6 ms·

> which apparently contradicts some guidance This isn’t just “some guidance”. Its the American Academy of Pediatrics guidance which shows stuffed animals, pil

> which apparently contradicts some guidance This isn’t just “some guidance”. Its the American Academy of Pediatrics guidance which shows stuffed animals, pillows, and blankets increase the risk factor for SIDS.

rayiner 9y ago
A lot of medical guidance comes from busybodies who have no ability to perform cost-benefit analysis (e.g. pregnant women and caffeine). SIDS risk is around 0.5 per 1,000. The major cause of the decrease since the 1980s seems to be the decline of smoking. Everything else is noise for something that's already low probability.
- kolpa 9y ago
  SIDS has decreased (~70%) since 1980s, but Accidental Suffocation has increased (perhaps due to improved diagnosis of ASSB vs SIDS of the same underlying events) to become about as prevalent as SIDS. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/128/5/e1341.full?sid=bd9574fb-4575-4d35-a46e-a63394e68331 http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/128/5/e1341.fu...
- btilly 9y ago
  Do you have a source for this claim? References like https://www1.nichd.nih.gov/sts/campaign/science/Pages/backsleeping.aspx https://www1.nichd.nih.gov/sts/campaign/science/Pages/backsl... and articles like https://www.npr.org/2011/07/15/137859024/rethinking-sids-many-deaths-no-longer-a-mystery https://www.npr.org/2011/07/15/137859024/rethinking-sids-man... make it likely that the increase in sleeping children on their back is the bulk of the reduction. And that the fact that blacks are less likely to take that recommendation is the reason why the black community has twice the death rate of whites. This is something that I have a personal interest in. My nephew died of SIDS months before the recommendation about sleeping positions was reversed back in the early 90s. My sister did not smoke. She did put him to sleep on his stomach.
- dsfyu404ed 9y ago
  >A lot of medical guidance... >busybodies who have no ability to perform cost-benefit analysis Not just medical guidance. All sorts of rules, laws, regulation and other BS is the result of these people.
- z23asdfji 9y ago
  The irony of a lawyer calling others, essentially, low effort contributors. Being able to take a law and see meaning relative contemporary culture (likely by memorizing the meaning some professor prescribed it) isn't producing anything new. Have seen you post here before. Haven't lost any of that self-aggrandizing tone. Know your roll, bruh. You're just a cog too. I get sick of this in the IT community too. LOOK I CAN READ MANUAL AND MAKE COMPUTERS DO WHAT IT SAYS! I R KING
kyoob 9y ago
Ok, sure, but let the parents know instead of calling CPS, right?
- greenyoda 9y ago
  Not to mention that calling CPS would probably be a career-limiting move for a babysitter. What parents would want to risk hiring that babysitter after something like that?
maloney 9y ago
There is a difference between a new born and a 7 month old. The latter is extremly unlikly of suffocating on a blanket or a stuffed animal and calling CPS in this case is abhorrent. There is certinaly a step before you call someone to take there kid away
lvh 9y ago
The context is taking their children away from their parents under the pretext that the parents are unfit to raise them. Can we agree that "a professional association of physicians made a recommendation which the parents violated" does not constitute "unfit parent"? SIDS is also increased in babies who sleep in a separate room; presumably we're not condoning robbing everyone who has a nursery of their children.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > The context is taking their children away from their parents under the pretext that the parents are unfit to raise them. Can we agree that "a professional association of physicians made a recommendation which the parents violated" does not constitute "unfit parent"? Being aware of a parent disregarding widely disseminated recommendations of the medical community on a death risk is certainly reason for a third party to be concerned about fitness. It may not equate to unfitness, which corresponds well to the lack of any CPS action when the report was investigated. The threshold for reasonsble reporting to a investigative authority should not be certainty of a violation. (Now, I would expect a babysitter to attempt to resolve this with the parents first.)
  - rayiner 9y ago
    > Being aware of a parent disregarding widely disseminated recommendations of the medical community on a death risk is certainly reason for a third party to be concerned about fitness. Absolutely not. Way over the line.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
scurvy 9y ago
This guidance is beyond suspect. It falls into the category of "drink 8 glasses of water a day." Doctors parrot it, but they have no foundation for saying this and no one knows when/why they started saying it. But they all say it. Any serious medical professional worth a damn will immediately question the SIDS "guidance." If you don't know what causes something, you can't treat it. You don't blindly run around doing things and hope it helps. You have to find out the cause to find the cure. This is exactly the kind of FUD that people are fighting when dealing with crazy CPS zealots. Edit: If SIDS is suffocating from an obstruction, then call it suffocation by obstruction. But it's not suffocation by obsstruction. The current theory is that it's suffocation due to brain malfunction. Putting a toy in a crib isn't going to cause a brain malfunction.
- Xeoncross 9y ago
  > The current theory is that it's suffocation due to brain malfunction. Law requires hazardous chemicals be sprayed on the bed mat to protect(?) the child from fires. Try stuffing your face in an infant mattress and see if you notice the smell.
hundt 9y ago
I challenge you to find one documented case of the death of a child, of any age, from any number of stuffed animals up to 5 being allowed in the crib during sleep :) I once spent a bunch of time chasing references from the AAP and others, and could not find anything like that (because I was trying to decide whether to allow a stuffed animal in the crib with my baby). The stuffed animals seem to just be lumped in to the abstract category of "soft things" but all the cases of kids actually suffocating were from other soft things, most notably soft bedding. I did see one case of a child dying from having a whole crib full of stuffed animals (so the stuffed animals were effectively bedding), hence the limit of 5 for the challenge.
stordoff 9y ago
Even so, the extent of the interaction there should be "that is potentially dangerous, you should stop" -- it's not exactly a strong indicator of being unfit parents.
CalRobert 9y ago
And driving your kids around in a car raises the risk factor of getting killed with a bumper in their face, but that seems fine. We're completely blind to the relative risks we face and focus on the one in a million when one in a hundred risks are everywhere.

