Request
Dear infant care gurus.
Please. Do us a favor. Would your profession kindly reach a consensus on even one major issue of concern to new parents???
We love ya, but you're driving us nuts. Back when I was a rugrat, you were advocating formula over breastfeeding -- the argument, I'm told, was that formula allows for a "consistent, reliable" supply.
You've rethought that one. Meanwhile, thirty-some years ago you guys (and, for reasons unclear, most of you continue to be guys) were also pushing circumcision. Now, I'm not unhappy with the, er, sculptured look of my circumcised penis, but it would have been cool if your advice to my parents had actually been based on some solid medical rationale. Which, as many of you now acknowledge, it wasn't.
Up until 1995, you were telling moms and dads that babies should sleep on their tummies -- something to do with drool. Then you concluded that the risk of drool death was slim compared to the risk of crib death (SIDS), which is also slim, but still worrisome.
So, as you recommend, our three-month-old son goes to sleep facing those cute sticky-stars on the ceiling.
You know where I'm going with this. Co-sleeping. A common practice in most parts of the world outside the West. Dr. William Sears, author of the popular Baby Book, this generation's Dr. Spock, is for it. Says it encourages breastfeeding and builds the mother-child bond; he also believes it reduces the risk of SIDS, because mom acts as a kind of "pacemaker" during the vulnerable zone (1 to 6 months) when a baby's sleep is deepening, but his/her cardiopulminary mechanism hasn't matured.
Both members of the sleep-sharing pair develop synchronous sleep stages, perhaps not perfectly in step but close enough to be mutually aware of the other's presence and mutually affecting the other's physiology, but without disturbing each other's sleep. Because of this mutual sensitivity; the presence of the mother raises baby's threshold of arousability; a protective benefit should a stop-breathing episode occur.
Makes sense to me. But what about this brand-new study, all over the media yesterday, which concludes that co-sleeping is dangerous? Dr. James Kemp has no doubts about the issue: he thinks sharing a bed is a "terrible idea" and is calling for an awareness campaign to alert the public. He also frames his argument in terms of solid science versus wishful thinking and touchy-feely imprecision.
If he's right, then all us Baby Book-users have been gravely misled, and Dr. Sears is guilty of promoting a dangerous practice.
Three things occurred to me yesterday while I was looking through the various articles. One is that the headlines were alarmist, almost sadistic. The likely result is that many parents, rather than becoming more informed, suffered panic attacks. "Babies in Bed with Adults Are in Peril" (Globe and Mail). "Deadly Decision: Where Should Baby Sleep?" (Science Daily). Dr. Koop.com tried to lighten the mood with a pun: "Let Sleeping Babies Lie in Their Cribs." Others were more prescriptive: "Study: Adult Bed No Place for Baby."
Secondly, most of the articles offered little or no rebuttal, even though this has been an area of controversy for years. As an interested party, I'm open to these new conclusions, but I want to hear from the other side, and that took some digging around. I work in (web) journalism; I thought it was standard practice to include contrasting viewpoints.
Thirdly, there seem to be a number of distinct issues here, but they're being blurred, treated as parts of the same bad animal. SIDS, whatever it is (no one seems to know -- it's become this free-floating bogeyman), isn't the same thing as death by suffocation or fall. So the debate, at some level, may be about apples and oranges -- neither side is incorrect, but they're answering different questions. Also, whether bed-sharing is risky or not could depend partly on the parents -- in brief, not a good idea to drink and co-sleep.
So, I don't know. Both the pro-co-sleepers and their adversaries aren't above playing dirty. Dr. Sears capitalizes on fears of SIDS -- a rare occurrence -- to promote his theory, which caters to my generation's romantic view of traditional practices (he's also big on "baby-wearing"). Dr. Kemp, meanwhile, claims statistical objectivity, but ignores or minimizes issues which might complicate his findings.
Luckily, there's a compromise: "baby co-sleeper" units which you anchor to the side of the bed, forming a kind of extension -- easy for mom to reach over when baby needs milk, but also providing a distinct space, away from adult blankets and pillows. Only problem is -- babies aren't fooled. They know the difference.
Meanwhile, docs, can you get together and work this out? Please? At some baby-guru conference maybe?
11:53:41 AM 
|
|
