ARGGH!! New AAP recommendation against co-sleeping - Page 3 - Mothering Forums
1  2  3 4 
Co-sleeping and the Family Bed > ARGGH!! New AAP recommendation against co-sleeping
knittingmomma's Avatar knittingmomma 10:28 AM 10-11-2005
Wow, this is ridiculous... are they going to be telling us how to pee next!!!

Please keep us informed if there is going to be a formal campaign against the AAP.

You know the said part is that a part of me is actually a bit nervous and scared that I will be accused of being a poor parent or something and makes me watch my every move and make sure that we don't stand out - which is hard to do when you have five children.

Warm wishes,
Tonya

njeb's Avatar njeb 04:44 PM 10-11-2005
I dare not say what I think of the AAP's new recommendations because I would end up using language that violates the user agreement!

Please let me know if there is any organized opposition to these idiotic recommendations. If enough of us protest, maybe they will rethink their stance.
miasmommy's Avatar miasmommy 05:04 PM 10-11-2005
Ugh!

Of course my mother had to call me to tell me. :

miasmommy
DD is 19 mos.!
MamaBear+3 cubs's Avatar MamaBear+3 cubs 05:35 PM 10-11-2005
I too was floored by the news. I have three children and the only child we co-slept with (and still co-sleep with even though she is almost 4) is our third and youngest child. I wish I had co-slept with my first two. The entire family got more sleep, better sleep and it made night nursing a piece of cake. Whenever my pediatrician would ask about how the baby was sleeping, I would always reply "Just fine, thank you." Fortunately, my pediatrician is also a mother and quite wonderful. She has the philosophy of whatever works best for the family, so she never made me feel badly about sleeping or eating arrangements.

I'm curious about why the rest of the world (who co-sleeps and practices extended breastfeeding) doesn't seem to have the sleep/feeding issues that we in the United States have. It would seem to me that God created us the way He did for a purpose. Why would he have a mother carry a child in her womb for 40 weeks only to have her put that helpless babe in a crib the moment it is born, where it has no human contact/support/love? Why does research show that preemies thrive on human contact? Don't you think all babies (premature or full term) thrive on that same human contact? After my youngest was born via C-section, I was lucky enough to have a private hospital room. I can promise you that she spent very little time in her bassinet. Everytime the nurse came in, I was holding her. She spent the night sleeping on my chest. Even though the nurse told me I was not allowed to sleep with her in the hospital, I would just smile and keep my hospital door closed throughout the day and night.
I could continue to ramble on and on, but I won't. DH and I are ttc#4 and I promise you that if we are blessed with a fourth baby we will co-sleep and nurse. Heck with what the AAP says. As a mother, I know what is best for my babies.

Kerri
dnr3301's Avatar dnr3301 05:38 PM 10-11-2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by miasmommy
Ugh!

Of course my mother had to call me to tell me. :

miasmommy
DD is 19 mos.!

I've had one friend (for whom I am one of the few AP friendly people in her life) call and her sister had called her and said, all sing-songy, "I told you you weren't supposed to be sleeping with them!" You know what I told her to say? "Yeah, well you didn't listen to the AAP when they told you circing was stupid and unnecessary, why do you care what they say now?" Seriously, I knew that would happen.

I'm glad to see that Sears and McKenna stepped up and said something. I looked yesterday for a statement from McKenna, but didn't find one. I saw him speak once, he's great.
Quirky's Avatar Quirky 05:57 PM 10-11-2005
As far as I can tell, the Sears statement is old - not responsive to the new AAP statement but to the JPMA study that the national consumer safety board was flogging.
Christeeny's Avatar Christeeny 08:32 PM 10-11-2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by ikeessyou

Dr. McKenna has also weighed in on this as well:

``I'm very disappointed,'' said James McKenna, director of the mother-baby behavioral sleep laboratory at the University of Notre Dame in Indiana. ``I really fear this is just another step of inappropriately medicalizing decisions that are best made within the home.''