rayiner 9y ago

A lot of medical guidance comes from busybodies who have no ability to perform cost-benefit analysis (e.g. pregnant women and caffeine). SIDS risk is around 0.5 per 1,000. The major cause of the decrease since the 1980s seems to be the decline of smoking. Everything else is noise for something that's already low probability.

kolpa 9y ago
SIDS has decreased (~70%) since 1980s, but Accidental Suffocation has increased (perhaps due to improved diagnosis of ASSB vs SIDS of the same underlying events) to become about as prevalent as SIDS. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/128/5/e1341.full?sid=bd9574fb-4575-4d35-a46e-a63394e68331 http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/128/5/e1341.fu...
btilly 9y ago
Do you have a source for this claim? References like https://www1.nichd.nih.gov/sts/campaign/science/Pages/backsleeping.aspx https://www1.nichd.nih.gov/sts/campaign/science/Pages/backsl... and articles like https://www.npr.org/2011/07/15/137859024/rethinking-sids-many-deaths-no-longer-a-mystery https://www.npr.org/2011/07/15/137859024/rethinking-sids-man... make it likely that the increase in sleeping children on their back is the bulk of the reduction. And that the fact that blacks are less likely to take that recommendation is the reason why the black community has twice the death rate of whites. This is something that I have a personal interest in. My nephew died of SIDS months before the recommendation about sleeping positions was reversed back in the early 90s. My sister did not smoke. She did put him to sleep on his stomach.
dsfyu404ed 9y ago
>A lot of medical guidance... >busybodies who have no ability to perform cost-benefit analysis Not just medical guidance. All sorts of rules, laws, regulation and other BS is the result of these people.
z23asdfji 9y ago
The irony of a lawyer calling others, essentially, low effort contributors. Being able to take a law and see meaning relative contemporary culture (likely by memorizing the meaning some professor prescribed it) isn't producing anything new. Have seen you post here before. Haven't lost any of that self-aggrandizing tone. Know your roll, bruh. You're just a cog too. I get sick of this in the IT community too. LOOK I CAN READ MANUAL AND MAKE COMPUTERS DO WHAT IT SAYS! I R KING

kyoob 9y ago

Ok, sure, but let the parents know instead of calling CPS, right?

