>>Each year in the USA 6,000 to 7,000 baby's die of crib death (what we
>>now call SIDS).  Each year in the USA 64 babies die when sleeping with a
>>parent.  Therefore, it is 100 times more likely that a baby will die
>>when sleeping in a crib than when sleeping with its parent.
>
>I strongly agree that the focus should be on making co-sleeping safer
>rather than discouraging it entirely, and the above might be a good way to
>get the idea through to people, but...
>
>Regarding the "100 times more likely" bit...Wouldn't it depend on how many
>babies sleep in cribs vs how many babies sleep in bed with their parents?
>In other words, 6,000 of X total babies who sleep in cribs, and 64 of Y
>babies who sleep in beds.  i.e., It might not really be 100 times greater,
>depending on the values X and Y.


Of course...and we *have to get this right* or people will jump on us.

Also - SIDS may be colloquially called 'crib death' and 'cot death' in
other English-speaking countries, but it should not be equated with
sleeping in a cot. Though we know the place of death is more than
co-incidental in many cases, and indeed is very often a cot/crib,  babies
have died of SIDS in all sorts of places, including in their parents arms.

The very fact we call SIDS crib/cot death is cultural...we shouldn't let it
muddy the statistical waters.

And we must remember that those 64 deaths are *not* bed-sharing or
co-sleeping deaths, There is nothing in the figures to say which babies
were with a parent at the time (apart from the suffocation figures). They
are 'furniture' deaths, not 'bed sharing' deaths.



Heather Welford Neil
NCT bfc Newcastle upon Tyne UK

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