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercu...s/12864279.htm
Amen! That is worth repeating.
AmyY's Avatar AmyY 11:33 PM 10-11-2005
I have to confess that at first I ignored this news item, quite frankly, simply because it came from the AAP. Then my LLL newsgroup sent out a letter including several articles detailing the recommendations and their reasons and who made the recommendations and who funded them. I was, if possible, even more horrified than I expected to be.

According to the info I received, LLL is reviewing the information from the AAP carefully before making a formal statement in response. Two major concerns for LLL are that Ross (one of the major formula manufacturers) was a major funder of the study; and that (therefore) the information about breastfeeding is suspect.

It's really mind-numbing to try to get your brain around the notion that you should not breastfeed your child to sleep but you SHOULD put the child down alone with a pacifier. It's really beyond warped.

Looking forward to the LLL statement in response. Has anyone heard anything from Dr. Newman? His responses are always, um, crisp :LOL in these circumstances.
Tapioca's Avatar Tapioca 12:28 AM 10-12-2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmyY
It's really mind-numbing to try to get your brain around the notion that you should not breastfeed your child to sleep but you SHOULD put the child down alone with a pacifier. It's really beyond warped.
Word.
AmyY's Avatar AmyY 03:18 AM 10-12-2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tapioca
Word.
Sweetie! I don't believe I've ever rated a "Word" before!

Still shakin' my head about the idea of the pacifier being better than the breast. :
ladybugchild77's Avatar ladybugchild77 03:21 AM 10-12-2005
: These "recommendations" are insane! Kiera is 7mo and we happily and HEALTHILY IMO, co-sleep!
the2amigos's Avatar the2amigos 10:57 AM 10-12-2005
This has been bugging me to no end. And as I lay in bed last night nursing my DS to sleep I got to thinking that I know in my small town community hospital it takes so much work and time to make a policy effective (I'm a nurse), nothing is done lightly. So where DID they get the info to make this recommendation? And if they do have studies to back their statement - I need to check their references - why is there so much conflicting info out there? Did a group of supposedly intelligent people sit around a table and say, "you know, it may be beneficial to sleep with your babes and help the nursing relationship, but we are going to totally ignore that and cause more babies to die in a crib vs in bed with parents." I find that difficult to believe. I guess I've seen a lot of the propaganda out there about not sleeping with your baby, but none of it had any substance. On the flip side the info out regarding sleeping with your baby makes a lot of sense and almost makes you think - why wouldn't I?

I'm just playing devils advocate here. I am in love with sleeping with our babe and plan to with all future bambinos!!
aran's Avatar aran 12:19 PM 10-12-2005
I looked at the policy statement, and although there are 100+ studies cited (not all on co-sleeping, most are on other SIDS risk factors), the ones that appear to be the cause of this new blanket recommendation against co-sleeping (vs. just recommending against co-sleeping after alcohol use, smoking, etc.) are the following:

Carpenter RG, Irgens LM, Blair PS, et al. Sudden unexplained infant death in 20 regions in Europe: case control study. Lancet. 2004;363: 185–191
http://www.prematuros.cl/muertesubit...tesubita11.pdf

Tappin DM, Ecob R, Brooke H. Bedsharing, roomsharing and sudden infant death syndrome in Scotland. A case-control study. J Pediatr. 2005;147:32–37
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Citation

McGarvey C, McDonnell M, Chong A, O’Regan M, Matthews T. Factors relating to the infant’s last sleep environment in sudden infant death syndrome in the Republic of Ireland. Arch Dis Child. 2003;88: 1058–1064
http://adc.bmjjournals.com/cgi/conte...d%3B88/12/1058

Other studies are cited in the policy where controlling for smoking, heavy comforter use, sleeping on sofas, and alcohol consumption (i.e., excluding "bad" cosleeping habits) showed that there was no correlation between co-sleeping in bed and SIDS.

I haven't looked at the design of these three studies to see if there were glaring weaknesses, but it appears the AAP is weighting their results heavily, because as I say, there are other studies with outcomes that conflict with these.


ETA: I looked a little at these studies, and even in these, there is only a small significant correlation between increased risk of SIDS and co-sleeping in the same bed for very young babies (<8 weeks in the largest study, <14 weeks old and <20 weeks old in the other two studies). In all cases, sleeping in the same room but a different bed (and probably sidecar arrangement, too) seem OK.

