The other day, my mom reminded me that "they" now say that newborns should sleep with pacifiers to prevent SIDS. She is a healthcare professional who works with preemies and other sick babies. I didn't bother pointing out the reason that "they" recommend pacifiers at night because it has fallen on deaf ears before. Babies who sleep beside their mothers (as is natural) do not sleep as deeply as babies alone. They breathe in rhythm with their moms, they share sleep cycles with each other, and they nurse more often than if they were in another bed. All of this helps to prevent them from stopping breathing in their sleep (sleep apnea), which is something that lots of newborns do, especially premature ones. Since we aren't supposed to sleep with our babies, they sleep more deeply, and more die of SIDS because they don't wake up and start breathing again (one suspected cause of the horrible syndrome). If a newborn has a pacifier in his mouth, then he will suckle in his sleep and keep from falling so deeply that he might stop breathing. So now, your baby should sleep with an artificial nipple, even though it is taking the place of your own nipple and warmth and breathing that are supposed to keep him alert enough to live through the night.
It drives me insane that it is being promoted as a new way of saving babies, just like the "Back to Sleep" campaign. It definitely saved babies' lives, but it wouldn't have been necessary if people still slept beside their infants to begin with. A breastfeeding, co-sleeping newborn does not ever sleep on her stomach; she couldn't nurse if she did. Babies sleeping alone on their stomachs sleep much more deeply than their backsleeping counterparts. I feel like some day there will be a breaking scientific discovery that co-sleeping helps prevent SIDS. The news channels will be full of "experts" debating why this is true and why no one knew about it.
Living in a society where scientific studies show a reduction in SIDS when the mother breastfeeds and sleeps with the baby at least in her room, yet has a majority of mothers using formula and putting their babies to sleep in another room, can be so frustrating.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
"It drives me insane that it is being promoted as a new way of saving babies, just like the "Back to Sleep" campaign. It definitely saved babies' lives, but it wouldn't have been necessary if people still slept beside their infants to begin with."
BTW, when the "back to sleep" campaign started in 1992 about 80% of Sudden Infant Deaths (SID) were classified as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS). Now, 55% of Sudden Infant Deaths (SID) are classified as Sudden Infant Death Syndrome. Basically, because of political pressure coroners are calling more deaths "unspecified" instead of SIDS. But did deahts decrease because of Back to Sleep Campaign? Probaly not except for a few infants who have a rare brain defect. Most of the decrease has been due to preventing overheating and a 38% decline in maternal smoking. Considering all the mental (lower scores on tests, emotional stress (more crying and less sleep), and physical damage (an epidemic of torticollis and plagiocephaly) that the Back to Sleep campaign has caused it's unlikely that it's worth it and will likely be ended soon.
Post a Comment