Are your children’s vaccines up to date?

Set a reminder

Please or to access all these features

Sleep

Join our Sleep forum for tips on creating a sleep routine for your baby or toddler. Need more advice on your childs development? Sign up to our Ages and Stages newsletter here.

Co-sleeping. Give it a go!

167 replies

MarmaladeSun · 28/08/2004 10:42

Hi all. I've posted a reply on one of the other threads about my 6 week old sleeping with me, and knowing the reactions Mums get from other people if they co sleep, I thought I'd paste this information onto this thread. Hope it helps anyone who's struggling with the night time!

Harvard psychiatrist Michael Commons and his colleagues recently presented the American Association for the Advancement of Science with research that suggests that babies who sleep alone are more susceptible to stress disorders.

Notre Dame anthropology professor and leading sleep researcher, James McKenna, has long held that babies who sleep with their mothers enjoy greater immunilogical benefits from breastfeeding because they nurse twice as frequently as their counterparts who sleep alone.

In his book on Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, pediatrician William Sears cites co-sleeping as a proactive measure parents can take to reduce the risk of this tragedy. McKenna?s research shows that babies who sleep with parents spend less time in Level III sleep, a state of deep sleep when the risk of apneas are increased. Further, co-sleeping babies learn to imitate healthy breathing patterns from their bunkmates.

Every scientific study of infant sleep confirms that babies benefits from co-sleeping. Not one shred of evidence exists to support the widely held notion that co-sleep is detrimental to the psychological or physical health of infants.

If science consistently provides evidence that the American social norm of isolating babies for sleep can have deleterious effects, why do we continue the 150-year crib culture in the United States? Why do parents flock to Toys R? Us to purchase dolls that have heart beats, sing lullabies and snore when they can do the same for free?

McKenna suggests that there are several factors that maintain this cultural norm. Foremost is the American value of self-sufficiency. Independence is an important characteristic for a successful person in our society. We take great pride in watching our babies pick themselves up by their own bootie straps. But the assumption that co-sleeping inhibits independence is pure cultural mythology. In fact, the opposite it true.

Children who share sleep with their parents are actually more independent than their peers. They perform better in school, have higher self esteem, and fewer health problems. After all, who is more likely to be well-adjusted, the child who learns that his needs will be met, or the one who is left alone for long periods of time? McKenna suggests that it is confusing for a baby to receive cuddles during the day while also being taught that the same behavior is inappropriate at night.

The Commons report states that when babies are left alone to cry themselves to sleep, levels of cortisol, a stress hormone, are elevated. Commons suggests that the constant stimulation by cortisol in infancy causes physical changes in the brain. "It makes you more prone to the effects of stress, more prone to illness, including mental illness, and makes it harder to recover from illness," he concludes.

The best-selling book on infant sleep is frighteningly misdirected and offers absolutely no scientific grounds for its thesis. Richard Ferber suggest that the best way to solve your child?s "sleep problems" is to isolate them in another room, shut the door, and let them cry for ten minutes without interruption. Then parents may enter the room and verbally soothe the baby, but are warned against making physical contact with their baby. Shortly after, they are advised to leave the infant to cry for another timed interval a la "Mad About You."

Most sleep disorders are not biologically based, but rather, created by well-intended parents. Making oneself available by intercom is simply not meeting the nighttime needs of an infant.

Many parents argue that they tried "Ferberizing" their baby and enjoyed great success with the technique. Indeed, the infant may stop crying and learn to go to sleep on his own, but this is a short-term pay off for parents. The baby has not suddenly discovered quiet content. He simply is exhausted from his futile efforts to be nurtured. Fifteen years later, the same parents shrug their shoulders and wonder why their kids are shutting them out.

Though co-sleeping is common in most parts of the world, many American parents would not consider it because they fear it will cause them sleep deprivation. Every scientific study concludes that parents who bring their babies to bed sleep longer and better.

A few parents do experience difficulty sleeping with a baby in their bed. For them, a "sidecar" or bedside sleeper is an ideal way to meet their needs for rest and their baby?s need for co-sleep. Keeping a crib or bassinet in the parents? room is another option. A "family bed" is not for everyone, but creative solutions for co-sleep are abundant in our consumer-friendly culture.

The most common question co-sleepers are asked is about maintaining a sexual relationship with one?s partner. The answer is simple. Go someplace where the baby is not. Enough said.

For those who consider unlimited access to their sexual partner more important than meeting the needs of their baby, cat ownership is a wonderful alternative to parenthood. You can just toss a bowl of Nine Lives on the floor and frolic around the house whenever the mood hits you.

Co-sleeping is not right for everyone. Heavy drinkers and drug addicts should avoid sleeping with their babies. Of course, these folks should probably avoid parenthood altogether.

If scientific research consistently demonstrates that co-sleeping offers tremendous benefits for babies and has no deleterious effects, it?s time Americans join the rest of the world and parent our babies 24 hours a day.

Jennifer Coburn
San Diego, California
USA

Send this article
to a friend!

----------------

Related Articles

The Family Bed: An Evolutionary Approach to Family Sleep
To Sleep or Not to Sleep: That is the Question
Someone's Been Sleeping in My Bed!

