Sleeping on tummy - irresponsible or not a big deal?

[NKffffffffe749edcfX11d6d7397af]

My DD is 11 weeks and is a good sleeper. We've always found that she sleeps better on her tummy and settles easily after a feed by being placed on her tummy. I have had many comments about how dangerous it is which is really starting to worry me. Is it worth starting to try and settle her on her back in the night? Selfish I know, but I don't want to jeopardise the long stretches of sleep I've started to know and love!

What's the consensus???

You have to take all the risk factors into account when making this sort of decision. Eg not to let the baby get overheated, sleep at the foot of the cot, no one smokes in the house, if the baby seems unwell etc.

I'm not going to give advice, but you have to figure it all out yourself as a parent. What works for you and your baby

Difficult one, my dd was the same but we chose not to. I think percentage wise the chances if your child dying from SIDS is relatively small however tummy sleepers are definitely at more risk and personally I couldn't deliberately do something that I knew put dd at increased risk. Waiting for the day she can roll herself onto her tummy in her sleep though as I do think she'll sleep better (currently 4 months).

Don't do it. Prop her if necessary half on her side with a folded towel or some such.

Maybe watch her fall asleep on her tummy then roll her gently onto her back.

She'll cope on her back. Much better a few squawks and bad nights from her than any other consequence.

(btw my DS is 11 weeks too! :o)

If it were my DD, and she and no other risk factors ( no smoking, the right blankets etc), I would let her sleep on her tummy. But it is clearly against all the current advice, so you have to decide for yourself.

If your DD is sleeping fine on her back, I'd say leave her that way.

My DDs both slept on their tummies but that was only after weeks of trying to get them to settle on their backs. But neither would sleep for more than 10 mins that way. It got to the point where it was either put them on their tummies or go out of my mind from sleep deprivation and frustration. Since you don't seem to have that worry, I'd go with the safer option myself.

My understanding is that babies sleep too well on their tummies so they can't wake themselves up if they get into breathing difficulties. Remember that after the back to back campaign started the number of cot deaths significantly decreased across many countries (NZ, AU, UK, Japan and others IIRC) to show a direct correlation between cot death and sleeping on the front.

Ultimately it is your choice but IMO it isn't worth the risk. Having said that I do put mine to sleep on her side.

my now 14 year old was a tummy sleeper - she would not ever sleep on her back, would howl as soon as she was laid down on her back, wake if we rolled her over.... so in the end we put her on her tummy and didn't tell anyone.

This is strangely hard to admit!

I wouldn't take the risk. Since the back to sleep campaign the number of SIDS cases has been reduced significantly. I was at a nursery nurse on the maternity unit with ds1 when she said "don't tell anyone but I think your baby would settle much better if you laid him down on his tummy."

Dd2 would only sleep on her front and would sleep on her front in her lie flat baby chair, we tried on her back but as soon as she was strong enough would try and roll back onto her front, she always slept next to me so i kept a close eye on her. She's now 5 and still sleeps on her tummy.

There has been a massive drop in SIDS since the "Back to Sleep" campaign. So massive that I suspect that people don't worry about it any more.

I still remember seeing Anne Diamond's husband carrying a tiny white coffin into church - please don't risk it.

I put my DS on his front since he had terrible colic when he was 4 weeks old, he slept perfectly, and has slept that way since then, he is now 19 weeks. He won't sleep on his back at all now though.

I think it is a choice you have to make yourself.

A mum at my clinic has had baby on her front since very young. The HV said that the concerns are around overheating so to be conscious of this.

I have another friend who moved baby out of her room at 5 wks and her HV (a different one) was completely unfazed and said she moved her baby out at 2 wks. So maybe these rules are not so rigid...

Have you asked your HV? They may be able to give you some guidance if this is what you want to do

useful info here

Prior to parents being advised to put their babies on their backs there were around 2500 cot deaths a year and since the back to sleep campaign there are about 350 unexplained deaths a year. The facts speak for themselves and you have to decide if you are prepared to take that risk.

I'm sorry. this is not a matter of opinion or "every baby's different".

This is a car seat equivalent.

If the OP said that her baby cries on long journeys in a baby seat but doesn't in somebody's arms nobody would suggest ditching the car seat, would they?

And before car seats were introduced, I would be amazed if somebody told me that over 2000 babies dies in car crashes.

Although the night DC2 was born, he was asleep (on back) next to me in the hospital. I woke up and checked on him and he was a grey as when I first delivered him and had trouble breathing. I rushed to pick him up and put him upright against me and managed to unblock his airway. He couldn't get the mucus clear from his lungs while being on his back. From then on I always put him to sleep propped on his side with a rolled up blanket.

Thank god to this day I woke up and checked on him.

it's not a car seat equivalent
baby in question is not a newborn

Can i hijack this thread to ask at what age is it ok to let them sleep on thier fronts?
I have a 8 month old who sleeps on her front sometimes, usually during the evenings ( i check on her constantly) and we co-sleep at night and then she sleeps on her side.

Is 8 month old enough not to be worrying about this?

agree that it's not a car seat equivalent.

Babies who are not in car seats die (or are injured) because they are not protected if the car crashes.

Nobody knows why babies die of sids. Yes there are certain factors which are believed to reduce the instances of sids, but babies still do die in unexplained circs even when sleeping on their backs.

The ideal is of course that the baby will sleep on their back, thus reducing the risk, but if the baby is unable to sleep on their back then to call someone irresponsible for allowing that baby to sleep in the position which is most comfortable for them is just ridiculous. Babies are individuals too. Most adults have their own preferred sleeping positions, why should this not apply to babies too?

choceyes in answer to your question - as soon as they can roll over of their accord it's fine - it's when they're unable to right themselves that there's an increased risk afaik.

Seeker is spot on.

I wouldn't risk it. Cot death is pretty much the worst thing I can imagine happening, and back sleeping massively reduces the risk.

Babies are most at risk between 2 and 4 months by the way, not newborns.

Yep, once they can roll over easily the sleeping thing becomes much less of an issue. The cot death risk drops dramatically after six months as well.

Before that though - I wouldn't risk it myself. I was terrified of cot death when DS was little as a friend's nephew had died from it. The death rate dropped so dramatically when the advice about sleeping on their back came in - it's a huge huge risk factor.

Seeker is not entirely spot on. A baby crying for a car journey, which is usually short and not all day every day is not the same as a baby who absolutely will not sleep on its back, resulting in no sleep at all for anyone. A devastatingly sleep-deprived parent is lacking in sense, judgement and temper, and is IMO a greater danger to the heath and safety of the baby then sleeping on its tummy.

As I said in my earlier post, I would never condone tummy sleeping unless a parent had tried to the point of utter defeat to get the baby to sleep on its back.