Badly written story about SIDS and bed sharing - on the BBC!

[Northernlurker]

here

In one breath they say deaths are linked to bed sharing then acknwledge in the next that most deaths involve sleeping on a sofa which is NOT bed sharing.

And they report that bed sharing should not be 'demonised' but with a headline such as 'parents double the risks' I think that's quite rich!

Thank you so much for the last two posts. I can't express enough how sad I feel today with all of this in the press.

Although I'm taking all the precautions in bed-sharing there's that element of doubt that has crept in as a result of all this.

I honestly don't think I could continue bf at night if I was dozing whilst doing it.

I also read about the regulating babies breathing by sleeping next to them. Carbon Dioxide triggers your body's response to take another breath, so if your baby suddenly forgets to breathe, you breathing very near them will remind their body to take a breath.

BertieBotts if you look at your car analogy though and compare it to babies in cots/co-sleeping you could potentially come out with a much higher sids rate for co-sleeping babies.
If less people co-sleep than put babies in cots, yet 50% of babies who die of sids are co-sleeping, then statistically that means babies who co-sleep have a higher risk of dying from sids. E.g. there are 1000 babies. Of that 1000 babies 100 are co-sleeping and the other 900 are in cott in various places ie parents? rooms/their own rooms. So 10% of the babies are co-sleeping. Ten of the babies die of sids. Of those ten babies, five were co-sleeping, therefore, 5% of the babies who co-slept died of sids, whereas only 0.5% of the babies that were in cots died of sids.

So from my example it is much riskier to co-sleep because your baby is more likely to die.

The only way to measure the true risk would be to establish what percentage of babies co-sleep compared to those that don?t.

I don?t get this notion that FSID have an agenda. What agenda could they possibly have? Imagine if they hammered home the message that co-sleeping increases the risks of sids and parents stopped doing it (as with the back to sleep campaign) and the sids rates went up as a result. Can you imagine the outcry?

I also think that people should get over this idea that reports are issued purely with the intention of increasing parental guilt. With that n mnd, perhaps we should stop promoting the benefits of breastfeeding, or in fact stop promoting the risks of formula feeding for fear of making bottlefeeding mums feel guilty. Maybe we should stop bleeting on about the weaning age for fear of the guilt we will impose on those who weaned earlier. The list goes on.

It really isn?t all one conspiracy.

Sweetkitty 150 years ago the inphant mortality was much higher than it is now, and who knows, perhaps some babies died of Sids, but I don?t imagine that is data that is available, hence impossible to make a comparison.

And whoever said that the smoking in pregnancy message should be emphasised, surely any idiot with half a brain knows that smoking in pregnancy is dangerous, even to unborn babies. And I have no issue with parents being made to feel guilty about that.

Actually, living in the US and studying what drives big organisations like ACOG and AAP has made me realise there is more of a conspiracy than I ever thought possible. AAP take millions and millions of dollars from Gerber/Nestle leading to heavy promotion of formula milk. ACOG are a protection racket, jealously defending their stance that only obstetricians should deliver babies, in hospitals and painting midwives as quacks. The US has a culture of being expert-driven rather than evidence-based... so opinion wins over fact.

The big study FSID always cites was conducted in the US and funded by highly interested parties.

It's SENSIBLE to look at where funding comes from and what the motivation is behind studies.

Now, show me a study that compares safe bedsharing to cot sleeping and then we will be able to draw conclusions. Everything else is pure speculation. There are proven benefits to bedsharing and it is a more 'normal' thing to do. There is no evidence to suggest a risk, although some expert 'opinion' states otherwise.

Expert opinion is what drives the caesarean rate to nearly 50 percent in my city.

I agree wannabe and was going to make the same point.

The BF guidelines are presented as facts - quite rightly - regardless of who feels guilty about it.

If they have stats to say that cosleeping babies are at higher risk then guilt shouldn't come into it, and nor should opinion such as 'mine were fine', as opinion and 'mine were fine' cut no ice in the BF debate and nor should they if they are taken to mean 'my own experience was ok so ignore the stats and guidelines'.

