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!

Spicemonster, I think that FSID's recommendation against co-sleeping, while obviously extremely simplistic, isn't unreasonable.

Generally simple messages have a better chance of being remembered and understood, particularly by the type of parents whose babies are most at risk.

Think of other successful public health campaigns - Breast is Best. Back to Sleep. Five a Day. Drinking and Driving Wrecks Lives. Stranger Danger. They all concentrated on a very simple message with clear parameters.

Safe co-sleeping is a much more complicated question involving your exact setup, the state of your bed, your relationship with your partner, your/his fondness for the odd bevvy, etc etc. Much harder to quantify in a pithy ad and therefore less chance of succeeding in saving any lives.

You're right TYV but it I don't think telling people not to cosleep unless they are entirely sober or haven't taken drugs is a terribly complex message. Given the benefits of cosleeping and the number of people who are willing and able to cosleep safely, I think that's a responsible thing to do. Otherwise it just comes across as scaremongering. And hugely guilt-trips the vast swathes of women who want to do the very best for their babies which (controversially I acknowledge) includes, rather than omits, cosleeping

WannaBe yes you are right - I'm just saying that the fact that a large percentage of SIDS deaths occured while bedsharing doesn't necessarily mean it's more dangerous. (In the same way that if only 2% of deaths occured when bedsharing safely as was speculated earlier in the thread does not make it safer) I do think more people bedshare (at least part time) than most people think. I am sure for example it is much higher than 10% (though I have no idea what the figure is).

I do think that co-sleeping SAFELY is as safe or safer than cot sleeping, simply because I've done it and I know I have been so much more aware of my baby. nicolamary, My baby does not overheat because I'm constantly checking on him, adjusting his blankets, his body temperature is regulated by my own, I know he is breathing every second because I can feel his breath on my chest and feel his warm body. And I do all this unconsciously when I am half-asleep, so I am not sleep deprived and he is not disturbed by me doing so.

I do also think that to co-sleep safely you need to be acutely aware of the risks and make sure you are aware of your baby. Any night I had drunk alcohol or for whatever reason felt less aware of him I have made sure he is well inside his bedside cot.

I don't think FSID has some conspiracy, give them a break, it's an organisation made up of parents who have lost infants to cot death I just think that it's easier for them to blanket ban something, and it's easy to pounce on co-sleeping as something unnecessary and perhaps lazy if you don't understand it.

Nice article here by Dr. Sears with studies linked and also anecdotes about how he watched his wife's behaviour when she co-slept and how they monitored their infant daughter's breathing rates when co-sleeping and when not.

I know exactly what you mean spicemonster, and I've coslept for most of the time with both my babies so I'm not keen on their message either.

But I just think that their desire to concentrate on a simple health message doesn't necessarily equate to an "agenda".

If you are breastfeeding a baby who wakes frequently for food, say every three hours or more, 24 hours a day, for longer than about a week - which let's face it, is normal newborn behaviour! - you have few options for keeping yourself sane. The human body cannot operate without sleep. So you either:

• Add a formula top up, which can jeopardise the success of breastfeeding.

• Switch to bottlefeeding completely and share feeds with your partner - again this has (obviously) jeopardised breastfeeding.

• Use "sleep-training" techniques, which the baby may be too young to understand (and which can be very stressful for the parents)

• Do every feed yourself, ignore the urge to take the baby into bed, and dutifully drag yourself out of bed to sit upright in a chair in the cold every 2-3 hours or more at night, feeding the baby which is likely to take 20 minutes or more, resettle the baby into its cot which again can take a while and fall exhausted back into bed, wake up one or two hours later and repeat until you are in danger of falling asleep sitting up and dropping the baby.

• Or make the bed a safe place for the baby to be and cautiously bring him/her in to snuggle in next to you for a feed, every night or some nights. If you have a willing partner you can then take turns settling the baby back into its cot after the feed or you can simply doze off safe in the knowledge that the baby can't possibly roll into a crevice or under the duvet or into danger in any way.

I don't understand why it seems to hard for sensible guidelines about the logistics of co-sleeping to be made available to parents.

I know what tyv means about an easy, hard hitting campaign.

What I would have welcomed when DS1 was born was some practical info on how to co-sleep safely, such as use blankets rather than a duvet, make sure there are no gaps between pillows/next to wall, don't co-sleep if you/DP have been drinking or taking drugs etc.

Why is this info not made available? I find this really surprising and the anti-co-sleeping stance ridiculously simplistic.

FSID have one objective - the welbeing of new mothers, or the family as a whole are simply not on their radar.

