This is a “page”, but I felt the need to repost.

 

Safe Co-Sleeping Information & Co-Sleeping Survey - please visit!

Great CIO information (thank you, Mothering.com, for compiling the information – heaven knows I wouldn’t be able to find all the great links you do, what an amazing site of wonderful women you are!):

Responding to Baby’s Cries and why you shouldn’t let your baby “cry it out”
Science Says: Excessive Crying Could Be Harmful to Babies
Dr Sears
http://askdrsears.com/html/10/handout2.asp

EARLY BRAIN DEVELOPMENT
What parents and caregivers need to know!
by Phyllis Porter, M.A.
http://www.educarer.com/brain.htm

Crying for comfort: distressed babies need to be held – Art of Mothering
Mothering, Jan-Feb, 2004 by Aletha Solter
http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-20039587_ITM

The Dangers of Leaving Your Baby to Cry
By Margaret Chuong-Kim, M.A.
http://drbenkim.com/articles-attachment-parenting.html

The Science of Attachment:
The Biological Roots of Love
by Lauren Lindsey Porter
http://www.naturalchild.com/guest/lauren_lindsey_porter.html

The Emotional Infant Brain
Part 1: The developing emotional subsystems of the brain process various information, including how to relate the state of the world with expectations.
http://www.fresnofamily.com/articles/aa040100a.htm

Stress in Infancy
by Linda Folden Palmer, D.C.
http://www.naturalchild.com/guest/linda_folden_palmer2.html

The Science of Attachment
By Kelley Shirazi
http://www.naturalfamilyonline.com/5-ap/312-responsive-parenting.htm

Mistaken Approaches to Night Waking:
Excerpt from Sweet Dreams: A pediatrician’s secrets for your child’s good night sleep, Lowell House, 22-28 By Paul M. Fleiss, M.D., M.P.H., F.A.A.P., 2000
http://www.nospank.net/fleiss2.htm

8 INFANT SLEEP FACTS EVERY PARENT SHOULD KNOW
Dr Sears
http://www.askdrsears.com/html/7/T070200.asp

CONTROLLED CRYING:
AAIMHI POSITION PAPER
The Australian Association for Infant Mental Health:
http://www.gymealily.org/resources_paperva7.htm

Fatherhood Basic Instinct
A dad can do so much more than defend the cave. New research shows that he too has the biological goods to nurture baby
By John Hoffman
http://www.todaysparent.com/lifeasparent/fatherhood/article.jsp?content=1225399A

MENTAL HEALTH EXPERT WARNS THAT POPULAR ADVICE TO IGNORE YOUR CHILD’S TEARS MAY CAUSE LIFE-LONG HARM
Amelia Hill
http://www.pantley.com/elizabeth/con…ioarticle.html

Why babies should never sleep alone: A review of the co-sleeping controversy in relation to SIDS,
bed-sharing and breast feeding
James J. McKenna* and Thomas McDade

Children Need Touching and Attention, Harvard Researchers Say
By Alvin Powell
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/1998/04.09/ChildrenNeedTou.html

CIO? No! The case for not using “cry-it-out” with your children
By Gale E.Ward
http://www.storknet.com/cubbies/attachmentparenting/cio.htm

A RECENT BLOG WITH GREAT INFORMATION AND LINKS:

Parenting Baby to Sleep
http://parentingbabytosleep.wordpress.com/2008/12/02/babies-%e2%80%9ccry-it-out%e2%80%9d-over-the-use-of-unsustainable-parenting-methods/

