Co-Sleeping - Apparently "especially dangerous" with babies less than three months

[RockinSockBunnies]

Just came across this online. Whilst I appreciate the dangers of drinking/taking drugs and co-sleeping, surely it's somewhat draconian to condemn all parents that choose to co-sleep with babies less than three months?

In addition, the death of the sixteen-month baby seems odd. Most babies this age are crawling if not walking and unlikely to be rolled upon by someone who has had a 'moderate' amount to drink.

These articles make me really cross . I co-slept with DD from birth, read numerous books on the subject whilst pregnant and consulted as many people about it as possible. I don't appreciate having my decision labelled 'especially dangerous'.

data from Peter Blair here

Takes some wading through and presentation not working well but risks are significant but small...

sids advice is for babies to sleep:

in a cot, in parents' bedroom, on their back, for the first six months. That is considered the safest place for babies to sleep, as per sids advice.

If a parent posts that they are considering moving a baby into their own room before six months, they are regularly told that this goes against sids advice. ditto if they post that baby will only sleep on their tummy.

And yet people often advise others to co sleep, even though this goes against sids advice (the safest place for baby to sleep is in a cot, in the parents' bedroom).

If someone advised a poster on here to wean before six months the risks would be clearly spelled out to them. As in the case of sleeping in own room etc.

Yet no-one is allowed to state that co sleeping is not safe, because so many women do it.

Advising women to co sleep is as irresponsible as advising them to put babies in own rooms IMO.

Japan has the lowest rate of SIDS in the developed world but the highest rate of co-sleeping.

My hospital adviced co-sleeping (DSs 7 and 3 yrs) because it supports their bf agenda. However, the advice might have changed since then.

WannaBe - can you read the link to the SIDs study? Quite interesting statistics.

The research that I did (mainly from 'Three in a Bed') suggested the inherent benefits of co-sleeping as opposed to putting a baby in a cot. I was certainly swayed by the evidence from Japan and was intrigued to know that if a mother and baby co-sleep, as the mother breathes out towards the baby, the carbon dioxide helps to stimulate the baby to breathe in, thereby regulating breathing and reducing the risk of SIDS. (Obviously if the parents smoke and are exhaling carbon monoxide over their baby, then the theory is turned on its head).

When I had DD, I co-slept straightaway in the hospital with the support of the midwives. Furthermore, she was latched on 24/7 for the first week and I simply wouldn't have had any sleep at all if I hadn't co-slept. In terms of safety precautions, I went out and bought a futon before I had her so there was no danger of her rolling out of bed and it was a firm surface. In addition, I was a single mother so didn't have to worry about a partner in bed with me getting annoyed at co-sleeping or inadvertantly rolling on top of DD.

I still think that there aren't enough articles advocating the benefits of co-sleeping, only ones that draw attention to the rare dangers.

Thanks for posting that Peter Blair data, very interesting.

wannabe, no, co-sleeping is not 'safe' in the sense of completely, 100% safe. Likewise - as you say - some of the BF/FF debates get caught up in notions of risk that are unrealistic (eg mixing formula with overly cooled water carries a risk of disease, but a very small one...)

We each have to make our choices based on the info available. The problem here though is the reporting of the data and the misunderstanding of it by journalists, judges/coroners and indeed health professionals.

The co-sleeping risk was one I was prepared to take because I believed the benefits of BF in bed and easy access outweighed the risk of SIDS. It was not an irresponsible decision. To lump in people who drink heavily or who do not assess available risk factors with people who make informed choices is wrong.

As far as I can tell (and I am neither a medic nor a statistician, though have some grasp of modelling) the risks reported in the latest studies are relevant but they are only increased to a level I would think twice about when including sofa sleeping and smoking.

The point is that most medical research deals in 'relative risk' not absolute risk. So when a study says 'doing this increases your risk by 50%', it doesn't mean that doing it means 50% of people are likely to suffer the consequences. It means that if the original risk was that 2% of people might suffer the consequences (without the risky behaviour), then doing the risky behaviour means that 3% might suffer...

Terms like 'safest' 'dangerous' etc need contextualising in the light of this kind of information.

It's been posted on MN before that 90% of SIDS happens in the cot. Of the 10% not all were in their parents bed, some were on the sofa, car seat, pushchair, bouncy chair etc. My NCT antenatal class was told that twice as many babies die in their own room as cosleeping.

I forgot, one thing you have to remember about FSIDS is it a charity (not a govt dept as often thought) that is run by bereaved parents so the advice that is given out is biased by their own experiences. The other thing is all their advice is sponsored - MAM sponsor the dummies advice and a cot mattress manufacturer sponsors the cosleeping advice. Makes me very sceptical of anything they have to say I'm afraid.

indeed not long ago it was not rreally known as SIDS but as Cotdeath! Because Babies mostly died in their cots....

