This should be a good thing, but the slant that the AP and CNN.com give it implies deadly danger. No mention is made of informing parents of safe ways to cosleep, only some Atlanta Ped. who says she discourages bed sharing among her poor clients who can't afford a bassinet or crib for the baby. (where should the baby sleep safely then? and couldn't she tell her clients how to sleep safely with their baby?) And it also mentions the 1999 Consumer Product Safety Comission report (which if I remember correctly is methodologically questionable)
Even more annoying is that when you go to the journal that they picked up the story from, the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine From the abstract it seems to just report on the trend and suggest that more studies are necessary to let health care providers and parents know about the risks and benefits.
as a mainstreamer, even i know the remark about sids is a bunch of crap. even someone like me knows that co-sleeping is supposed to lower the incidence of sids. (i think i read that us mamas blowing off CO2 makes the babe breathe??).
Perhaps they should read stuff by Meredith Small. She shows that the idea of a healthy infant suffocating/being crushed when sleeping with a sober adult was a myth begun during the industrial revolution to cover up infanticide.
Throwing out a number like that, without some point of reference, doesn't do much for me. I slept with my children as infants (so I could breastfeed them on demand) and felt safe doing so. I would like to get some hard numbers so that my friends who are doing the same thing won't be discouraged by their mothers or doctors who tell them they will surely crush their baby.
It is so irresposible of them to write this crap!!!! And this is all the ammo my mom needs to harp on me about co-sleeping
Now it wouldn't be really scary to report that co-sleeping is safe as long as you follow basic common sense and aren't drugged out. That type of article is not exciting enough - no it's much better to flash a scary headline that makes parents have to read the article to see if they are going to accidentally harm their child.
Grrrrrrr! I really hate this kind of stuff!
You've gotta understand that the crib manufacturers are regularly pushing "news" releases out to the media with these "leads." They're being more aggressive because attachment parenting is becoming more common ... so they're losing money every time a family decides to ditch using cribs.
what particularly offended me about the article (besides the opening sentence) was the emphasis that this "unsafe" practice is most common among people of color, poor people, teenaged moms, and "people of culture" -- as if to reinforce that if "such people" do it, it must be bad, and they do it out of ignorance rather than any sensible reasoning. I went to the NIH press release and found the same biases in the stats mentioned, but the AP writer just amped everything up and made it even more blatant.
un-frickin'-believable. let's have a co-sleep-in tonight, mamas! or... start a letter-writing campaign to the APA, NIH, AP, ...
The truest answer to violence is love. The truest answer to death is life. The only prevention for violence is for the heart to have no violence within it. We cannot prevent evil through any system devised by mankind. But we can grapple with evil and defeat it, but only with love—real love.
apart from that, reading their article one would think that cosleeping is a deadlier danger than arsenic to babies. : such uneducated journalism.
When figures are given on SIDS in cribs, SIDS generally means NO OTHER KNOWN CAUSE OF DEATH, as in if a baby suffocated on a baby bumper, then cause of death is suffocation and NOT SIDS.
However, when a baby dies in a bed and the cause is, say, overlayment, then SIDS is still considered cause of death. Overlayment in a bed = SIDS, but suffocation from a crib bumper doesn't = SIDS.
Pisses me off.
I decided last night to order another issue of the cosleeping issue and to send mine to that Atlanta pede.