Leaving babies to cry..........

[fifitot]

www.google.co.uk/url?q=www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/apr/21/leaving-baby-to-cry-brain-devel opment-damage&sa=X&ei=z4jQS76kKInr-QaC7rkz&ved=0CA4QzgQoADAB&usg=AFQjCNEXuNUt3IqFAKHl3B569mWDkKdLtg

Apols if posted elsewhere - thought it interesting.

I can see that this thread has gone down a particular root, but the OP and bippyhippy might be interested in this discussion on badscience forum.

The quote from the neuroscientist interested me:
"Tom Sullivan, professor of Neurology at Liverpool University and the Walton Centre agrees with Leach that cortisol levels do rise when babies cry or are stressed and says he imagines that the rise can be detected in saliva. "There are lab studies that show that if you add high levels of cortisol to brain cells in a test tube, it causes cell death," says Prof Sullivan. "But to try to relate that to humans is in the realm of fantasy," he adds."

I did wonder about the science but we know from older children that neglect actually impacts upon brain development so I can see how the conclusion about babies comes about.

TBH whether it's bad science or not - just feels wrong to ignore a crying child. No other creature ignores their offspring in this way.

fifitot

I agree withyou

its just wrong to ignore a crying child

Well you're hardly going to inject a small baby's brain with cortisol just to find out, are you.

Not quite sure what his point is - can he prove it doesn't cause damage?

Besides which I've heard in the past that a 'baseline' cortisol level is set during these first few months after birth. This seems to suggest that the greater the stress response during the first say 6 months, the higher the baseline level will remain for the rest of that child's life...this enables a higher stress response at every given incidence of stress throughout their life.

i don't know where I read all this but it was years ago. Seeming to indicate that kids who are left to cry will respond with higher levels of measurable stress later in life, thus the connection with MH problems etc etc etc

Also a study showed that abbies who were left to cry more in the first 6 months went on to cry more in the second half of their first year. Whereas those who were responded to quickly cried far less between 6 and 12 mo.

Take from that what you will but I can't quite see why people are trying to prove it's FINE to leave babies to cry...what's in it for you? It's surely a painful and heart rending experience for all concerned, if only temporarily - but studies seem to suggest it has a further reaching impact.

Fliight - what was in it for me, DH and DS was that after 8.5mo of wakes every hour we were in danger of hurting ourselves and each other. It meant that we had tried everything and were then better able to cope when DS's bad sleeping continued for the next 5 months due to illness and teething. You'll know that you can't do CC in that case. We've recently tried again at 13mo and it seems to have helped a lot this time. Ferber's has been the most useful book to us on sleeping, including helping us to realise it was okay to feed at night beyond 6 months. Not sure many people who haven't read him really know what CC is about.

fifitot I'd be interested in some links on other creatures not ignoring their offspring in this way, as I'm not sure I believe it. For example, I remember getting distraught at a wildlife documentary where the young albino primate was simply abandoned by his family group and died several days later. His crying certainly bothered me. But they still left him.

I can see that you had a difficult time, but cannot relate to it on account of having had two babies that slept pretty well once they were in my bed and bf on demand.

I cannot speak for every scenario, and you may well have been justified but I have yet to experience your situation so can't really comment.

I don't think the fact the young monkey died though is a great advert for just leaving him...though I'm sure that isn't what you were trying to say!

I'm not sure about the science aspect of it, althought the cortisol levels makes sense to me, as does the reactions later on in life. I also read that the sooner a baby's cries are responded to, the sooner they move onto non-crying communcation. I have certainly found this with my DS. He rarely cries, but has a whole repetoire of noises to choose from which clearly indicate various different states of mind . I have never left him to cry.

Maybe it's the teacher in me, but you can't really teach someone who doesn't know what they are doing, how to do something, by leaving them to it. I suppose the Montesorri (sp?) lot do - they show them once and then let the materials teach them. Perhaps the cot will teach the baby how to sleep . Anyway, there are stages - doing it together, doing it on their own but supported, and then naturally they will start to do it on their own - in fact they probably want to be able to do it on their own because it gives them a sense of self sufficiency But you wouldn't leave someone, who doesn't know how to write, with a pen and say there you go, and you wouldn't leave someone, who didn't know how to spell, with a dictionary and say 'go learn', would you.? So for me, it makes no sense whatsoever to leave a baby in its cot and say 'go to sleep'.

Really good post, Ruby. Agree with just about all of that

Fllight Yes! My aspirations for DS were a little higher than that .

I meant that I've heard that statement about "no other species would do this" a few times before and it had set me to mulling with no idea how to find out any more about it. My logic was that, if they would leave a baby to die over several days, they probably wouldn't have qualms about leaving them to cry for a few minutes at a time. Which is what controlled crying amounts to.