Also....sudden infant deah is generally any death that they can't find a cause for and mixing suffocation (by being rolled upon) ninto the equasion muddies the water...because the Baby didn't die by Sids nor was it a cotdeath....it has a cause....suffocation by being rolled on...

But SantaAsSlut that imo actually increases the risks of co-sleeping, ie there is an increased risk of SIDS and a risk of suffocation by being rolled on (I speak as someone who co-slept sometimes at night and often for naps).

I co-slept with all three of mine. I would like to see the stats adjusted for mothers who don't drink or smoke and are breastfeeding their child.

Maybe I'm talkng rubbish but I always felt that when I was breastfeeding, I was hyper aware of my children's sleeping rhythms, positions and so on.

I co-slept with all 3 of mine, and the last one from birth because I felt it had been so beneficial for all of us. If you don't drink or smoke, are not too heavy, and are "in tune" with your baby (not to mention ease of breastfeeding), then it can be the most lovely, bonding experience for mother and baby.

Babies just expect it, because they've been sleeping that way for millions of years.

the the parents were mortal in one case and in the other both had alcohol and one had a spliff too, and we are all being told not to sleep with our babies for at least the first 3 months of their lives when we all probably happen to need to do so the most.

DD is 7 weeks and BFs most of the night and our house is COLD. So we co sleep and was really enjoying it so reading articles like this abit of a heartsink...

It doesn't increase the risk because the figures are banded together and yet still 90% of babies that die in their sleep die in their own bed. Don't forget that babies die because of an accident in their own bed too. For example the baby who was burnt when a hot water pipe exploded above it's bed.

Ladida....yes, if co-sleeping there might be a risk of over rolling....however, how is the risk of sids inclreased if most Kids die in their Cots....
if a child dies through over rolling and suffocation it is tragic, of course...but it isn't SIDS therefore those Kids should not even be considered in the riskassesment for SIDS...iykwim...

if anything, co-sleeping decreases the risk of suffocation, and considering how few Babys are actually getting suffocated through over rolling, I would say, that the risk of co-sleeping and your child dying is smaller than the risk of SIDS in their own Cot...not sure if I am making sense...it's late and my brain is frazzled, lol!

When I had Ds (2006) the advice was that co-sleeping (following the guidelines) was safest, following that was a cot in your room with baby on back etc. Makes sense to me, I never fancied co-sleeping myself but the only time I ever did it was in hospital, was trying to get ds to bf, woke up around 6 hours later with ds still squished up to my boob.ery

He was fine albeit with a v lined/squished face lol. It told me a lot about my obliviousness whilst asleep.

Not sure if it's been mentioned but studies show that mother's that bf have more of an awareness of where their babies are too, I don't know why though. I believe, from what I've read, that it's safest to co-sleep no matter what; barring drinking, drug use etc.

Failing that keep the baby in the same room for the first 6 months, I've read that it's because they don't always learn to regulate their breathing and so "remember" to breathe from hearing their parents'. Makes sense to me.

For the record I bottle fed dd (prem baby many guilt issues regarding not bf), and bf ds and ds2.

It's not surprising you were oblivious in hospital, it goes back to the guidelines of not being overtired!

I remember waking up having rolled backwards slightly and Tink was doing baby bird impressions trying to catch my nipple she had a white face because I was dripping on her too (double )

tbh, the greatest risk,with us, has always been the slight matter of them falling out...once they were older.... .....all my Kids have at least once falling out of bed!....luckily they are meant to bounce, I am sure they are (Babies that is).....all of my Kids have also fallen down the stairs once , when they were old enough to clib the stairs...and they were never on their without me ...but you just gotta turn for a secons, and that is the second they chose to tumble down!

"Mr Payne gave an open verdict in both deaths and said that no pathological evidence could be found to indicate that overlaying had happened, where either parent had accidentally suffocated them in bed.

In both cases, the cause of death was unexplained."

So, can someone explain why he felt a diatribe on "dangers" was called for, when apparently there was NO EVIDENCE to implicate the co-sleeping?

This is why people ignore so-called offical advice about co-sleeping. Because often the advice is based on misinformation and hysteria rather than on actual fact. People WANT to blame it because it becomes something one can fix easily. I cannot respect an irrational opinion. I'd rather look at factual data and arrive at my own conclusions.

If there is a possibility of a baby being 'accidentally suffocated in bed' then why do it?

Because there is also the possibility that the baby is safer in bed with you than in a cot.

That's why.

Surely if a baby is in a cot and sadly dies, it is an illness that has caused it.

If a baby dies by being suffocated by a parent it is a tragic accident that may have been prevented?