3 ms·

I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't think you're reading the parent's post very charitably. They aren't saying, "things used to be a certain way, therefore

by ambler0 14y ago

I appreciate the sentiment, but I don't think you're reading the parent's post very charitably. They aren't saying, "things used to be a certain way, therefore it's OK." The way I read it, they're suggesting that, if the behavior really killed that many infants, it would be weeded out by the biocultural evolutionary process. If you actually look into the research instead of offloading your opinions to the experts, you'll see that the SIDS research is not well done. As I recall, the work on which this AAP decision was based included sleeping in a couch and sleeping while intoxicated - not exactly best practices. SIDS is basically just a catch-all term for "we don't know what killed the baby".

jamesaguilar 14y ago
> if the behavior really killed that many infants, it would be weeded out by the biocultural evolutionary process. That would also be a terrible argument. To name just one example, shaken baby syndrome still exists. > If you actually look into the research instead of offloading your opinions to the experts I've briefly looked into the research, and it seems to mesh pretty well with what the experts are saying. Now you are saying that it "isn't well done". That may be true. But I'm not seeing anything that shows co-sleeping to be equally safe with a crib in the same room. So I have a few possibilities: all the experts are wrong and all the studies that are being done on the issue are defective. Or, SIDS is probably somewhat related to co-sleeping. Unless there is some more evidence that I'm not seeing, I'm going to have to assign the latter a higher probability of being true. Also, let's face it, part of the reason people offload opinions to experts is that experts are trained in analyzing and processing data in their domain to a greater degree than non-experts. There needs to be some pretty compelling evidence to override their views.
- secabeen 14y ago
  Here's the details from the previously mentioned study on co-sleeping that shows it can be safe or safer than non-co-sleeping: "The proportion of SIDS infants found cosleeping in a bed with parents who had drunk two units or less of alcohol and taken no drugs was no different from that of the random control infants (18% v 16%). If parents who regularly smoked were further excluded, then five of the SIDS infants (6%) were found in this less risky cosleeping environment compared with nine of the random control infants (10%)." http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b3666 http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b3666 TLDR: In this study, SIDS was more likely if the co-sleeper had ingested drugs/alcohol, if the sleeping occurred on a couch, or both. Sober co-sleeping on a bed was as safe or safer than not co-sleeping.
- cloverich 14y ago
  > That would also be a terrible argument. To name just one example, shaken baby syndrome still exists. (Just to play devil's advocate) Yes, but one can surmise an evolutionary reason for that - a colicky child is more likely to be the victim in that scenario; likewise, a colicky child is less likely to be healthy. A better argument may be that prior to 'modern' medicine, bassinets (or an analog) were spontaneously popularized in various cultures -- (if that's true). > all the experts are wrong and all the studies that are being done on the issue are defective. Many doctor's groups positions, when confronted with inconclusive evidence, tend to (rightfully) stand on the side of caution. A great example is caffeiene (as well as many other foods) in pregnancy. Little evidence for harm, but its possible. So its a little less harsh than all experts being dead wrong and studies defective; more likely all experts playing it safe and studies inconclusive (if that is the case). (/devils advocate)

by ambler0 14y ago

jamesaguilar 14y ago

> if the behavior really killed that many infants, it would be weeded out by the biocultural evolutionary process. That would also be a terrible argument. To name just one example, shaken baby syndrome still exists. > If you actually look into the research instead of offloading your opinions to the experts I've briefly looked into the research, and it seems to mesh pretty well with what the experts are saying. Now you are saying that it "isn't well done". That may be true. But I'm not seeing anything that shows co-sleeping to be equally safe with a crib in the same room. So I have a few possibilities: all the experts are wrong and all the studies that are being done on the issue are defective. Or, SIDS is probably somewhat related to co-sleeping. Unless there is some more evidence that I'm not seeing, I'm going to have to assign the latter a higher probability of being true. Also, let's face it, part of the reason people offload opinions to experts is that experts are trained in analyzing and processing data in their domain to a greater degree than non-experts. There needs to be some pretty compelling evidence to override their views.

secabeen 14y ago
Here's the details from the previously mentioned study on co-sleeping that shows it can be safe or safer than non-co-sleeping: "The proportion of SIDS infants found cosleeping in a bed with parents who had drunk two units or less of alcohol and taken no drugs was no different from that of the random control infants (18% v 16%). If parents who regularly smoked were further excluded, then five of the SIDS infants (6%) were found in this less risky cosleeping environment compared with nine of the random control infants (10%)." http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b3666 http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b3666 TLDR: In this study, SIDS was more likely if the co-sleeper had ingested drugs/alcohol, if the sleeping occurred on a couch, or both. Sober co-sleeping on a bed was as safe or safer than not co-sleeping.
cloverich 14y ago
> That would also be a terrible argument. To name just one example, shaken baby syndrome still exists. (Just to play devil's advocate) Yes, but one can surmise an evolutionary reason for that - a colicky child is more likely to be the victim in that scenario; likewise, a colicky child is less likely to be healthy. A better argument may be that prior to 'modern' medicine, bassinets (or an analog) were spontaneously popularized in various cultures -- (if that's true). > all the experts are wrong and all the studies that are being done on the issue are defective. Many doctor's groups positions, when confronted with inconclusive evidence, tend to (rightfully) stand on the side of caution. A great example is caffeiene (as well as many other foods) in pregnancy. Little evidence for harm, but its possible. So its a little less harsh than all experts being dead wrong and studies defective; more likely all experts playing it safe and studies inconclusive (if that is the case). (/devils advocate)