They don't have stats to say that, Morris. Here's the conclusion of the BMJ study that they're talking about:

---

Conclusions Many of the SIDS infants had coslept in a hazardous environment. The major influences on risk, regardless of markers for socioeconomic deprivation, are amenable to change and specific advice needs to be given, particularly on use of alcohol or drugs before cosleeping and cosleeping on a sofa.

---

The BBC have woefully misinterpreted the study.

lots of studies have little evidence to back them up though. If you look at studies into weaning, there is actually very little risk to weaning before six months, yet people seem to treat the weaning guidelines as gospel, and anyone who dares to question is told that "they are the guidelines for a reason."

IMO people take on or ignore the advice according to their own personal requirements. That's fine and up to them, but don't rubbish the info just because you don't like it..

More from Helen Ball ''They need to establish exactly what the parameters are in 'co-sleeping' - for example B/F mothers and babies tend to sleep together in different ways than do non-breastfeeding mothers and babies - suggesting that studies which have not considered feeding type as a variable for matching cases and controls may have drawn inappropriate results in assessing risk factors.'

It is good such research is being carried out but there needs to be more to establish the risks and the 'media' again need to take more care over reporting - it is always good that they raise an issue for discussion but honestly - DON'T TAKE THEIR WORD FOR IT!!!

I'll happily take advice if it is evidence-based.

I'm not going to take advice from a hack journo who is regurgitating soundbites.

I suspect you're right on weaning wannabe but the case for BF for 6 mo is pretty evidential AFAIK.

But I do think there is considerable bias in the FSID position. And in this, the other and previous thread(s) many of us have suggested alternative ways of framing the problem that just have not been considered in the studies thus far.

The FSID are a charity supporting bereaved parents and doing good work there, but their sources of funding are open to scrutiny, as is their reporting of the research - as it should be. The scientists themselves have to go through extensive peer review. The reportage of that science doesn't however and it is important to establish its credibility.

When the guy from the FSID came on, some of what he said was valid. And some of it was problematic, in particular the complexity of multiple risk factors.

And unlike BF it is virtually impossible to do clear cut research on this because the number of cases is so small overall.

I can never understand how people can use the fact that 'years ago all babies slept with their parents'we dont know what the cot death rate was many years ago but I bet that it was a lot higher than what it is now.

I have always gone by the government and FSID's guidance as they know a damn sight more than I do and thats enough of a reason than me! What I see here is lots of people disagreeing with the findings from research as it doesnt suit them. And for those that co-sleep because its easier, I really dont see how that is a valid reason, there is lots of things you could do which would make having a baby easier, it doesnt mean that its the right thing to do.

And for info, I have an 11 year old DD and a 9 week old DS, and it is a pain having him sleep in our room but if thats what the guidance is then Im going to follow it. Even if this means moving bedroom furniture around to accomadate a cot as he is growing out of his crib. Having a baby isnt always very convenient..

I wonder how often it is the dad that ends up sleeping on top of baby if things go wrong?

I always knew where DS was in the bed even in my sleep but DH couldn't. Easy answer was to sleep between them.

but Morloth they weren't talking about instances where a parent has rolled on to a child, and tbh I think it's a bit harsh to put blame on to fathers for this. The study referred to unexplained deaths. A parent rolling on to a child is not unexplained...

Jem27, I don't think the government/FSID do know any more than we do. They're using the same studies and data as we are unless there's some secret information locked away somewhere.

The BMJ study that these reports are about simply does not lead to the conclusions that FSID or the media are drawing from it.

We're back to the argument that expert opinion is worth more than evidence-based advice. It's simply not true. Expert opinion is biased, centred on one person's experience and potentially dangerous unless it's informed by fact.

Maybe babies did die of SIDS years ago, infant mortality was a lot higher in general and as no studies were ever done no one knows. I seem to recall, but do not have the data to back this up and cannot be bothered trawling the net, that in countries where bed sharing is the norm the incidences of SIDs are virtually non existent or a lot less than in the UK, I am thinking in particular of countries like Japan and India. Could be wrong as I say I don't have the data to hand.