******************************************************************************************************

http://www.askdrsears.com/html/10/T130300.asp

http://www.askdrsears.com/html/10/T130200.asp

• Attachment is a special bond between parent and child; a feeling that draws you magnet-like to your baby; a relationship that when felt to its deepest degree causes the mother to feel that the baby is a part of her. This feeling is so strong that, at least in the early months, the attached mother feels complete when she is with her baby and incomplete if they are apart.
• We will often use the term mother-infant attachment, not to exclude the father, but because, at least in the early months, in most families the mother- infant attachment is more obvious. This does not mean that a father can’t become deeply attached to the child, but it often seems to be a different type of attachment – not less or better than the mother’s, just different.
• Attachment means that a mother and baby are in harmony with each other. Being in harmony with your baby is one of the most fulfilling feelings a mother can ever hope to have. Watch a mother and baby who are attached (in harmony) with each other. When the baby gives a cue, such as crying or facial expressions, signifying a need, the mother, because she is open to the baby’s cues, responds.
• Initially, her responses may be a bit strained and not always what the baby needs. But as the mother-baby pair rehearse these cue-response interactions hundreds of times, after a few weeks or months into parenting this cue-response relationship becomes more natural and harmonious. The baby begins to anticipate the response that his mother will give and become further motivated to give more cues, because he learns that he will get a predictable response.
• Because the baby gives the mother the feedback that her mothering is appreciated, the mother-baby pair enjoy each other more. They get used to each other.
• One attached mother told us: “I feel absolutely addicted to her” – meaning that the mother feels right when she is together with her baby and not right when separated.
• You will know when you get that attached feeling to your baby. When your baby cries and you respond from your heart with a natural and not a strained response, you are attached. When your baby gives you a cue and you respond with a feeling of rightness about your response, you are well on your way to becoming an attached parent.
• Periodically check your sensitivity index . If you are becoming increasingly sensitive to your baby:
  • Your baby’s cries bother you. You feel for your baby during colicky episodes. You are becoming attached.
  • You are determined to work at developing comforting measures when your baby is fussy. You are becoming attached.
  • You are learning to anticipate your baby’s needs. A facial expression, such as a grimace, precedes a cry. You respond at the grimace stage before your baby needs to cry. You are becoming attached.
  • Your responses are becoming more natural; they flow intuitively. Instead of making a science out of your baby’s cries and going through mental gymnastics (Will I spoil her? Is she manipulating me), you naturally act and feel right about your response. You are becoming attached.

Very interesting chapter on the “entwined relationship” between a baby and her mother and father.  Again, this is from the awesome book “Our Babies, Ourselves” by Meredith F. Small.  Here’s my blog #1 and blog #2 about some of the great research and information.  Get this book… you won’t regret it!

…More remarkable, lab research has also shown that the connection between babies and parents is deeply physiological.  In one study of infant reaction to mothers, fathers, and strangers, an infant girl was brought into a lab and set in a plastic seat that was curtained off from distractions.  The baby was then approached by her mother, then her father, and then a stranger.  Chest monitors on the baby and the adults showed that the baby synchronized her heart rate to that of the mother or father when they approached, but she did not synchronize her heart rate to the stranger’s.  The data suggests that babies and their caretakers are entwined in a homeostatic relationship, with the baby clicking in with the parents to achieve some sort of balance.

(my note:  this is perhaps why co-sleeping is safer than crib sleeping, since baby synchronizes her heart with ours?  Reason #572 to have a family bed!!)

…We are convinced that a “good” interaction, mother and baby synchronize with each other from the beginning, and that the pathways may be set up in intrauterine life ready to be entrained, especially by the mothers, immediately after birth. 

Entrainment then explains why infants left alone will cry.  They are dealing with the unexpected – they are alone.  Being tiny primates, the are adapted to expect an entrainment, and physical and emotional attachment, a connection with a more mature version of their kind.  They cry out of surprise, out of confusion, out of an unconscious “knowing” that something is wrong.    … Regulatating its world by sleeping, crying, or staying quietly alert is the most powerful thing a baby can do, says Brazelton, and we should respect this ability and tend to it (emphasis mine).

(my note:  notice they do not cry to “manipulate”, that word seen all too often written by “experts” who advise a mother to ignore their baby’s basic needs and leave them to cry – to “train” them… makes ME cry!)

