Experts unite to warn parents of bedsharing dangers - new advice from FSID

[Caz10]

I apologise whole-heartedly if this topic upsets anyone, I really don't mean to. I am just curious to as to people's views on this.

I get the FSID email and this was their headline article.

I understand all the guidelines re if you are a smoker, been drinking etc, but this seeems to advise no co-sleeping AT ALL. I co-slept with my dd (now 18mths) quite a lot - I thought I would do so again if we had a dc2 - but that piece worries me a bit?

Just wondering what others thought?

It seems to contradict the advice coming from eg Unicef

some behaviours much more risky than others eg falling asleep with baby on sofa because you're worried about co-sleeping

i didn't really cosleep - did a bit of lying down feeding like mears says - as they were too wriggly and I'm a light sleeper

in some cultures where cosleeping is the norm, men don't sleep in the same bed when their babies are v small.

I agree with much of what people here have said. Additionally, I'd like to know how these surveys were funded. I've been told that formula companies and cot bedding manufacturers have funded much of the research into SIDS. They are hardly unbiased in the area. Does anyone have any better information about this?

This is such a big deal. Cosleeping is very natural and is so good for baby and parents in many ways. (Regulating their breathing and heart rhythm for example, awareness and quick response to breathing problems, promoting breastfeeding etc.) They shouldn't get away with dodgy figures and scare tactics

Looking at FSID's annual report, they received £308,799 of corporate funding from Mothercare, Grobag and Mam UK (who manufacture dummies and bottles). Now while I'm sure FSID do excellent and much-needed work, I'm concerned about their 'corporate partners' who certainly would not be corporately interested in promoting breastfeeding or cosleeping.

I'll not stop co sleeping whether they say it's bad or not.

Sadly I don't think they actually know anything.

On the babies saved by co-sleeping front, my baby had bronchiolitis last year (although I didn't know it at the time) and the fact that I co-slept meant that I was alert to the increased speed and labour of his breathing. If we had been sleeping in different rooms (he was 9 months so presumably in the 'guidelines' should have been in his own cot, in his own room by that stage, I'm not sure he'd still be here. I appreciate that does sound a bit melodramatic but he was blue when I turned the light on I have never thought of it like that before. It's debatable, he might not have died obviously but the oxygen levels in his blood were very low

Yet another pointless piece of research reporting.

As Lupusina said, the figures X no out of the children who died were co-sleeping is pointless. It doesn't answer the question we want answered.

What we want to know is:

how great is the risk to my baby if I co-sleep?

To know that we must know two things:

what percentage out of all co-sleeping babies died?

what percentage out of all non co-sleeping babies died?

That and nothing else is your risk factor.

Let's try another example:

at a shipwreck, 300 children were wearing inflatable life-jackets, the remaining 20 only had arm rings.

25 of the children wearing lifejackets died, all 20 of the ones wearing arm rings also perished

by the logic followed by some above posters, this would prove that lifejacket wearing is more dangerous (more of the drowned children wore lifejackets)

in actual fact, nothing is proven until we have the complete population size for each group

personally, I believe co-sleeping is usually safe

but it's a belief nothing more

I haven't seen the relevant statistics

I almost dropped DS1 a number of times before I started co-sleeping through exhaustion. Or I would fall asleep sitting up in bed and wake up with him laying precariously on top of me.
I started cp-sleeping with him at 2 months and have done with DS2 and am with DD.
BUT I feel tremendously guilty sometimes when I read these sorts of reports.
IMO that's all that thse lead to. People like me who follow the guidelines feel guilty and the others carry on regardless.

re: japan

I found this. DOesn't even mention co-sleeping. I assume because everyone just does it?

A while back I read something on SIDS where they included in the figures babies who had fallen out of the bed, babies found at the bottom of the bed and babies found under the parents.

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but that isn't really SIDS, is it. That's due to obvious causes. If babies in co-sleeping situations are surrounded by potential suffocation hazards (pillows and duvets etc) and they suffocate, then again it isn't really SIDS, is it.

So, the point I'm trying to make is that they could have included suffocation in their SIDS figures, which, in my mind, makes them wildly inaccurate.

I co-slept with DS for 5.5m and still do occasionally if he has trouble sleeping or is unwell - the duvet is kept away from him, the pillows are nowhere near, I keep my arm out above his head to avoid me rolling onto him and also so that I can feel if he moves towards the edge of the bed.
I don't smoke, drink heavily or do drugs; and I am far less tired this way than I would be if I tried to get him to sleep sitting in a chair, where I would be more likely to either drop him or slump over him, thus suffocating him (which isn't really SIDS, is it)

OP, I hope that helps your thoughts.

Sorry if this has already been mentioned but there is a middle way - where you get a cot with the side off and put it right up against your bed. You can do night feeds without getting out of bed, then you roll the baby back into the cot where it won't have the risk of being covered with duvet or pillows, or leaned on by parents.

The statistics are confusing but think of it like this.

If a minority of babies cosleep (around 15% according the the article posted below) then if it was equally safe, you would expect 15% of SIDS cases to be co-sleepers. In other words cosleeping would have no effect on the rate of SIDS.