It is the norm for mammalian babies to sleep with their mothers and feed frequently during the night.

If the FSID don't have an agenda, can you explain this to me:

From the article JulesJules linked to: "the new study found that sharing a bed with a baby was only more dangerous if other factors were also involved. ...Parents drinking alcohol were the greatest danger for babies who shared their beds."
and
"The Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths urged parents to be cautious until the new findings had been published and peer-reviewed. Director Joyce Epstein said that until the evidence had been fully considered, the charity would not change its advice that the safest place for a baby to sleep for the first six months is in a cot in the parents' room."

Today, the exact same research is published in the BMJ. Now the FSID interpret the data as: "FSID?s director, Joyce Epstein, said: ?Since 2000 FSID and the Department of Health have been advising parents to sleep their babies in a separate cot in a room with them, and we are pleased that the most up-to-date research confirms that this advice is correct."

The statistics haven't changed. But the FSID have managed to interpret the data in a way that supports their position (even though the BMJ conclusion doesn't support that). Oh - and who funded the research? The FSID.

Excuse me if I'm a bit sceptical

octopus - great X-post there

Wasn't blaming, just saying that DH didn't seem to have the same extra sense of DS's location in the bed.

Wouldn't suffocation be unexplained quite often though? You wouldn't necessarily wake up on top of the baby.

I don't think the article is that bad - after all they conclude with the quote from Rose Dodds which says:

"However, Rose Dodds, of the National Childbirth Trust, said the study had found that there was no increased risk of bed-sharing for babies whose parents had not drunk alcohol, taken drugs, smoked, or fallen asleep on the sofa." (my emboldening)

So the last word supports what people are saying here - that the key is teaching people to co-sleep in a safe way.

And the FSIDs director himself says that the most important thing is that: "Parents need to be advised never to put themselves in a situation where they might fall asleep with a young infant on a sofa." And he adds that co-sleeping should not be demonised for that very reason, because it might lead to more sofa-related deaths.

I've been trying desperately to follow the separate cot advice since my youngest DD was born on Saturday. I had the bedside cot set up and thought it would be a simple matter of shifting her into it once she was asleep but every single time she wakes up and screams, I start feeding her again, she goes back to sleep for only long enough for me to try and move her to the cot... ( I have 4 older daughters. Guidelines were different with them so they slept with me.)

I've been spending most of the nights awake holding my sleeping baby, except when I jerk awake in a guilty panic realising I dozed off. It's been awful. At 4am this morning I found myself seriously believing either I give up sleep completely or my baby will die.

My husband, seeing I've been cracking up, talked me into deciding this morning to treat the new baby as we did her siblings. Then of course all this news comes out.

The only place she will sleep out of contact with me is her bouncy chair. I would gladly sleep on the floor with her in a chair if it was safe. What should I do?

I39, congratulations on your new baby!

There is no evidence that safe bedsharing will do your baby any harm or increase her risk of SIDS. There is evidence it will help your breastfeeding relationship.

Read this joint statement by the NCT and UNICEF which supports bedsharing if you feel worried. No new evidence as come to light since then which changes anything.

l39 cosleep. It felt so very natural to me to have DS snuggled into my chest, there is no way that something that feels so right could possibly be wrong. We did have the cot right next to the bed and I would pop him in there if I woke up and he was still sleeping, but if he grizzled I just cuddled him back in and went back to sleep.

It worked for the first 3 and will work for this one.

Yeah but if you look on the FSID website, it is unequivocal in its position: "[Headline]Babies safest in own cots experts confirm but survey shows too many mums still sceptical

Latest findings by researchers from Bristol University published online today in the British Medical Journal, confirm that ?the safest place for a baby to sleep is in its own cot.?

However, it is worrying that results of a separate survey published in the latest edition of Community Practitioner reveal that a quarter of mums were not persuaded that bedsharing can increase the risk of cot death."

Wait, here's the Bristol study. Where does it confirm that?