From all we know, every primate baby is designed to be physically attached to someone who will feed, protect, and care for it, and teach it about being human – they have been adapted over millions of years to expect nothing less.

And yet there are parents out there that believe neglecting their crying child is the right thing to do.  Somewhere in their minds and hearts, they lost that nurturing, loving connection, and I hope they will learn it before it’s too late.

http://www.mothering.com/how-stats-really-stack-cosleeping-twice-safe

How the Stats Really Stack Up: Cosleeping Is Twice As Safe
By Tina Kimmel
Issue 114 September/October 2002

The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and the Juvenile Product Manufacturers Association (JPMA, the crib manufacturers’ lobby) recently launched a campaign to discourage parents from placing infants in adult beds or sleeping with them, based on data showing that infants have a very small risk of dying in adult beds.1,2 The CPSC implies that infants in adult beds are at greater risk than infants in cribs, but as we know, and as they know, babies also die in cribs.

What we need to do is calculate the relative riskiness of an infant sleeping in an adult bed versus a crib. We can do that by dividing a measure of danger for each situation by the prevalence, or frequency, of that situation, and then comparing them. (Oddly, the CPSC never presents relative risks.) Using government figures, we can perform a rough calculation to show that infants are more than twice as safe in adult beds as in cribs. This is aside from the many other advantages of cosleeping or bedsharing, such as increased breastfeeding and physiological regulation, the experience of having slept well, parents’ feeling of assurance that their child is well and happy, the enhanced security of psychological attachment and family togetherness, and family enjoyment.3

Let’s begin by looking closely at the CPSC data. The anti-cosleeping campaign is based on a dataset that contains the 2,178 cases of unintentional mechanical suffocation of US infants under 13 months old for the period 1980 to 1997. CPSC-authored articles about these data reflect only the small portion of deaths that occurred in adult beds.4 However, these data also have been published with summaries of the cause-of-death codes on all 2,178 cases.5 This complete dataset is further summarized in Table 1.

Of these 2,178 infant suffocation deaths, we are certain of only 139 occurring in an adult bed. For 102 of these, we know that a larger person (presumably a sleeping adult) was present, because the cause-of-death code is “overlain in a bed.” That does not tell us exactly what caused the death-that is, whether the baby died and then was lain on, or died as a result of being lain on. We can assume that the 37 deaths involving waterbeds occurred in adult beds, since few child waterbeds exist. That gives us a total of 139 infant suffocation deaths known to have occurred in adult beds in these 18 years.

The same data show that 428 infants died due to being in a crib. It is likely that there were preventable risk factors (such as using a crib in need of repair) involved in these crib-related deaths. But that doesn’t change our calculations, because the deaths did occur. Similarly, our calculations do not change due to the preventable risk factors (such as intoxication) involved in adult-bed deaths (and other overlying). Note that advocates are raising public awareness to increase the safety of both these sleeping arrangements, with the hope that all these deaths will decrease.

We can’t use the other 739 bed- or bedding-related cases in our analysis, because the place of death is not specific enough; these deaths may have occurred in a large adult bed, a single-size adult bed, a child’s bed, or a misused crib. Nor can we include the remaining 760 deaths, as we have no idea whether they took place in a sleep situation at all. We also know nothing about the presence or absence of an adult, although a nearby, aware caretaker could have prevented many of these deaths.

So for only 567 (139 plus 428) of the deaths do we know whether they took place in an adult or infant bed. Thus, from 1980 to 1997, 75 percent of the mechanical suffocation deaths of US infants with a known place of occurrence took place in cribs, while 25 percent took place in adult beds.

While it is tempting to make the observation that three times as many babies died in cribs as in adult beds, if three times as many babies were actually sleeping in cribs as in adult beds, the risk would be the same in either place. Based only on this crude death-certificate data, we do not know which is safer. We still need to know how many babies were actually in adult beds or cribs-that is, an estimate of how common cosleeping was.