Bottom line: if you co-sleep responsibly with a baby more than a few months old, and your ped or friends/family tell you about the AAP recommendation, you can tell them that it really is only valid for tiny babies so they need not worry... your baby somehow managed to survive that stage!

(I am not endorsing the policy, just trying to understand its basis and the limitations of the data upon which it is based.)
linny's Avatar linny 12:40 PM 10-12-2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by slightlycrunchyann
I hope that one day this becomes like bf used to be, from shunned to being considered the best.
I agree with slightly crunchyann.
aran's Avatar aran 12:55 PM 10-12-2005
Another thing I just thought of: these studies on SIDS and co-sleeping all require the parents of a SIDS baby to explain their sleeping arrangements after the baby died. I wonder how truthful they are about the use of alcohol/drugs/heavy comforters in that situation? If a guilt-ridden mama had a SIDS baby and had a few drinks that night, do you think she'd tell the researchers? That can make a big difference in the outcome of these studies. In other words, some of the co-sleepers in the study that were supposedly co-sleeping "correctly" and had SIDS happen, probably were not really co-sleeping "correctly," and that makes co-sleeping look riskier than it ought to look. (Hard to explain, hope this makes sense)
momoftworedheads's Avatar momoftworedheads 01:26 PM 10-12-2005
Why is it that when the AAP decides something, we are all supposted to jump on the bandwagon? Eighty percent of the world co-sleeps. Why is it that in the US we have to even discuss this? Why is it ok to leave a child alone to sleep but it is against the law to leave them alone awake? I just do not get it? The AAP is such a joke!

How long did it take the AAP to support BFing? They learned the hard way with that and they will do it again with co-sleeping! They'll learn that it is the best thing once they do some REAL studies. Family bed children do better in school, they do better in social situations, they are much better rested and happier than their peers that are forced to sleep alone.

I am tired of the AAP, I just have to say that if my Ped gives me a hard time, I am going to ask him who he sleeps with!

I do not watch conventional TV and this is why!

Jen F, mom to my happy 5 y/o , my three y/o : : and my 9 m/o :2bfbabe: : : all in the
Mama2ABCD's Avatar Mama2ABCD 02:12 PM 10-12-2005
Quote:
Kids were a lot better off before they became a cash cow
sad, but true.
Where would the AAP be if everyone trusted their instincts as a parent like all the mama's here?
RedWine's Avatar RedWine 03:03 PM 10-12-2005
Chucklin's mommy -- thank you so much for your post and the references!
mighty-mama's Avatar mighty-mama 03:48 PM 10-12-2005
SO NOW SIDS IS "CRIB DEATH"

SO LETS PUT OUR BABIES IN CRIBS .. TO PREVENT "CRIB DEATH"

IS THAT IRONIC? IF CO-SLEEPING IS THE CULPRIT WHY ISN'T IT CALLED "CO-SLEEPING DEATH"

*****gee what are crib manufactures financially backing the AAP, It bet you..
counterGOPI's Avatar counterGOPI 05:35 PM 10-12-2005
thank you mommas for the info and i love all of you! i need you all,seriously, my very annoying know it all MIL sent me an email about that study and im taking quotes from this board and sending them to her. hope you guys dont mind. just facts etc im not using your names or anything. ughh. she annoys me and shes coming to see her granddaugter for the 1st time this weekend and ill be alone with her for the 1st 5 hours b/c my DH will be at work!! ahhhhhhhh!!!
<3,
nicole
Christeeny's Avatar Christeeny 06:08 PM 10-12-2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kate522
Whoops! I forgot this little tidbit: a lot of doctor's families ff because they get free formula from the formula makers. My girlfriend who used to work on a maternity ward (mother's a lc) says that NICU nurses are the worst for promoting FF to preemies because it makes their jobs easier. ARRGH!! Why can't we do what's RIGHT instead of what's EASY???
I can't say the same for the NICU my son stayed in. They were great about giving me storage containers for expressed milk, there was a mother's(pumping) room with curtains, cushy chairs, footrests, magazines, and radios, for comfortable pumping. Or, I had the option to pump at his bedside if I wanted. They were very supportive of my choice to pump for him, since he was too little to nurse or even drink a bottle.
There are still some good ones out there.
Kate522's Avatar Kate522 09:24 PM 10-12-2005
I'm glad to hear it because all the preemie babies I know ended up drinking formula. Some mothers did pump for awhile, but then the mothers felt it was just too hard to keep pumping. It's sad because breastmilk really is the best, and even more necessary for preemies.

