Dummies and Cot death

[GingerBearingGifts]

BBC Breakfast - report says that they reduce the risk of SIDS. But also that if you give a baby a dummy, not to take it away again as the risk increases more than for a baby who hasn't had a dummy.
So do we maintain a nightly vigil over the crib to ensure the dummy doesn't fall out?
And what about babies like mine who rejected a dummy outight?

Just had a look at this report. It said that 73 of the SIDS cases had infant sickness in the previous 48 hours (95 had no sickness). This in itself seems to be a high number and surely that would contribute greatly to risk of death, ie if baby is ill already.

This research to me is very iffy. How can you really properly prove a negative, ie my baby didn't die last night - well it must be because he used a dummy. When in fact there are a million and one reasons why he didn't die. Fair enough I can see it might help some babies who are at risk with perhaps breathing problems but don't think it right to recommend widespread use of a dummy. What about those that breastfeed - wouldn't this interfere with the natural course of things, ie those of us who sleep with our babies and sometimes baby falls asleep with nipple in mouth. Should we take it out and put a dummy in instead? Or do they just mean babies who sleep alone.

It's too confusing. And as someone said above SIDS seems to be a Western illness, so there is something about our livestyles that causes it... surely we should be finding out the more fundamental causes rather than rather simplistic preventative strategies. What about those babies who died despite using a dummy?

Haven't got anything against dummy use per se but I haven't used one on any of my three as I think they can cause their own problems. I do think more research needs to be done into this before public health policy starts advocating dummy use.

the research does seem a bit flawed to me, but i'm happy to be corrected if wrong. i didn't use a dummy because i thougt [perhaps mistakenly] it would interfere with my ds's breastfeeding on demand needs, eg, he'd sleep thru the night with the dummy instead of waking to feed. that and i don't like the look of them personally, but that doesn't mean they are useless.

I don't think this research is flawed actually. Many, many studies have been done and they all show the same thing - that use of a dummy cuts the risk of cot death.
YOu say how can you prove a negative, but I don't see what you mean in this case. You could say exactly the same thing about back sleeping, for example. Or the link between smoking and lung cancer.
I also don't believe that SIDS is a Western disease. Perhaps SIDs stands out more simply because so few of our babies die from disease. In societies where baby death is many times more common, maybe SIDS doesn't seem such a big deal.

Eulalia, I take you point about surveys but the question is how on earth do you address issues like fundamental causes of something that causes unexpected death like this? To be really blunt about it the best you can have in research terms is a post-mortem. No animal or cell culture work is going to shed any real light on it because there are so few mechanistic clues. The best you can hope for is finding associations, really, and take it from there. I agree that this doesn't seem to be a great study but as aloha says it's by no means the first time that an association with dummy use has been found to be protective. We just have to weigh all this up with issues like possible effects on breast feeding and do our best, as always

its certainly interesting, don't know about how the previous research and how it was conducted. may try a dummy with future child, but i presume if they don't like it you give up? i still think this most recent research has problems, but can't comment on earlier finds.

Nobody suggests you should force your child to accept a dummy - which I suspect is impossible anyway! DD wasn't having anything to do with them. Mind you she also refuses to go in her cot and spends most of her life trying to shin up the stairs. I predict trouble ahead!

yep sounds like my ds aloha!

I am worried that this might be a scare a bit like the cot mattress one about 10 years ago when they said that all old cot matress gave off some gas that could cause sids. now they say this isn't true.

It's very different from the mattress story to be honest. That was pretty much one person's theory that Roger Cook chose to publicise widely on the BBC. This study (or one coming to the same conclusions, at least) has been published as a proper peer-reviewed paper.

To be honest I don't know enough about this. I mean have babies always died of SIDS ie in bed with an unexplained death or was it just called something else before? Hmm anyway too tired to think about this at hte moment.

i just don't know what to believe these days

I'm not convinced that finding an association with reduced risk proves that dummies are the cause.

What I mean is, people don't use dummies randomly, but always for a reason, eg to help an unsettled baby to sleep.

So how can we be sure that the reduced SIDS risk is from the dummy, or from some other factor- eg perhaps quiet babies who sleep deeply (whose parents therefore don't feel a need to try a dummy) are somehow more at risk because of the way they sleep?

The proper way to answer the question would be a research trial where babies randomly would be assigned to have a dummy or not, ie it would have nothing to do with baby behaviour or parental choice. But no parents would agree to that I suppose - and the babies might not agree either.... And it'd have to be a huge study to pick up any effects on SIDS.

Interesting question, and I don't have an opinion myself, just speculating here.

thecattleareALOHing, no need to jump on your high-horse! Read my post again - did I state this research had been funded by dummy manufacturers? I'm certainly not going to apologise for being naturally suspicious of medical research reported in the media in general because they rarely, if ever, tell you who funded it - the inference often is that this is gospel, even if it flatly contradicts what's come before it. BBC news certainly didn't on the morning it was reported. No wonder people get confused! And yes, medical research is often funded by 'interested parties' looking for a favourable result.

I am amazed by this. What would people rather - that no research was done at all, or that the findings were only given out after a certain number of hurdles had been leaped. There are all ready checks in place before any article appears in the bmj. It is at the level of peer approval that we get to hear about it.

I would rather know, and make choices.

There is no one certain cause of cot death. All they can currently do is look at contributing factors.