To estimate cosleeping prevalence, we can turn to the CDC’s Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS).6 PRAMS has been surveying mothers of infants, usually between two and six months of age (but occasionally up to nine months), since 1988. Approximately 1,800 new mothers are sampled each year in each participating state. The sample is rigorously selected to represent essentially every birth in the state, and the response rates are high (70 to 80 percent). Most of the 100 or so PRAMS questions involve prenatal and well-baby care and stressors.

States have the option of adding their own questions and have asked about cosleeping. The basic question asked is, “How often does your new baby sleep in the same bed with you? Always; Sometimes; Never.” (Some states add “Almost always.”) PRAMS data, therefore, can be used to ascertain cosleeping prevalence in participating states and may be the only data of this kind.

Table 2 shows the results of this question on the PRAMS survey from 1991 through 1999, the most recent data available.

We see from these data that roughly 68 percent (100 percent minus the 23 to 43 percent who “never” coslept) of babies in these states enjoyed cosleeping at least some of the time. Data from the United Kingdom are similar: Helen Ball’s Sleep Lab found that around 7 percent always coslept, 40 percent did so for part of the night, and 33 percent never coslept.6

Now let’s try to estimate a single cosleeping prevalence rate from these data. Let’s say that babies who “sometimes” cosleep do so about half the time. Over all the years of this sample, around 42 percent of babies coslept “sometimes.” Let’s also say that “always” or “almost always” means 90 percent of the time. Roughly 26 percent of infants coslept “always” or “almost always.” Adding “always/almost always” (90 percent of the time x 26 percent of babies) to “sometimes” (50 percent of the time x 42 percent of babies), we get 44 percent of babies ages two to nine months who were cosleeping at any given time, presumably in an adult bed.

Now we can use these figures based on CPSC and PRAMS data to calculate the riskiness of these two sleep arrangements, although it’s important to understand the limitations of doing so. For example, these PRAMS data are from only five states (although more will be available in the future), while the CPSC data are from the entire US. The years in which the PRAMS cosleeping data were collected are not the same as those covered by the CPSC dataset, although they overlap. The CPSC covers infants zero to thirteen months, while PRAMS asks about infants two to nine months. The CPSC collects demographic details such as state, income, race, and age of mother (as does PRAMS), as well as time of the death, but they are not easily available to do a more detailed analysis. One or both of these data sources lacks information on impairment of caretaker and other known sleep risk factors, exact sleeping and furniture arrangements during different times in the night, overcrowding and other motivation for cosleeping or crib sleeping, clinical pathology findings, previous health of the infant, etc. Plus, a complete risk analysis should include all causes of infant deaths, including SIDS.

Nonetheless, these data are important population-based sources of information on sleep risks that we would not have otherwise. So let’s go ahead and use them to estimate a risk ratio for cosleeping. We take the 25 percent of the suffocation risk in the CPSC data linked to being in an adult bed and divide it by the 44 percent of babies who were actually in adult beds. Then we divide that fraction by a similar fraction for cribs, i.e., 75 percent divided by 56 percent. (If we multiplied each of these fractions by an overall infant death rate, we would have the actual risk for each group.)

This result shows that it was actually less than half (42 percent) as risky, or more than twice as safe, for an infant to be in an adult bed than in a crib. Based upon these calculations using the CPSC’s own data, we can say that crib sleeping had a relative risk of 2.37 compared with sleeping in an adult bed.

Therefore, cosleep with impunity-but, of course, be sure to follow the safe cosleeping guidelines described in this issue of Mothering.

 

Tina Kimmel, MSW, MPH, is a PhD student in social welfare at the University of California-Berkeley and is writing her dissertation on “The Effect of Welfare Reform on Breastfeeding Rates: Findings from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System.” Previously she worked as a research scientist for California’s state health department. She would like to acknowledge the state PRAMS epidemiologists who shared their analyzed data for this article: Rhonda Stephens, MPH (Alabama), Chris Wells, MS (Colorado), Ken Rosenberg, MD, MPH (Oregon), Melissa Baker, MA (West Virginia), and especially Kathy Perham-Hester, MS, MPH (Alaska) for her valuable insights. Tina has two children, Rosie (27) and Jesse (21), and one grandchild, Eli (4)-all born at home and all cosleepers.

