Recently I read an extremely interesting discussion of the use of apnea
monitors in order to prevent SIDS.

How many of the rest of you saw this?

Basically, an article came out (1972?) that linked genetics to SIDS and
thereby created a situation where multiple episodes in the same family were
not investigated as homicides (later proven to be the case, by the way) but
simply accepted as SIDS.

Following publication of that article, apnea monitor business took off as
one way to "prevent" SIDS.  Trouble is, apnea monitors do NOT prevent SIDS.
Studies done have shown that babies who die do have apnea, but it is
unproven that the apnea preceded the death throes!  Yet, for 20+ years,
people have acted on the results/recommendations of one article,
incorrectly!  In addition, numerous cases of multiple SIDS cases in the
same family have been misinterpreted...not identified as infanticide.

I believe this is an excellent example of what can happen when an
outcome/finding/recommendation is accepted without verification.  Gives one
pause, don't you think?  Also helps explain to me why so much of the
"routines" developed when bottle-feeding was all the rage (the latest
thing, you know!) are still with us...

     mailto:[log in to unmask]

"We are all faced with a series of great opportunities brilliantly
disguised as impossible situations."
Kathleen G. Auerbach,PhD, IBCLC (Ferndale, WA USA) [log in to unmask]
WEB PAGE: http://www.telcomplus.com/~kga/lactation.html
LACTNET archives http://library.ummed.edu/lsv/archives/lactnet.html