To think the new blanket ban on co-sleeping (new NICE guidelines warning of dangers of co-sleeping with under 1's announced today) may be going too far?

[JugglingFromHereToThere]

Of course NICE have a duty to inform parents of research that can inform their parenting choices, particularly advising about any risk factors relating to SIDS.

But in proposing that all parents should be advised of dangers of co-sleeping during the first year have they perhaps got the balance wrong? Co-sleeping can (I believe from everything I've read) be relatively safe provided other risk factors, such as smoking and drinking or other drugs are not a factor too, and if steps are taken to avoid over-heating (duvets should be avoided?)

The adviser mentions that co-sleeping may make BFing easier, or be culturally preferred, but have they taken these things sufficiently into account in the way the advice has been put forward, and also the way it is being reported on the News (I watched the ITV news at lunch-time and found the advice given was rather strongly worded in my view)

I enjoyed co-sleeping with my dd and ds, and it worked well for us, also facilitating extended (or natural term) BFing. Being close to my babies was very important to them and me, and part of a whole approach to parenting which I feel has given them a very secure base from which to go out confidently and independently to explore the wider world.

Would be interested to know how others feel about this?

Would also say .... A couple of generations back we did have a cot death in the family - my granny's eldest dd. So I've always been particularly aware of how devastating it is and would of course do anything reasonable to minimise the risks, both for my own DC and for others.

When it comes to death of children 0.5 per 1000 is a lot.

Age1-9 death rates from all causes are around 0.1 per 1000.

Using the 0.5 figure, if everyone co-slept, 400 per year would die. If no one did (based on the 5 fold risk increase), 80 would. As it is around 150 die.

It really is important.

I have spoken with a few people, in my case after an EMCS, I couldn't move even if I wanted to, so DC slept on my chest for 1 month. I hugged him and my DH slept next to us.
It was truly the only way to get some sleep, no duvets, no pillows.
And even my DH commented on the 'different sort of sleep' you get when you know you have the baby in your bed, it can only be described as being 'alert' even when you are sleeping.

I've not read the whole thread so apologies if someone else has mentioned the same.

I was listening to Radio 5 this morning and there was a pathologist on who has performed over 100 post mortems on dead babies. He said it can be difficult to prove cause of death in such young babies and that suffocation is difficult to diagnose. It is often reported as cause of death unknown. He himself has a young baby and said he would never co-sleep as it is far too much of a risk.

I would prefer to listen to listen to medical professionals. I know that co-sleeping can be the easy option and I did it myself but in light of all of the evidence, if I was ever fortunate enough to have another child, I wouldn't do it.

I had dd1 I was in a lovely little cottage hospital with private rooms. I had a water birth, then went back to my room while dd was weighed etc. the midwife bought her in to me, and then without asking me what my preferences were, fetched a toddler bed guard and fitted it onto the bed, before tucking us both up, and after dd had a feed we crashed out for a long, lovely sleep. I'm so grateful to the midwife for this, I hadn't considered where dd would sleep once she was born, but it felt so natural to have her right by me. We co slept for about 6 weeks, by which point we were waking each other up at night so I moved her into a cot and she slept for 12 hours straight every night.

Dd2 and I co slept for 9 months. She also lived to tell the tale.

They only say this as not many mums breastfeed properly in this country. I have always coslept with all of mine and have never used a cot so far.

My understanding was that breastfeeding dramatically lowers the risk of sids, I seem to remember reading thata breastfed baby was 8 times less likely to die from sids than a formula fed baby.

I understand that co-sleeping is a lifestyle choice and that research shows it increases the risk of sids but I don't understand some people's reaction to the choice to co-sleep, the "why would you risk it?" "I wouldn't be able to sleep a second knowing my baby was in danger" type comments are in my opinion very rude. If I said "why risk it?" to a mother who had chosen to formula feed or "I wouldn't be able to sleep at night knowing my baby had a tummy full of formula andis more likely to die from sids" it would be really disrespectful.

I feel that the risk to my babies co-sleeping in a sidecar cot with a new mattresses, being exclusively breastfed, not allowing them to be around smoke or even people who had smoke on their clothing and for them to sleep in a sleepingbag on their back is the safest way for them to sleep. Maybe if the next baby is happy to sleep alone we will reassess.

"The variables of the dad plus baby in the middle plus a memory foam mattress and a duvet (all well within their safer bed sharing criteria) don't, for many of us, come close to safe co sleeping. "

I agree. I wouldn't have done it with DH in the bed AT ALL. He was kicked out to the spare room.

Sillylass, the 400 was based on 800,000 born each year multiplied by the 0.5 per 1000 rate you quoted (which I suspect includes sofa sleepers or other risk factors). Using 0.23, you'd get 184.

The BMJ article indicate approx 80% of co-sleeping deaths were avoidable which got me to 80. This would also be the result based on the 0.1 per 1000

The current rate is based on a mix of room-sharing (optimal) and other methods including safer and less safe cosleeping sofa sharing etc etc.

I think this gets so hyped because this is a parenting choice (for most at least - for some it ends up being the only thing that works) that directly leads to a much higher death rate.

It may well feel natural, but our natural infant death rate is 320x the current rate (data actually from 1600s but should be a reasonable approximation to natural rate)

Can I just say I'm sooo impressed by the quality and depth of so many posts here - I'm sure some comments can contribute towards further research, and many could inform much of the reporting around this in the media.