On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 22:36:19 +0000, heather <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>This new paper is causing a lot of discussion in the British press
>and on British boards on the web.
>
>In the light of the paper, the Foundation for the Study of Infant
>Deaths - the major UK charity concerned with SIDS - has changed its
>guidance to parents to say there should be no co-sleeping below 8
>weeks.
>
>Unicef Baby Friendly has responded, pointing out that the study did
>not differentiate between bf babies and af babies, or in fact sofas
>and beds (sofas are known to be an unsafe co-sleeping environment).
>


I am confused.  According to the abstract, the take home message from the Lancet paper
would be "sleep in the same room as your baby."  This would be followed by "As long as the
mother does not smoke or drink alcohol, the risk of SIDS associated with bedsharing is very
small and virtually disappears after 8 weeks"  This would be followed (ideally) with a recap of
research that shows bedsharing to be protective against SIDS, and then by the WHO
guidelines for safe co-sleeping.

What am I missing? Why did the FSID not use this occasion to highlight the danger of putting
little babies in nurseries by themselves?  And why did Unicef Baby Friendly get bogged down
in details rather than simply articulating the actual findings of this study?

It is disturbing to consider the public health consequences of all these warnings against
cosleeping in the popular press in the US and the UK.  First, when the blanket admonishment
"don't sleep with baby" is all any major publication ever passes on, it keeps the public
ignorant of the guidelines for safe bedsharing, and as such very possibly leads to avoidable
tragedies.

Second, the "sleeping with baby is dangerous" message is most likely to make the greatest
impression on those for whom co-sleeping would be most beneficial.  The obese smoker who
drinks too much and has the habit of lying down on a waterbed with baby is probably not the
one who diligently reads all the latest recommendations about baby safety.  Rather, it is the
expectant parents who plan to breastfeed and are interested in co-sleeping, but don't want to
do anything that "research" shows is dangerous.  With correct information about cosleeping,
those families would probably do it and go on to enjoy the benefits of around-the-clock
breastfeeding as well as breastfeeding beyond infancy.  Persuaded by these scare tactics,
however, they are likely to experience night weaning and complete weaning much earlier than
they otherwise would have (Isn't there research showing a positive correlation between
cosleeping and breastfeeding duration?).

When we consider this phenomenon on a population-wide level, we have to ask how much
illness in the coming years will be attributable to people being scared away from cosleeping
by this current proliferation of warnings against it in the popular press?

Kerry Ose, PhD and another former LLLL who can't stop reading lactnet.

             ***********************************************

To temporarily stop your subscription: set lactnet nomail
To start it again: set lactnet mail (or digest)
To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
All commands go to [log in to unmask]

The LACTNET mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software together with L-Soft's LSMTP(R)
mailer for lightning fast mail delivery. For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html