 

 

Why babies should never sleep alone.
 

At very least, we hope that the studies and data described in this paper, which show that co-sleeping at least in the form of roomsharing especially with an actively breast feeding mother saves lives, is a powerful reason why the simplistic, scientifically inaccurate and misleading statement ‘never sleep with your baby’ needs to be rescinded, wherever and whenever it is published.

 

Hat tip to my fellow blogger and Attached Parent, Megan.

It just makes sense.

Ignoring a baby’s crying is like using earplugs to stop the distressing noise of a smoke detector. The sound of a smoke detector is meant to alert us to a serious matter that requires a response – and so is the cry of a baby. As Jean Liedloff wrote in The Continuum Concept, “a baby’s cry is precisely as serious as it sounds.”

Stressful though it may be, infant crying should be seen not as a power struggle between parent and child, but as a gift of nature to ensure that all babies can grow to adulthood with a generous capacity for love and trust.

http://www.naturalchild.org/jan_hunt/babycries.html

http://infantsleep.org/cryingitoutresearch.html

Hats off again to my friend over at phdinparenting blog for passing this information along.  It is our duty – responsibility – to ensure parents get the correct legitimate information they need from reliable sources, rather than from amateur chat rooms where the only advice that is given (or rather listened to) is by brand new mothers or mothers who are simply following the bandwagon mentality.  Or those given the BabyWise book at their babyshower, and think it’s a baby bible!

She really nails it when she finishes her blog past with her statement on ”mommy instincts”.

It’s safety (I get really tired of hearing about how “unsafe” co-sleeping is – that’s beyond ridiculous) and it’s natural nurturing qualities:

http://www.breastfeeding.com/reading_room/family_bed2.html

…parents who enjoy a family bed and doctors who advocate its use (THOSE ARE GREAT DOCTORS!!) point out that the same internal signals that prevent a sleeping adult from rolling out of bed and injuring herself will also prevent a parent from rolling on top of her infant. In the rare cases where overlying has occurred, it has generally been the result of inappropriately soft bedding or a parent whose sleeping awareness was impaired by alcohol or medication. “The average, typical parent sleeping on a good mattress will be very aware and will not roll over on (her infant),” asserts Dettwyler.

In fact, the family bed may even offer protection against infant death. In his latest peer-reviewed medical research conducted at the University of California, Irvine School of Medicine and funded by the National Institutes of Health, Dr. McKenna theorizes that infants who sleep alone are at a significantly increased risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS).

My note:  I’ve commented on this before, there are links in my sidebar showing studies proving co-sleeping REDUCES the risk of SIDS.  But, don’t get me wrong – I don’t think a parent should lose sleep over this extremely rare mystery.  I don’t believe there’s a cause or a cure, or a prevention, myself.  I know tummy-sleeping is safe for my babies.  But for those that want to “follow the rules”, here’s yet another reason to keep that baby safe and sound right next to you, all night long.  YAY!!!

*************************************

I found it highly disturbing that an “expert” could be publishing things like this, however:

Other criticisms of the family bed abound, however. Some, such as T. Berry Brazelton, M.D., does on a Pampers web site (www.pampers.com), claim that when children sleep with their parents “sexual abuse is more likely (Freudian emphasis)…” Family-bedders are incensed and offended by this unsubstantiated accusation.

And a great retort:

The late Robert Mendelssohn — well-known pediatrician and author of several books — noted that when confronted by mental health specialists who feared sexualization of the family bed, he sarcastically agreed that “psychiatrists should not take their children to bed with them, but it is quite alright for everyone else!”