I really think these crib death recommendations are geared towards the formula feeders. I think the AAP still considers them the norm. Using a pacifier with a formula baby is necessary. I really don't have much issue with the pacifier stuff if they'd just say it was for formula fed babies who have a higher risk towards crib death anyway. The anti co-sleeping stuff really gets me cross. Just tell people how to co-sleep safely!! It's going to happen regardless of what the AAP says, so why not say how? Sigh. I know why not. Uggh! Our American culture is so frustrating sometimes!!
mamazig's Avatar mamazig 09:56 PM 10-12-2005
Thanks so much, Chucklinsmommy, for the articles -- after a quick perusal of the three (and please note "quick" --as well as inhibited by an attention-needy toddler's pleas for play) I'm even more confused about the AAP's recommendations. The third one in particular raises questions about their support of paci use-- it looks to me that in that study it was found that a SIGNIFICANT risk factor was the ABSENCE of an otherwise routine bink . . . not the lack of using one on a usual basis. That seems to me to say that one is better off not getting a baby in the habit of using one because one night of NOT having it, and WHAMMO -- you've got a major risk factor for SIDS. But AAP must have overlooked that finding . . . along with the major major correlation between maternal smoking during pregnancy and co-sleeping with SIDS. The third article and the first both seemed to indicate that co-sleeping is only a risk (or a major one) IF the mom smoked during pregnancy. I think many of you will find the third's last paragraph with a theory about this correlation very interesting -- it has to do with body temperature and how smoking during pregnancy might affect the baby's brain in such a way that makes body temp increase --> SIDS risk...
The second link (from what I can see) is only an abstract and I can't really get anything from that.
I'll be really interested to see what the rest of you read from those links. I was an English major, not statistics, so my interpretation might be way off. They're certainly not easy reads...

Oh yeah, all that said, I wouldn't exchange our co-sleeping nights for ANYthing!
Christeeny's Avatar Christeeny 03:27 AM 10-13-2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kate522
I'm glad to hear it because all the preemie babies I know ended up drinking formula. Some mothers did pump for awhile, but then the mothers felt it was just too hard to keep pumping. It's sad because breastmilk really is the best, and even more necessary for preemies.

I really think these crib death recommendations are geared towards the formula feeders. I think the AAP still considers them the norm. Using a pacifier with a formula baby is necessary. I really don't have much issue with the pacifier stuff if they'd just say it was for formula fed babies who have a higher risk towards crib death anyway. The anti co-sleeping stuff really gets me cross. Just tell people how to co-sleep safely!! It's going to happen regardless of what the AAP says, so why not say how? Sigh. I know why not. Uggh! Our American culture is so frustrating sometimes!!
Well ultimately my son did end up being FF. : : I tried several times to BF, I even worked with the hospitals LC. Which helped, but he still wouldn't nurse. And when we were finally able to take him home, he still didn't nurse. To this day, I feel sad because we missed out on a wonderful thing. : I didn't have the resources then to get through it. And I (foolishly) thought Formula would be good b/c they wanted me to supplement w/ higher cal formula anyways. :
Of course, when we made the switch, he immediately became constipated. And his reflux got worse.
I don't know what I was thinking.
So I applaud all you women who continued to pump or BF their preemies even when things got tough.
Since then I lived, learned, and found the world of AP.
And I will definitely be more prepared for the next time around. :
bamamom's Avatar bamamom 03:05 PM 10-13-2005
yk, now that i think of it, i nanny'd a preemie boy years ago... he came home from the hosp on enfamil 22/// preemie formula. and if i had to choose, i'd choose enfamil over similac anyday.. similac is so harsh. anyway... he was put on enfamil, and one month later i had a nephew born premie in the same hosp, same nicu etc. adn he was put on similace neosure... when i got to the bottom of it. i found out taht they rotate which brand they push month by month... so, it doesnt matter which brand is best for your baby per say... jsut which company do we recommend this month??? how awful...