Regarding peer approval, see paragraph on the BMJ with comments by the ex-editor,

'Consumers falsely trust medical journals to be impartial'

gggimmesnowsnow, assuming your comment was in response to my post (maybe it wasn't), I'll categorically state that I'm NOT saying no medical research should be done at all (that would be ridiculous!) or all research MUST have been funded by interested parties. The public is getting more and more confused by the information we're given. Whilst on the one hand we have too much, we also have too little. What I am is naturally suspicious of is research blindly quoted in the media with no provenance and I'd like to see more transparency (something that the current editor of the BMJ would agree with according to the linked article!). Is that so unreasonable? Or should we just blindly accept everything we're told?

I can't believe how bitchy this thread has become. Presumably the point of all this is to reach the best understanding we can of the research to help ourselves and our children, and anything that can shed light is useful, surely. Stop with the nastiness, please!!

I agree with Welliemum that finding an association with reduced risk does not necessarily show that dummies are the cause. Her suggestion that perhaps the babies who take dummies are less likely to die of cot death anyway sounds quite plausible. Is it also possible that the smoker parents who are not giving the baby a dummy are giving themselves another cigarette instead? There may even be a link between willingness to consider giving a dummy and being a parent who is sensitive to the baby's needs and would be quicker to respond in the event of an emergency. (I'm actually strongly anti-dummy on the "yuk" factor, before anyone takes offence!)

I have an eleven-year old, so remember the great cot mattress antimony scare. In that case, the research was reported before checking up on the antimony levels in healthy babies, which were actually higher than in SIDS victims. Between the scary television programme and the revised findings, lots of parents had wrapped their child's mattresses in polythene, which of course increases the risk of suffocation.

I share Aelita's scepticism over the funding of medical research. Furthermore, the researchers will want to attract media attention in order to get funding for further research, either from grant-awarding bodies or charities. Let's hope some good comes of this.

gggimmesnownow - yes, I do think it would be a good idea if researchers kept quiet about their findings until certain hurdles had been reached. The cot mattress scare shows why. Small samples, or badly designed experiments that show only half the story, can give completely misleading information that the public should not be acting on, and that healthcare professionals ignorant of statistics should not be putting their weight behind.

Even if dummies were shown to reduce the risk of cot death, they are known to cause problems over speech and teeth. We all take small calculated risks over our children - I am allowing ds1 to walk home alone, which increases the minuscule risk of being the victim of the mad axeman and the greater risk of a road accident, but improves his independence skills. Vaccination is another example of taking a calculated risk. Dummies should be viewed in the same light - mothers should not be hassled by healthcare professionals or wider society over exercising their own choice over where to strike the balance.

The whole debate demonstrates a lack of understanding of statistics and risk among healthcare professionals and the general public, which the education system should address. However, this would hit the profits of the National Lottery (why no mad conspiracy theorist cackle icon), so may never happen.

I don't see any bitchiness or nastiness here, snowgirl & that's certainly not what I'm doing. It's what's called a 'vigorous debate' .

Maybe it's a bit too "vigorous" for me as I'm feeling a bit under the weather today!

Can't read whole thread it is too long - but if this research gets included in the official SIDS guidelines then I will use a dummy with yet-to-be- conceived baby no.3, if it doesn't I won't...

So who can tell me - has this research been 'legitimised' yet by being included in the SIDs guidelines?

Hallgerda, that's an interesting point you raise about one beneficial aspect set against a negative. DH said much the same when we were talking about this thread earlier, witness that the tobacco industry could feasibly make misleading statements because research has purportedly indicated in the past that smokers need less dental treatment or are less likely to suffer from Alzheimer's. Bingo! Smoking's good for you.
When my Mum was pregnant for the first time and suffering from morning-sickness she was prescribed Thalidomide. Dad happened upon an article raising doubts about its safety and told her not to take any until he'd spoken to the GP & asked his advice. The guy shouted (yes, shouted) 'How dare you question my authority!' and sent him away with a flea in his ear. Mum didn't take the drug.
Yes, that incident was 40-odd years ago & I don't think anyone would dare try to pronounce smoking healthy these days either, but I hope they illustrate a point. At the same time as getting hopelessly confused (by medical stories such as the MMR scare in particular) people are getting more sceptical about what they're told and I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. It's clear that authority groups still do manipulate data (WMD & 45 minutes, anyone?) for public use & it would seem to be the case that the medical community is by no means exempt from this. Sorry if this offends anyone!

HaveaMerryChristmas, here's the advice from the Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths in response to the research.

Thanks for that - so essentially they are saying if you do use a dummy then carry on, but they stop short of advocating that you introduce a dummy if you don't use one.

Harktheheraldcabewillsing - Nice... whoever you are:

"OH - M'GOD! SackAche - put a sock in it! Can I refer you to a counsellor with that nasty CHIP you've got there?"

Can I just simply say... Fuck off to you??

I hadn't posted on this thread for days! Just did a search on my posting name and found this. The true spirit of MN.

may i just start by pointing out that everyone is entitled to their own opinion and that there is no need to resort to foul language just because it doesn't match your own.

if bf and co sleeping works for you fine.

i personnaly cannot bf but express instead. Both of my children have had dummies as it has been the only way to settle them however i wouldn't rush out and buy them on he basis of one study. Some children will refuse the dummy there is no point in forcing one on them. With a child who is used to one there is no way you could forget to put it in because they scream blue murder till it is inserted. If they spit it out i wouldnt worry about trying to put it back in unless they are unsettled by the loss.