greenyoda 9y ago
Not to mention that calling CPS would probably be a career-limiting move for a babysitter. What parents would want to risk hiring that babysitter after something like that?

maloney 9y ago

There is a difference between a new born and a 7 month old. The latter is extremly unlikly of suffocating on a blanket or a stuffed animal and calling CPS in this case is abhorrent. There is certinaly a step before you call someone to take there kid away

lvh 9y ago

The context is taking their children away from their parents under the pretext that the parents are unfit to raise them. Can we agree that "a professional association of physicians made a recommendation which the parents violated" does not constitute "unfit parent"? SIDS is also increased in babies who sleep in a separate room; presumably we're not condoning robbing everyone who has a nursery of their children.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> The context is taking their children away from their parents under the pretext that the parents are unfit to raise them. Can we agree that "a professional association of physicians made a recommendation which the parents violated" does not constitute "unfit parent"? Being aware of a parent disregarding widely disseminated recommendations of the medical community on a death risk is certainly reason for a third party to be concerned about fitness. It may not equate to unfitness, which corresponds well to the lack of any CPS action when the report was investigated. The threshold for reasonsble reporting to a investigative authority should not be certainty of a violation. (Now, I would expect a babysitter to attempt to resolve this with the parents first.)
- rayiner 9y ago
  > Being aware of a parent disregarding widely disseminated recommendations of the medical community on a death risk is certainly reason for a third party to be concerned about fitness. Absolutely not. Way over the line.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

scurvy 9y ago

This guidance is beyond suspect. It falls into the category of "drink 8 glasses of water a day." Doctors parrot it, but they have no foundation for saying this and no one knows when/why they started saying it. But they all say it. Any serious medical professional worth a damn will immediately question the SIDS "guidance." If you don't know what causes something, you can't treat it. You don't blindly run around doing things and hope it helps. You have to find out the cause to find the cure. This is exactly the kind of FUD that people are fighting when dealing with crazy CPS zealots. Edit: If SIDS is suffocating from an obstruction, then call it suffocation by obstruction. But it's not suffocation by obsstruction. The current theory is that it's suffocation due to brain malfunction. Putting a toy in a crib isn't going to cause a brain malfunction.

Xeoncross 9y ago
> The current theory is that it's suffocation due to brain malfunction. Law requires hazardous chemicals be sprayed on the bed mat to protect(?) the child from fires. Try stuffing your face in an infant mattress and see if you notice the smell.

hundt 9y ago

I challenge you to find one documented case of the death of a child, of any age, from any number of stuffed animals up to 5 being allowed in the crib during sleep :) I once spent a bunch of time chasing references from the AAP and others, and could not find anything like that (because I was trying to decide whether to allow a stuffed animal in the crib with my baby). The stuffed animals seem to just be lumped in to the abstract category of "soft things" but all the cases of kids actually suffocating were from other soft things, most notably soft bedding. I did see one case of a child dying from having a whole crib full of stuffed animals (so the stuffed animals were effectively bedding), hence the limit of 5 for the challenge.

stordoff 9y ago

Even so, the extent of the interaction there should be "that is potentially dangerous, you should stop" -- it's not exactly a strong indicator of being unfit parents.

CalRobert 9y ago

And driving your kids around in a car raises the risk factor of getting killed with a bumper in their face, but that seems fine. We're completely blind to the relative risks we face and focus on the one in a million when one in a hundred risks are everywhere.