it is about the politics and what is easiest...
TripMom's Avatar TripMom 03:05 PM 10-13-2005
There is pretty wide-spread criticism for the recent AAP rec on this thread. I have a question -- is the main criticism that people don't feel the research was well done and thus the conclusion is not warranted? Or -- do people just not like the conclusion whether the research is sound or not?

I have not examined either in any depth - and have no personal opinion one way or the other. I am just trying to understand the consensus of opinion I see here.
TripMom's Avatar TripMom 03:08 PM 10-13-2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Christeeny
I can't say the same for the NICU my son stayed in. They were great about giving me storage containers for expressed milk, there was a mother's(pumping) room with curtains, cushy chairs, footrests, magazines, and radios, for comfortable pumping. Or, I had the option to pump at his bedside if I wanted. They were very supportive of my choice to pump for him, since he was too little to nurse or even drink a bottle.
There are still some good ones out there.
:

My experience too. I had some pretty severe PP complicatations - and I attribute my BFing the triplets (which I never thought I'd do) to the continual insistence of the neonatologist and the nurses.
mamazig's Avatar mamazig 03:18 PM 10-13-2005
Tripmom,
For me, my gut-reaction criticism comes not from the research (because I haven't read it all yet) but from all the OTHER research I've read that contradicts their conclusion. I have read a lot a lot a lot that contradicts their co-sleeping ban and so right off the bat, I'm reacting with criticism. However, I want desperately to know how they came to their conclusion, and so I've started to read the research on which they have based it. It seems to be that they (AAP) didn't do any research studies themselves, but have used many studies that others have done to reach their conclusion -- a meta-study I guess. But now as I get into the studies that they used, I'm not coming to the same conclusions as they . . . surprise surprise. (See my post above) I can't judge the validity of all the research studies they used -- I'm not a research buff -- but I just can't see so far how they've come to the conclusions they have. HOpe this rambling is making some sense!
TripMom's Avatar TripMom 03:22 PM 10-13-2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by mamazig
Tripmom,
It seems to be that they (AAP) didn't do any research studies themselves, but have used many studies that others have done to reach their conclusion -- a meta-study I guess.
That's interesting. I have some (very limited) experience with clinical research as I am a lawyer for a pharma company. I know that meta-studies are not generally considered sound research. The FDA does not allow you to make claims on your drugs based on meta-analysis -- not by a longshot. Wondering if any well-controlled, prospective research on this topic has been done at all?
AmyB's Avatar AmyB 04:08 PM 10-13-2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by TripMom
I have a question -- is the main criticism that people don't feel the research was well done and thus the conclusion is not warranted? Or -- do people just not like the conclusion whether the research is sound or not?
The research is not sound because the AAP report is lumping together unrelated causes of infant death:

Here are the facts given by the AAP. Let's separate them:
1- SIDS is a mysterious cause of death that can apparently be reduced by sleeping in proximity to parents and sucking during the night
2-Infants can be suffocated if they sleep with other people who are vastly overweight or impaired by substance use.
3- Infants can be sufforcted if they sleep with other people on upholstered furnture.

In 2002, 2,295 babies died from SIDS per 100,000 live births
In 2002 949 babies died from accidents per 10,000 live births
Guess what those accidents were? The answer is, they were car crashes, not accidental suffocation in a bed.

How many infants suffocate accidentally in a bed or sofa? The answer is, about 100 every year. How many of those accidents can be eliminated by advising against substance use and sofas? The research says, pretty much all of them.

What that means is that "banning" co-sleeping won't reduce SIDS, and more importantly, it won't reduce suffocation either because the deaths are caused by substance abuse and falling asleep on furniture (more likely considered "naps" than sleeping)

--AmyB
1  2  3 4 

Up