----------------

Home | All About | Lighter Side | Advocacy | Reading Room | Help Me! | Shopping | Community | Working Mom

URL: www.breastfeeding.com/
Copyright © 1998-2000 Breastfeeding.com, Inc.. Comments and Feedback

Disclaimer: All material provided at Breastfeeding.com is provided for educational purposes only. Consult with your lactation consultant or health care provider regarding the advisability of any opinions or recommendations with respect to your individual situation.

OP posts:
Are your children’s vaccines up to date?
MummyToSteven · 01/09/2004 23:02

beansmum - but if I have another baby, I don't know if I could face up to trying bfing again, particularly if he/she had a c/section or assisted delivery. also some people's partners/family are very against bfing for whatever reason.

hercules · 01/09/2004 23:04

i think it would be very difficult without supportive partner. My cousin in law had a c section and had real problems trying to bf. No help from hospital either. She wanted to bf but couldnt.

beansmum · 01/09/2004 23:05

i just think its strange to not even try. It's so easy and so satisfying if it works and if it doesn't work then you can stop and go onto formula, its not so easy to go the other way.

joanneg · 01/09/2004 23:07

I didnt find breast feeding easy at all

hercules · 01/09/2004 23:07

I think the problem might be that if you dont want to bf then it must be an awful thing to do it iyswim. It's a very personal, intimate thing and if not enjoyed must cause all sorts of problems. I think I would really resent it if I didnt want to do it.

beansmum · 01/09/2004 23:09

but why wouldn't you want to do it? thats what i don't understand

Tortington · 01/09/2004 23:10

i didnt want to try

hercules · 01/09/2004 23:11

At a guess maybe for some people it's because bf isnt something you see a lot of, you dont tend to know many people prechildren who have done it. Society sees breasts as sexual things not feeding things.

beansmum · 01/09/2004 23:14

maybe it's because i have a lot of younger cousins who were all bf, i just always assumed thats what i would do. hadn't even considered bottlefeeding. I'm too lazy to bottlefeed anyway.

hercules · 01/09/2004 23:15

I'm too lazy not to co-sleep!

beansmum · 01/09/2004 23:15

custardo- why didn't you want to try? sorry if its personal, just curious.

beansmum · 01/09/2004 23:16

bean doesn't want to cosleep anymore not even in the mornings

Tortington · 01/09/2004 23:16

i wanted to remain me. not me as a carrier and producer. i didn't want all the responsability. its definatley a state of mind issue.

Tortington · 01/09/2004 23:17

some people arn't natural mothers - i'm one of them

hercules · 01/09/2004 23:18

That's where bf is difficult. I dont feel "me" whilst bf and look forward to being "me" again. We have loads of allergies in my family so part of it is not wanting the guilt although I know there are no quarantees.

hercules · 01/09/2004 23:19

If bm came in a bottle........

Tortington · 01/09/2004 23:19

agreed

hercules · 01/09/2004 23:21

it took me 8 years to have another child. Partly because I knew I'd bf and knowing that was enough reason to not have another child.

beansmum · 01/09/2004 23:22

i must just be really lucky that its been so easy for me. i love feeding bean and am dreading him starting nursery in 3 weeks. he's still going to get breastmilk but in a bottle, i'm quite scared about it actually

hercules · 01/09/2004 23:24

Beansmum- I found it a relief to know that dd could take bm from a bottle and now at 11 months has formula when I'm at work. I know she can manage.

woodstock · 02/09/2004 01:49

Just getting back to this thread. What an interesting turn! I had thought I would bf like a champ. Had a good friend who whipped out her breast at the slightest noise from her ds and made it look so easy! Anyway, since I had to go back to work part-time at 4 weeks I started pumping and giving ds a bottle of bm occasionally to make sure he would feed properly while I was gone. soon he was pounding my chest with his little fist whilst bf - I guess because he wanted it to come faster? Anyway, by 3.5 months bf made me a nervous wreck and I began to pump exclusively. Not what I had imagined at all. Managed to keep ds on bm for 7 1/2 months before I had to start supplementing with formula. He's 1 year now and I'm winding down the pumping. Guess you never know...

MarmaladeSun · 02/09/2004 08:22

Hi all. I'm glad to see that for the most part this thread has returned to MN as it should (and always has been); that is friendly. There is nothing wrong with a healthy, even heated debate but this one got out of hand for a while, and I'm sorry to say it was me who started it, albeit unintentionally. When myself and canadianmom have talked about negative reactions from people, I (and I think canadianmom also) are talking about society in general as opposed to mumsnetters. The problem with the internet is that you cannot get a tone of voice across, and therefore it is so easy to take offence where none is intended. Also bearing in mind that most of us have little ones demanding our time we tend to be sparing with our words and not really elaborate on what we want to say (except me of course who could 'talk' for Britain!) LOL.

OP posts:
MarmaladeSun · 02/09/2004 08:24

And yes (see, here I go again!) I CAN see why the article would offend, with hindsight. So for those who could see what I naively couldn't, apologies.

OP posts:
butwhatdoiknow · 02/09/2004 08:37

Ah Bless you Miss Marmalade. I bet you wish you'd never mentioned it!

MarmaladeSun · 02/09/2004 09:42

Yup

OP posts:
Swipe left for the next trending thread