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
|