They have also chosen to take a non-evidence based approach, for reasons which are unclear, and may have nothing to do with their funding. Shame on the media for just regurgitating their press releases without properly examining them.

And it seems that distinguishing between SIDS and suffocation at post mortem is subjective - and so not consistent over time.

I suspect that FSID are assuming that a lot of SIDS deaths are really accidental suffocation, hence the emphasis on co-sleeping. Like everything, it will be more complicated than that, with more than one reason for the SIDs.

I actually think they're doing a disservice to parents of babies who have died of SIDS when they include babies who are clearly victims of accidental smothering in their statistics. Their agenda should surely be about finding the cause of SIDS and preventing it, rather than accident-prevention, which is a worthy cause, but nothing to do with SIDS.

The trouble is that it is not possible to separate the two, when they can't always be objectively distinguished at autopsy. Babies who are clearly, or even probably, victims of accidental smothering are NOT treated as SIDS.

What makes you think there will be a single cause of SIDS? It seems more likely that there are various reasons - including undetected infections or congenital abnormalities, smothering etc.

FSID are supposedly basing their advice on risk factors, but seem to be ignoring the conclusions of the Bristol study:

www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/oct13_1/b3666

"...The safest place for an infant to sleep is in a cot beside the parents? bed. Based on evidence from research into SIDS it is questionable whether advice to avoid bed sharing is generalisable and whether such a simplistic approach would do no harm. Parents of young infants need to feed them during the night, sometimes several times, and if we demonise the parents? bed we may be in danger of the sofa being chosen. A better approach may be to warn parents of the specific circumstances that put infants at risk..."

Contrast that with the FSID press release:
fsid.org.uk/Page.aspx?pid=667

irresponsible, in context of the above, Mums are right to be sceptical

The trouble is that it is not possible to separate the two, when they can't always be objectively distinguished at autopsy. Babies who are clearly, or even probably, victims of accidental smothering are NOT treated as SIDS.

What makes you think there will be a single cause of SIDS? It seems more likely that there are various reasons - including undetected infections or congenital abnormalities, smothering etc.

FSID are supposedly basing their advice on risk factors, but seem to be ignoring the conclusions of the Bristol study:

www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/oct13_1/b3666

"...The safest place for an infant to sleep is in a cot beside the parents? bed. Based on evidence from research into SIDS it is questionable whether advice to avoid bed sharing is generalisable and whether such a simplistic approach would do no harm. Parents of young infants need to feed them during the night, sometimes several times, and if we demonise the parents? bed we may be in danger of the sofa being chosen. A better approach may be to warn parents of the specific circumstances that put infants at risk..."

Contrast that with the FSID press release:
fsid.org.uk/Page.aspx?pid=667

irresponsible, in context of the above, Mums are right to be sceptical

I found a study from 1999 (so admittedly 10 years old) on childcare practices associated with risk for SIDS in four centres in Asia (Beijing, Chongqing, Hong Kong and Japan).These are all places with low, or presumed low, rates of SIDS.
It concluded that the key SIDS risk factors, i.e. prone (on front) sleeping position and maternal smoking, were uncommon practices in these four samples. Bedsharing was common and it is speculated that methods of bedsharing in these Asian cultures may differ to those practised in western cultures where association with SIDS is noted. Alternatively, a low rate of maternal smoking may play a protective role in relation to bedsharing.Breastfeeding rates were mainly high (the exception was Hong Kong).
One thing that I can add, is that bedsharing may be common across most of the world, but this means sharing a futon, or similar mat, on the floor - soft beds in the West with duvets and huge pillows etc. are not the same.

Nicolamary - your practical question got rather lost lower down the thread!

To answer your questions as I understand it:

1. The safest way to co-sleep is without pillows or duvet, and with a blanket covering you and the baby. Some people use a bed guard too, particularly with an older baby.

1. The argument for having your baby in your room is that they pick up on your breathing and regulate their own breathing because of it (I think!).

I'm new on here, but was interested to read the thread, and happened to be reading this morning's Guardian, which published a full double page spread on how the report had been misinterpreted in the media:
www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/oct/16/sudden-infant-death-syndrome-children

There are some very interesting quotes from one of the report authors on his concerns at the media reporting of the research, and also on the line the FSID have taken.

Yes, CookieMonster, I came on here to link to the same article
in the Guardian. I posted a link yesterday to an article which appeared in the Telegraph a while ago, when the results of this research first came out. Interesting to see the different ways this has all been presented in the media.

I do wish that they would stop thinking that they have to give A Very Simple Message or We Won't Understand. (Especially when they give the wrong message...)