And the quote from the supposed “expert” is yet another reason why parents need to think from their heart, not from the pages of a worthless book. No expert has ever studied YOUR family, YOUR kids, YOUR lifestyle, therefore no book can tell you what you need to do.  By loving your children, following their cues, never neglecting or abusing them, you are doing it all RIGHT – by the only expert that matters – your baby.

For finally publishing correct information.

http://www.todaysparent.com/baby/behaviordevelopment/article.jsp?content=20081027_134032_13100&page=1

It’s about time a “mainstream” publication actually talks and promotes about attachment parenting (for those that don’t know what this is, it’s just NATURAL LOVING parenting, following baby’s cues, not trying to train a baby to be an adult from the moment of birth), the fact that “spoiling” a baby is a myth and ridiculous notion, and that responding to your baby’s needs is crucial. 

Let’s hope, with all of our hearts, that every other publication, every doctor, and every “expert” that publishes horrid parenting books also stop talking about neglect (crying it out), that co-sleeping is awful (it is in fact natural and nurturing, one of the best things a parent can do for their baby), and on and on and on.

“Spoiling” is in fact beneficial

The kind of responsive care of infants that some people call “spoiling” is in fact beneficial, according to Barr and other researchers:

• It reduces crying. The !Kung San babies, for example, cry 50 percent less than babies in North America.

I just can’t even express how happy I am to see them write this - that babies who are not left to cry it out actually cry LESS.  Maybe it’s because they know they’re loved, instead of ignored.  People, pay attention.

 

…People who think that this kind of responsive care will lead to wimpy, dependent, self-centred older children or adults might consider the experiences of other cultures. Barr studied the !Kung San hunter-gatherers of the Kalahari Desert who carry their babies all the time when they’re awake and sleep with their babies skin to skin. They nurse on average about every 13 minutes, and they respond to every fret and whimper within seconds.

“And there’s nothing wimpy about the !Kung San,” says Barr. “The young boys are expected to go out into the woods and hunt wild boar, alone, and they are both brave and independent. The concept that this kind of care for infants makes them grow up to be wimps is simply not true.”

Hats off to Today’s Parent for wising up!  Come on everyone else!!!

“How Biology and Culture Shape the Way We Parent” – that’s the byline.  This is really a great book, Meredith Small did a phenom job. So I thought I’d note some highlights as I re-read it!

Discussing the evolution of babies, she goes on to discuss birthing practices.  She says, and I quote:

In the 1960’s, a slow revolution in birthing practices began in Western culture.  …the medical establishment realized the importance of physical proximity on the bonding process and babies were not necessarily removed to the nursery.  The feminist movement in the 1970’s, which helped women assert their wishes, furthered that revolution as it gave female nurses and mothers the support to demand that mother and father be integrated back into the early infant experience.  In 1976 two obstetricians, Marshall Klaus and John Kennell, based on their research, theorized that there is a critical early – and limited – period for human mother-infant bonding.  They noted a higher incidence of infant abuse and failure-to-thrive children among premature infants; because the infants were premature and had been sequestered in nurseries and away from their mothers, there had been, these doctors suggested, a breakdown of the normal mother-infant bond.  They found that although 7 to 8 percent of live infants are born premature, 24 to 41 percent of battered were preemies.  They surmised that a critical period of attachment has passed by the time the baby was sent home, and that the mother-infant pair consequently lacked the essential positive bond that links them together in a healthy emotional and physical way.

She goes on to explain that the “rooming in” philosophy got strong around 1978, when mothers were encouraged not to ever send babies to the nurseries, and care for the premature infant is possible, at times, bedside with the mother.

I find this fascinating.  Someday I hope we have even more solid statistics on the benefits of staying out of the hospital altogether, having home births and birthing center experiences.

So I think next week I’ll be re-reading my book “Our Babies, Ourselves” by Meredith Small.  This is a phenom book, very well written, very easy read.  I highly recommend it… so I think I’ll be picking out my favorite excerpts from it for “discussion”.

A much needed break from the stress of Obamabots and the awesome hero McCain…

Newer Posts »