to be a bit horrified that Boots are recommending CIO?

[JenniferCanesten]

As I am signed up to the Boots Parenting Club for the vouchers, periodically I get sent a magazine relevant to DS's age.

The other day I got the 5-9 months one in the post and flicking through it was a bit shocked to see this (on pg 12):

"from 6 months, you can leave your baby to cry for short periods. Try five minutes at first, then gradually extend the time so she'll learn to settle herself."

I find it very cross-making that they are presenting this as though this is an irrefutable part of parenting whereas obviously CIO/controlled crying is a pretty controversial method that many parents, myself included find cruel and unnecessary and possibly damaging.

They are GIVING ADVICE to people, which is a position of responsibility! I don't bother getting annoyed by many things but this has really pissed me off!

Took me two minutes to find this

you'd want to read the book, see the actual studies if you were really wanting proof I suppose but I'm not planning on doing any kind of crying so I don't need to. :)

i want cochrane reviewed data and a hand wringing session chorus of kumbaya

How patronising Unwind - you said it yourself, Margot Sunderland is a neuroscientist. She knows a lot more about brain development than I do! I accept your point though.

FWIW, I never said which side of the argument I fall on, but you seem to have pigeonholed me already.

That's really good advice.

But, hey, if you want to be getting up in the night to your 2/3/4/5 year old, then do feel free to carry on and ignore it.

I agree with the OP. How are Boots qualified to give such advice? I think if they'd given the advice in the context of offering a range of advice to counter a specific problem it would be much more acceptable. For example, within an article about boring with sleep deprivation, where they also discussed cosleeping and gradual retreat, I would have no problem with this. But from what the OP describes it's implicit that this is just what you should do. Which for some of us is an outrageous suggestion. I am speaking as mum of a 3 year old and a 3 month old who has to cry sometimes - but this can and should be differentiated from deliberately witholding comfort.

you are reading what you want

Margot Sunderland is not a neuroscientist

Whoops, misread your post. Sorry.

and I can't believe anyone takes Rosie Millard seriously

Maisie i think the typo is obscuring the question you're asking me?

Are we debating whether it's controversial ( which seems pretty obvious) or whether cc is a good idea which we possibly won't be deciding tonight on AIBU?

anyone seen the article?or relying upon op objective account of contents...

boring = coping (feckin phone)

I'm so sorry Unruly - I hadn't fully appreciated that you would find the sentence with one small typo so obscure. Please do forgive my transgression.

YABVVVU

and this statement;'myself included find cruel and unnecessary and possibly damaging' is just ridiculous. Get a grip woman.

Maisie I too am sometimes the victim of an overenthusiastic autocorrect - I just don't understand the question you're asking. You can take that as a personal slight if you wish. Not sure why you would though? :)

I'm not inclined to be sufficiently bothered as to take it as a personal slight. Now, what is it that you don't understand?

The question you asked.

Why care about what Boots has to say anyway? They are a shop, they are there to sell you stuff. So the advice about CC can be taken with a pinch of salt much the same as 'this mascara is fantastic!'

I am sure that nobody went home, plonked their baby in a moses basket and sat downstairs with the telly turned up to drown out the shrieks based on a bit of advice in a Boots leaflet.

I am surprised at Boots offering this as advice to be honest. I notice that on one of the Bounty emails I got controlled crying was thei sleep solution too. Not for me.

Well said getorf

with you bibbety

"You obviously think it damages children Unruly - what specific signs do you look for when confirm whether or not a child was left to cry for short periods of time?"

That one? Do you really not understand that?

OK then - if I've understood you correctly, you think that cc damages children. If so, do you feel able to identify children (and adults) who were left to cry for short periods of time? If so, how? What is it about them that makes you think "their parents damaged them by using cc techniques", and have you ever confirmed this with their parents?

Actually - forget it. I really don't care enough about this. Off to hide (boring) thread