SIDS and bedsharing

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040116/325/ejk1v.html

I am not sure what to think, but I won't be giving up co-sleeping.

--
Andrea mom of 5 - latest addition Kamron David 7 months still nursing strong
with 4 teeth!

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040116/325/ejk1v.html

I am not sure what to think, but I won't be giving up co-sleeping.

I saw this on the bbc website, they really didn't seem to be
distinguishing between suffocation and genuine SIDS. Maybe it is best to
recommend not cosleeping to reduce the risk of suffocation. But try
telling that to sleep starved new parents, we don't cosleep anymore, but
ds spend part of most nights in our bed very early on, it was summer and
we didn't have the duvet anywhere near him.

"Andrea" wrote in message
...
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040116/325/ejk1v.html

I am not sure what to think, but I won't be giving up co-sleeping.

--
Andrea mom of 5 - latest addition Kamron David 7 months still nursing
strong
with 4 teeth!

The research is not done on 2 healthy sober biological parents, and those
discouraging bedsharing come from the philosophy that having your baby sleep
alone in a cage all night is an equally healthy or more healthy way to
parent than co-sleeping. It's like saying that xx kids died on bicycles
last week so parents should not get their children bicycles. Makes sense if
you do not see any value at all in cycling.

-- Dagny

"Andrea" wrote in message
...
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040116/325/ejk1v.html

I am not sure what to think, but I won't be giving up co-sleeping.

Even with other safety practices in place, parental smoking and/or formula
feeding appear to be risk factors for SIDs. I think that holds true no
matter where the baby sleeps.

Beth

"Andrea" wrote in message ...
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040116/325/ejk1v.html

I am not sure what to think, but I won't be giving up co-sleeping.

This is odd because the US Yahoo site headlined this story
differently:
"Nearly Half of Crib Deaths Tied to Sleep Positions"
AND the news article states:
"Unless the mother smoked, bedsharing had little effect on the risk of
SIDS and the association was only apparent during the first 8 weeks of
life. In contrast, if the mother smoked, bedsharing raised the risk of
SIDS by 13-fold during the first weeks of life." I didn't read the
study but if this story is an accurate account of it, this vindicates
co-sleeping.
As a former "journalist" I used to write headlines and essentially
there are good headlines and bad headlines and headlines written just
to **** people off or cause alarm. I think more alarming is the
report that putting your baby in another room to sleep is a factor in
SIDS. So often, I hear parents brag how their three month old is
"crib trained" and sleeps all night in his own room down the hall.
They sneer at people who co-sleep (as if we are weak parents). Why
isn't there more made of the dangers in sleeping apart? Anyway,
bottom line is that it's great they are finding some causes and
preventions of SIDS. I hope they keep researching.
HW

"Andrea" wrote in message ...
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/040116/325/ejk1v.html

I am not sure what to think, but I won't be giving up co-sleeping.

The research abstract for this study is on The Lancet's web page
(www.thelancet.com). The guy's who wrote the headlines for the
various news stories tended to highlight different parts of the
study (which is why there were different headlines).

The co-sleeping results boiled down to this one sentence:
"OR [odds ratios] for bed-sharing was very small (at 2 weeks
2.4 [1.2-4.6]) and only significant during the first 8 weeks
of life"

One way to phrase this in a one sentence headline is:
Co-sleeping with children under 2 months old was a significant
risk factor for SIDS.

The study found that co-sleeping was not a significant risk factor
for older kids (but who starts co-sleeping with older kids, anyway?)

FYI: odds ratios are a way of measuring extra risk. An equally risky
activity would have an OR of 1.0 Something three times as dangerous
would have an OR of 3.0. For various reasons, odds ratios of less
than 2.0 are not usually considered significant.

That is why the results from this study are complex. The average
odds ratio was 2.4 (significant, but just so), but the range was
from 1.2 (not significant) to 4.6 (highly significant). It sounds
like the higher numbers were for younger kids.

For comparison, the OR for getting lung cancer if you smoke is 20.0.

Joshua Levy

In article ,
says...

The study found that co-sleeping was not a significant risk factor
for older kids (but who starts co-sleeping with older kids, anyway?)

*raises hand* We did, with our first one.

Michelle
Flutist
--
Drift on a river, That flows through my arms
Drift as I'm singing to you
I see you smiling, So peaceful and calm
And holding you, I'm smiling, too
Here in my arms, Safe from all harm
Holding you, I'm smiling, too
-- For Xander [9/22/98 - 2/23/99]