Okay, thanks Nikki for letting me further remain distracted from T  Day. 
 
I too read the article.  I have several questions about the study  and the 
interpretation of the data.  I also had the same observations  as Nikki.  I also 
noted the inclusion of those babies who died from  SIDS who were not co 
sleeping safely.  It is mentioned that some of  the babies were under duvets and 
between parents and near pillows.  We  already know that there is co sleeping 
safely and not safely.  I wonder  what the numbers would show if they took out 
all non safe cosleeping babies  and all non breastfeeding babies (and I mean 
exclusive, not those babies getting  that night time bottle of formula)  and all 
babies where even one parent  smoked and then also controlled for method of 
birth, medications in labor,  maternal medications if she was breastfeeding, 
etc. Every time I read a study on  SIDS as it relates to co sleeping it 
frustrates me..even when it agrees with my  instinct (not to be confused with science) 
that babies and mothers must be  biologically designed to sleep together 
since humanity did not start with three  bedroom homes and a nursery. It does not 
seem logical to me in  terms of survival that mothers would have had their 
babies sleeping away from  them.  But, that is not my source of frustration.  
Babies die of SIDS.  This is a sad reality and I do so hope they figure out the 
exact cause so it can  truly be prevented if possible.  However, there is 
absolutely no way to say  that the baby sleeping beside mom who dies of SIDS would 
have not died of SIDS  in a crib across the room or down the hall.  (The 
reverse is also true I  suppose until they find out the exact cause and we can be 
sure maternal contact  is absolutely not a protective factor.) In this specific 
study,  I wonder about 'why' 11 weeks?  What happens then and why does it  
change things?  Maybe that piece of the puzzle matters and we should  
investigate further...that is if after all other factors are accounted for  and the 
study is valid.  I can't wait for one of our great  research minds here to sit and 
review it and share their thoughts.
 
 When the back to sleep campaign  began, it seemed so logical to  me.  After 
all, when I think of a natural sleep position for co  sleeping breastfeeding 
babies, they would either be on their side attached at  the breast or if they 
let go, would likely roll to their back.  It would  appear hard to roll to the 
stomach as mother's body is in the way.  So,  back to sleep in my mind was 
just a more natural sleep position.  A baby  swaddled and facing down would have 
had a hard time getting to the breast and  would have maybe had to cry to be 
fed...another unsafe thing in terms of  predators...sound of a baby crying 
showing where the food was.  
 
With so much research about where babies should be sleeping to prevent  SIDS, 
there must be someone doing the science of 'why' that matters.  James  
McKenna's research shows maternal/infant patterns that suggest co sleeping  is safer 
than separate, but his research is for breastfeeding dyads.   Babies still 
die of SIDS even when on their backs and in their cribs in the room  with 
parents or down the hall, and some die of SIDS even beside their  mother.  I wish 
they could figure out what is happening during the sleep  that is the risk. 
 
SIDS research is not easy and I do understand the desire to be able to 'do'  
something that will lower that risk.  But, the truth is still very real  that 
more babies die of SIDS in their cribs than they do in the parental  bed.  Of 
course, the reason given for that is that more babies sleep in  cribs than in 
the mother's bed.  Which of course can be true...like I said,  frustrating.
 
Best,
Pam MazzellaDiBosco, IBCLC 
Florida, USA
 

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

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