To think that if midwives are going to be on national TV...

[NiceCupOfTeaAndASitDown]

They should get their facts straight?!

Watching "The Midwives: Bringing Home Baby" and a midwife just told a couple that most babies who die of SIDS don't die in cots, "most babies die of SIDS because of bed-sharing, they get wedged" - she's talking about unsafe bed-sharing for a start (isn't she?!) ... And getting wedged would cause death by suffocation wouldn't it?!

So am I wrong in thinking that the 'info' she's giving is incorrect? And AIBU to think that facts should be checked before 'factual' programmes are allowed to air?

Happy, directly underneath that quote in the same page in the report it cites info from a German study reinforcing the string protective factor of bf.

We have not talked in here about the much much substantial risk factors of prematurity and low birth weight which ate much more significant in SIDS.

Also using socio economic factors is also misleading as there is a finite list of what those factors actually are; I assume they will be things like lone parenting, poorly ventilated housing, damp etc and that those mothers are more likely to both ff and smoke/drink and have less supprt and knowledge about protecting their baby.

That study also highlights the importance of having your baby in the same room as you which that midwife also did not mention.

crackcrack re. your earlier post, my dd certainly wasn't in a seperate room to us ( yes, us, it happens to happily married people too). She was about 2 inches away with her basket against the side of our bed. ( in our nice, middle class house with no damp.)
Where TF have people got it from that SIDS happens to pissed up fagging, "poor" people.
As I said, the vast majority of what appear to be unexplained deaths are actually explained at PM.
If damp is a factor, the lungs will show signs of bacterial infection etc.
Please people understand what SIDS actually is.

That certainly wasn't a personal post and I'm sorry if it upset you but there is substantial evidence that socio economic factors significantly increase the risk of SIDS. That vulnerable baby service iirc was set up because there is a much higher instance of SIDS in the north of England.

Socio economic factors are a specific list of features synonymous with deprivation. It works both ways though - I assume one reason why middle class families have lower instances is to do with knowledge and support. It's actually states on the fsids site in the report happygilmore and I have been quoting that families where the father is skilled or managerial (or similar I forget the exact wording) had lower risks attached to them of sids.

fsid.org.uk/page.aspx?pid=403

Link her - don't know how to oink properly on iPhone

Moogster I am so sorry for your loss.

I also lost my son to SIDS, he was also ebf, I don't smoke or take drugs, he was in the same (non damp) room as me, and I, at that time, was on maternity leave from my job as a nursery nurse, there are all these statistics in place that people quote (and I wish they would bloody stop), but at the end of the day its just random, there is a lot you can do to reduce the risks (I did everything recommended) and it can still strike.

The children I have had since my son died have all been given a monitor, yes it went off sometimes when it got a bit loose or something (I even got a black eye at 4am one morning by smacking my eye on the bedside table when it went off to, thankfully, be greeted by a happy sleeping baby and a loose wire) but one of the times it went off my daughter had been sleeping and had stopped breathing. I daren't think about what would have happened without the monitor.

I do know that my friends neice was co sleeping and without going into any upsetting details they recorded it as an accidental death, whereas with my son it was recorded as SIDS so to me that suggests that there is some difference between what the midwife suggested and SIDS.

Well obviously myself and teacher husband were just very lax in our parenting.
many many cases are reported as SIDS by eg. health visitors etc. before the PM results come in ( which can take weeks ).
I just don't think anyone should think they're doing everything "right" so it won't happen to them.
You can be as vigilant and to the book parenting as you like, it still happens.
I'm not going to reply again as I don't think the unexplained horrific death of babies should be up for arguments and pedantic citing of statistics.

missymoo full sympathy.

No one posting here has blamed you moog. We have been discussing sids because it featured on a tv show yesterday. Current affairs are a big part of mn. I am v sorry if this thread has upset you but you took part of your own will.

Moogster please don't let anyone get to you. Unless you have been there then I don't think you should comment at all. I lost my son 14 years ago now and I still get the odd armchair expert quoting things at me, I think it somehow makes people feel more in control to have statistics, they can think it will never happen to them if they have the right job and the right house and do exactly what the books all tell them. The sad fact is it could be any one of us.

aibu is risky, and I for one and mortified than anyone that has experienced this tragedy would think anyone blamed them

in parallel, the very sad factors indicate that some people are at a slightly higher risk, thats all

moog and missy

my love to you all, and my very best wishes

Thak you porca. In all honesty I am at a point now where if anyone in rl says anything to me (as they occassionally do) they are told to get fucked as I did nothing at all wrong and (now) I know it, for the first few years I blamed myself a lot and scoured everything I could find to try and find a way to blame myself, in my mind to have a reason would have made it easier somewhat (having also lost my daughter 5 years ago to a genetic illness I now realise that my thinking was a load of rubbish though)

Obviously with things online, if I get involved and I have made that choice so its different, and I do respect others points of view, there are, of course, things that are indicative of a higher risk, but in a way, I don't think quoting statistics is helpful, it can give people a false sense of security imo.

Stuff i have seen on a Midwife programmes:-
'Babies dont get stuck' said to a panicking woman in labour (shoulder dsytocia anyone ?)
"I always tell a woman exactly what i am about to do and why" ...cut to same midwife doing invasive procedure w. no notice/explanation to a terrified 16yr old who shouts 'what are you doing'? (Healthy baby was out, no panics, so time to explain).
"Should i mention an epidural?" ...cut to woman rolling round be in agony as midwife sips tea w mates in the office and 'ponders' ....(said woman later shown accepting epidural instantly so assume wasn't a 'no drugs' issue and even if it was, women do change their minds so why 'wonder' . Ask !

As a couple of people have said, the MW in the OP was completely wrong.

Pros and cons of bed-sharing aside SIDS deaths are unexplained. If a baby died from getting "wedged" that is their cause of death, not SIDS. If the cause of death is known then it is not SIDS.

It is inaccurate and misleading to lump in co-sleeping (safe and unsafe) deaths withs SIDS deaths as they are not the same.

agreed missymoomoo

I have been reading (not on MN) about child abuse stats in the US, and how basically kids 3 and under are at the highest risk, and how poor kids are pretty much fucked

It has been preying on my mind, and I think I almost might have collapsed that issue? especially as that programme had poor, young single mothers

SID, is sudden and unexplained, and I completely appreciate that to link it as we have done (even when based on stats) could be grossly insulting and upsetting to anyone that has experienced it

I am really mortified that anyone might have taken, offence

my best wishes again

Porca I haven't been offended in the slightest so don't be mortified on my account. I have been involved in many discussions over the years on this issue and this has been pretty gentle and everyone is putting their points (however conflicting) across in a sensitive manner, but thank you for your concern.

Although a lot of the stats are down to medical evidence, I do think some are coincidence.

I think if things such as hair colour, shoe size or any other trivial details about the parents lives were recorded as well then there would be a pattern there too. It doesn't mean that these things would be a contributing factor in SIDS though. As I said before statistics seem to comfort people, and I totally get that, they are, in my eyes, misleading for the most part though.