone (well, like many other posters here, I have 'let' my child cry in the car). I'm proud of the fact that we haven't done CIO, but I have been sorely tempted. I can understand why some folks would resort to it out of desperation.

It's harder for me to accept its use as sleep training in a baby's early weeks or months. I don't buy the argument that it's easier on the baby at that age - I think perhaps it's easier on the parent because an older child will struggle more against giving up something beloved (nighttime attention).

And, Irishmommy said:
Quote:
I also "sleep trained" both my dds to sleep through the night at 6 weeks. I've had this discussion here about it before, and I'm not getting into it again.
Then why'd you bring it up? Since you did, would you elaborate what your "sleep training" entailed?
post #93 of 149
tara, my ds did sleep much the way you describe your ds. He had several major surgeries as a baby. He was coping with a lot of trauma, grief, and fear. The prolonged period under sedation, IMO, put some kind of "glitch" in his wake/REM cycle. He truly seemed incapable of "finding his way to sleep", if that makes sense. It took constant external stimulation to get him to sleep and keep him there (driving, rocking, singing, patting). He woke up screaming all night long(and was right next to me--he would start the screaming while still asleep!). On top of that, because all of his surgeries were heart related, he had poor circulation, and any crying turned him a ghastly blue and grey color. We knew of two heart babies who died after hysterical crying turned them "blue", went unconscious and could not be revived. It was a horrible, awful fear, and it hung over us every time he so much as whimpered. I think he did need to feel safe crying in my arms--he had a lot to cry about. But we were always frantically stopping him. I don't think any of us slept for two years.

alexa, I don't want to see any topic banned. I do believe strongly in what Mothering represents, and the support it gives to parents. I wonder if it really is helpful, considering the wealth of support out there for mainstream parenting, to actually "debate" an issue like CIO, or spanking, or parent directed feeding. I think it tends to divide this community, casting doubts rather than offering support on fundamental aspects of ap.

apmamma thank you I'll go re check. I still think his example contradicts his basic tenants. It is subjective to believe babies need a response at 2 months and not at 14 months to cries. As I said before, Sears often can frustrate with his own contradictions. His description is much more like CIO than it isn't. The parents are waiting for the baby to "cry it out and sleep". I assume he is hoping parents will do this version of CIO rather than give up completely on any response if they are sleep deprived. But it does not sound like an attachment based method of sleep, with the forced separation, and intentional delay of response to cries. I think other ap authors would disagree with his example as supportive of attachment. I do think it is better than the alternative of full blown CIO, of course. Maybe that is what Sears thought too. He also wrote a section on how to spank "correctly" if parents choose to do that. Sometimes I think he tries to be all things to all people, at times to the point of blatant contradictions to attachment based solutions.
post #94 of 149
I think part of what Sears does is to try to make sure he is not preaching exclusively to the choir. If there are people who are predisposed for cultural other reasons to spanking or CIO, I think it's better that they be drawn in and at least mitigate the ill effects, than to take one look and put the book down in favor of "Babywise" or some other decidedly NON AP book. And I do know some people who started out decidedly non-AP, read "The Baby Book", and changed their minds. From my perspective, that is one of the most valuable functions a book can serve -- the ones who know they want to be AP can find that info any number of places.
post #95 of 149
I don't think we are truly "debating" CIO in this thread. I don't see anybody saying "y'all should do CIO". What I see is a group of women respectfully discussing what THEY do and why they do it, reminding us that there are spectrums of . And that they respect the AP nature of this board.

It was public knowledge here that I had a scheduled cesarian birth, loved it, and would do it again in a heartbeat. I think that's pretty much the antithesis of an AP birth. However, I have always felt welcomed and accepted and loved here at MDC. I think homebirths are awesome, medical interventions too frequent and too often unnecessary, and would give my 100% support to any friend of mine who wanted a natural birth. But for reasons that are too long to get into (again) it just wasn't for me.

That's why I don't like to see any hints or suggestions that ANY mama here at MDC is "not AP enough" to be here, or that a subject is not worth debating here. I would venture to say that our discussion of CIO would not be found on a mainstream board.

