Pat Bull wrote:

>One of the participants raised her hand and said "We discourage mothers
sleeping with their babies here because there was an article recently in the
local newspaper about a mother that had slept with her baby and accidently
rolled over on top of the baby and the baby died".

I've had that happen during lectures, too. It's always a tragedy when a baby
dies, and we all grieve in our own way. However, let's keep things in
perspective.  If a baby is killed in a car wreck, do we discourage auto
travel?  No. If a baby dies from a reaction to an immunization, do we
discourage all shots? No. (I'm not getting into this debate here). Many
babies have died from broken pacifiers, but pacifiers not discouraged and
warned-against with the same enthusiasm. And let's not forget allergic
reactions to every brand of ABM on the market - a few babies have died, yet
we don't react in the same way as to news of alleged "smothering" deaths.
 For every "smothering" death, I wonder how many babies died because they
were NOT co-sleeping, where mom might have noticed quickly enough to respond?
 Anecdotal stories support the idea that some deaths are prevented because
someone intervened in time.

Life is a constant balance of risk vs benefit - everyone of us is trying to
make the best "judgement call."  Statistics, biology, history, anthropology,
research, and common sense weigh in on the side of breastfeeding,
co-sleeping, auto travel with good carseats, and no pacifiers. Maybe
immunizations too.  Our job is to present the facts as far as possible.  And
the facts come out heavily in favor of co-sleeping.

LInda Smith, wearing my "Mothers milk comes straight from the heart" shirt
today.
Dayton, OH