DS just didn't sleep very well at all from 6-13 weeks, whatever we tried (e.g. 6 hours in a 24 hour period). We were so shell-shocked by the end of that we were delighted when he started to sleep in his cot and woke for a couple of feeds in the night so we could get a couple of 2-3 hour stretches of sleep in ourselves. When he started to have problems again about 6 weeks later, he wouldn't settle when we tried co-sleeping, as I think he had got used to his own space.

Anyway, you can probably tell that I don't feel great about having resorted to controlled crying . But it seemed like the least bad option at 8.5mo. I really wasn't prepared to try it when DS was younger, and wouldn't recommend it to anyone, just try to explain how it is supposed to be done in theory (people have the worse misunderstandings and just go straight to leaving the child crying alone for ages ). I hope that it hasn't done him too much harm.

He gets lots of cuddles when I'm bfing him, and still takes some of his daytime naps while feeding. I hope this helps to mitigate any potential damage. Sigh.

Sorry for the long self-justifying post!

Ruby I see where you're coming from. We did BLW, which is more like leaving them to it though...

I wonder if there's something about giving them the opportunity to do stuff when they're developmentally ready to do it. It certainly felt like the CC was working in that way at 13.5mo. But nobody seems to have a problem with doing CC at that age anyway.

I don't see what that article is trying to say.

'It is not an opinion but a fact that it's potentially damaging to leave babies to cry'

It's also fact that driving a car is potentially damaging (if you have an accident). So what? Does he know for a fact that a few minutes of higher cortisol levels in blood irreversibly damages baby brain? No.

IsItMeOr thats interesting - we're doing BLW too and that is leaving them to it, you're right. I suppose you sit with them though, and do the odd bit of exagerated chewing .

FWIW, I am now, because it feels natural, leaving my DS (almost 7 months) to settle himself completely, after bath etc, but I respond pretty quickly if he makes an 'i'm not ok' noise. I then help him out. I tried one night to leave him to grumble for longer but his stress level was rising, not falling - he was getting more and more irate and when it turned to crying, I was happy to go get him. So now I don't see the point, I might as well leave him if he is happy and calm, and stay and help if he is not. He needs me less and less, and gets more and more independent. Maybe I will feel differently when he is 13.5 months - I am definitely not saying it is never appropriate.

Different babies though too - I suppose I am doing what feels right in this situation, with my DS who has a particular type of character.

Undoubtedly though, the thought of young babies crying alone, quite distressed until they give up, in a bid to get them to sleep to a prescribed timetable is, IMO, actually quite upsetting.

(Getting a bit carried away now )

I just posted this on the CC thread:

I think sleep deprivation is extremely damaging and lack of sleep can be just as bad for the child as the parent, so if all else has been tried, then why not try a little CC? If you're only leaving the baby for a few minutes at a time, it's only really the time you would leave the LO crying if you suddenly needed to go to the loo or had to grab the laundry off the line before the heavens opened etc... which I expect most of us have had to do where leaving a baby crying for a few minutes is the only option. And I do mean a FEW minutes.

I haven't needed to do CC as yet with my DD and I hope I don't have to, but I haven't ruled it out if it becomes necessary. I will try NCSS first, but at the moment night wakings for feeds are still necessary because she is quite small (she was 4 weeks premature) and anyway, she settles quickly after the feeds (every 2-4 hours), sometimes with the help of a dummy, sometimes not. We'll see how things pan out with sleeping once she's attained the gold 14lbs weight and is past 6 months!

I think CC is different to "Cry It Out" where the baby is just left to cry themselves to sleep with no soothing etc. - and that, I agree, is tantamount to cruelty. But a few minutes of crying, then reassurance... well, I can't see that the amounts of cortisone produced from that would do any serious harm in the long term.

My opinion anyway, FWIW.

That's a good point Cote.

Ruby - the author's theory is based on the way the brain develops, and the bit she's concerned about is done by between 6-12 months (if I've understood what I read correctly). Hence my comment about 13.5mo not being what they're taking about.

What you're doing with your DS sounds absolutely great. It's reassuring to hear that not all babies have the same sleep temperaments, given how that worked out for us with DS!

What about feeding? I remember when I was exclusively breastfeeding my DS1 (13 years ago now) who was getting more and more distressed after feeds. He just wasn't getting enough from me, even though I was trying everything, oats, rest, expressing (only ever got a drop) endless feeding etc etc. He would come off, bash my breast with his head and cry. He was constantly crying and I was constantly crying... at last I caved and gave him formula top-ups which he wolfed hungrily.

I've always felt guilty - but now have read this report and wonder, what's actually worse? Keeping his stress levels raised and risking this apparent cortisol damage or giving him less-than-ideal food? So many people say 'it's cruel to leave a baby alone' but I was basically being told 'leave a baby hungry'. I know my supply would in theory have built up but what about in the meantime? What if it took a month to get there?

And if the answer is 'it's different', HOW is it different? Depriving a baby of food is surely on a par with depriving them of comfort? Or am I missing something?

(He is now a strapping happy chap in rude health and his appetite has never diminished so on balance I'm glad I did what I did.)