If anything, threads like this (when conducted in a civil manner) help me to become less judgemental, something I hope we are all striving to do on a daily basis.
post #96 of 149
I am very happy for this discussion. I can't discuss our sleep issues on the other board I partipate in because after all my advocating for cosleeping and against CIO I would be both discredited and ridiculed. I often read the nightwaking board on here for ideas, but nothing was working and I felt ashamed to let her cry at all. I also often feel like I shouldn't mind that she wakes often and that because I do I am not deserving to be a mother. It helps to know that I am not the only one who is against CIO but have had nothing else work and can no longer handle the constant nightwaking. I don't seee anyone advocating for CIO, as I think of it, but instead acknowledging that there is a middle ground.
post #97 of 149
OT WARNING:
Perfectmama wrote
Quote:
This is NATURAL family living. Picture yourself living as close to and as in sync with nature as possible. Picture Eve in the garden or Native Americans or even cave people- whoever you want that brings up that mental picture of harmony and natural living.
hmmm. I never connect AP with natural family living. Driving, flying etc are all "against nature" and we still do them, we are still living. Bad things happen. We have the wonderful ability to grow and work both in harmony with machines and medicine and with nature.

I also have to laugh whenever someone calls a crib a "prison" or "box". I call it a "bed", because that's what it is, a bed! A prison is a place to lock someone up. Now if I used the crib that way, yes, it would be a prison, but I don't! Perceptions are the key.

NOw, I must go an awake my little Goo as she is still conked out from her morning nap (after 3 hours)

post #98 of 149
I was sooo hoping not to get sucked into this thread but I am and here I sit when I should be napping with ds....

so Heartmamma
Looked into the disicipline book and you are right Sears does give a *safe* way to spankBUT on the bottom of the page is a footnote that says they are firmly against spanking. OTOH I do understand what you are saying about Sears and you are right it is frustrating.
Thank you for enlighting me....

I also agree with Sears terms of using AP tools to help you on your parenting jpurney and to not use them all makes you no less "AP" or using them all makes you more"AP." BUT in these listing of tools there is no where stated a tool for CIO-gently or not- and no tool for spanking....so if you want to go by Sears cio and spanking are not in the AP package.

But two things I have discussed time and time again is that most mothers who decide to follow their hearts and instincts as a human being, have firmly agreed that CIO and spanking are not included in the "AP" package wether you crib sleep and breastfeed, or bottle feed and co-sleep.....kwim? These are irl mothers.

Every family has to do what is right for theirs and mothers need to follow their hearts. Ideally in the AP life we all need to embrace the ideas of the "tools' we are given and use them to our families benefit.

If you stray off the path of AP, then you and only you, have the repercussions of your actions to deal with.

If you come here(to this AP forum) and post that CIO works for you and you embrace it, of course there will be a debate and you as the poster need to be prepared for the replys that will follow from your post. People here have an opinion on this subject, for good reason, just some can say it more eloquently than others and due to the anonymity of the web some can be more harsh than maybe they should be or pass judgement without understanding the whole story.

Don't know why I typed all this, but I have to get it out and get some sleep.....taking off my activist cap for now and going back to what I like best my mamma hat....
good day all....
post #99 of 149
I do not consider what I did not attachment parenting, nor Tenne for that matter. I am attached to my child because I birthed her gently, co-slept from the start, breastfed, responded sensitively to her cries, and wore her. In the beginning wants and needs are one and the same. At some point though, they differentiate and the child becomes more able to wait for a response. I think sometimes their cries for attention may be a habit. Like in Sears' example of an adult waking at 2:00 and receiving a burger every time. If burgers are your thing, you'd keep waking up at 2:00 am. With an older baby, if nightwaking is a habit, the fussing for attention may be a want rather than a need. In my case, as the parent, I felt that dd's need for a sane, patient mother who was not going to get so angry and resentful as to want to haul off and whack her one seriously outweighed her need to have me stay with her in the bed all night long after I'd been with her all day long (or at work for 8 hours while she was with my sister). Her need to have another primary careprovider who was attached to her and a family member rather than going to a daycare setting also outweighed her need to call me back every few minutes to every hour until I went to bed.

I really feel for Tenne and parents like her who feel they cannot do some form of CIO (it really isn't CIO, but it's hard to talk about this without calling it that) if they are to be attached parents. I don't think it is the same as saying you discipline gently with spanking. Although, I do think a parent can say they discipline gently even if they screw up and lose it sometimes. We are all only human after all, and often have childhoods to get past. Just like a vegetarian who eats chicken or fish or whatever once or twice a year can still say s/he is a vegetarian, but I digress.

I disagree that crying and fussing both need to be responded to the same, or that fussing should be responded to so it does escalate into crying. It's true for my tiny baby, but it was definitely not the same with my then 12 month old spirited babe. Her fussing was soooo different from her crying even someone who didn't know her would have been able to tell the difference. I also found that if I responded to her often she would escalate whereas if I didn't she would calm down. She's always been like that. I've found that I have to be very controlled in my responses to her so she won't overreact and become needlessly hysterical. She uses me as a barometer and has difficulty tempering her responses, so I help her with that. I know this because we are attached and I have figured it out thru trial and error.
post #100 of 149
.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › A friendly debate?????