If you then find that the number of SIDS cases that are cosleepers is much higher - nearly 50% - that is a significant result. It means that SIDS is more likely when cosleeping. (But, it doesn't explain why - and it leaves aside the fact that there may be perfectly safe ways of cosleeping.)

The 50% figure doesn't mean anything on its own - but it does in the context of the proportion of cosleepers across the whole population (including those that do not suffer from SIDS).

If it's still unclear, exaggerate it - imagine only 1% of babies coslept, but half of all SIDS cases were in that group. You would suspect a link.

That's true thumbwitch, suffaction isn't SIDS - but if cosleeping is associated with greater risk of death, from getting stuck in bedding or rolled on by a parent, then you can see why they still want to address it.

What other animal sleeps away from it's young? Co-sleeping with bf is what nature intended imho

Of course, but animals are less likely to have soft beds and duvets. I think that's the issue and possibly why some countries don't have the same problem.

muffle - yes of course you can see why they would want to address it - but that is involved in the guidelines for co-sleeping, not in saying that co-sleeping contributes to SIDS when it isn't SIDS, it's suffocation in at least a percentage of the cases.
They are being disingenuous about this by NOT separating out suffocation from true SIDS, which is by unknown cause.

And also don't forget that most wild animals have an extremely high infant mortality rate - often as much as 1 in 2. What's natural and what has always happened doesn't necessarily mean safest. The medical profession intervene to try to save lives - that's why we have treatments for common childhood diseases that used to be fatal. They are trying to do the same with SIDS - I think there may be some things they don't understand yet about how it can be safe, but it being natural doesn't make it safe.

Actually I disagree muffle. Yes, of course if there is a greater risk of death from co-sleeping it needs addressing. But if that risk is from death by suffocation, then that isn't SIDS is it? And I think it's really wrong to add it to the numbers. You wouldn't include accidental death caused by anything else (drowning in the bath for example) so why include suffocation? The only link is that the babies were sleeping at the time. I thought the whole point of SIDS research was to try and find out what causes it, not to include numbers of children who have died from other causes.

muffle, sorry, I had to laugh at this - "And also don't forget that most wild animals have an extremely high infant mortality rate - often as much as 1 in 2" - yes, but it's not all going to be from something like SIDS, is it? Other wild animals coming and eating them might contribute to the figures, no? Plus infections, injuries, things that they don't have vets to treat them for. It's not comparable.

Why not tell people about how to co-sleep safely rather than just saying it could harm the child.

Personally I would take the advice on cosleeping, on the basis of those statistics. It wouldn't bother me whether it was actually SIDS or suffocation that was the danger - there's obviously a danger. I'd rather have the baby right next to me but not actually in the bed. Since it's statistically safest, good for you, good for the baby and there is a way of doing it... seems like a good choice.

I'm not comparing us directly with wild animals! I'm just saying I don't agree with the argument "wild animals do it, so it is natural and therefore best". Baby animals get eaten but they also do just die. In a litter of puppies or kittens that often happens. They often get rolled on and die that way too. I just don't agree that "naturallest" and "what we did in prehistoric times" = automatically best and safest. Medical intervention and statistical understanding actually saves millions of lives - the back to sleep campaign has saved many, many lives.

If all you want is to distinguish between SIDS and suffocation and prove the doctors wrong, you're missing the point a leetle bit. I think keeping babies safe from whatever this danger is does kind of matter more.

But it isn't always possible for everyone to have one of those side cots. There are ways of co-sleeping safely.

There was another thread recently which also discussed the article. Someone posted a link to an article on the BBC which quoted from the RCM: "But the Royal College of Midwives said catch-all advice was unhelpful to parents.

The college's Cathy Warwick said: "It is a terrible tragedy for the parents when they suffer the sudden death of their child, so any research that sheds light on the potential causes is important.

"However, the situation around co-sleeping is complex, and blanket advice to avoid it is perhaps unhelpful to parents who may want to do it.

"A number of factors need to be considered by parents before and if they do this, and they need to discuss this with their midwife to make an individual and informed decision."

The RCM says many factors can contribute to the safety of co-sleeping, including cultural practices, whether the baby is being breastfed, what kind of bedcovers are being used, and where the co-sleeping is taking place.

It recommends that parents discuss the issue with their midwife, and that based on the evidence they can make an informed choice about co-sleeping.

The RCM has also issued guidance on bed sharing and co-sleeping."

But the statistics say that less than half the babies died sharing a bed or sofa. So it's nonsense to say that it's more dangerous. The statistics don't bear that out.

But there is detailed, careful advice on how to cosleep very safely - avoid duvets, smoking, drinking etc. That advice is widespread. I've heard it much more often than I've heard "blanket advice not to cosleep".

I would use the side cot option be preference though - seems to have the best of all worlds. Yes some people can't afford a cot but I think that is a tiny, tiny minority - if they have a bed they can probably afford a cheap/2nd-hand cot and there are grants for such things.

I explained why that statistic is significant below. It means nothing on its own. It reveals a danger in the context that only a small proportion of babies cosleep.