Rock n Play Recall- alternatives?

[Anonymous]

I don’t think there’s anything special about the rock n play that is making it any more dangerous than any of the alternatives - it’s just the most popular, brand name item out there. AAP recommendation is the flat surface, on back, etc.

Listen, no parent starts out intending to have their kid sleep in a swing or a rock n play - mostly borne out of sheer desperation. I fought it so hard given the emphasis on back to sleep! but my DS had reflux and elevating the crib mattress did not work especially as he would slide down when that small. It was the rock n play, or falling asleep with him on our chests which seemed less safe. We got the owlet which ended up being sort of useless anyway since we would have the rocker going most of the night anyway, but it did make me feel somewhat better knowing that I would know if he stopped breathing. That might be one way to get peace of mind if you have to use a rock n play or an alternative

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:32 deaths in 10 years? How does it compare to SIDS rate generally over the same time? There is no way to evaluate the number 32 without a comparator.

They weren't sids deaths. All those infants were over 3 months, not restrained and rolled over and suffocated. Horrible but not sids.

THIS is not true. The deaths were for two reasons - infants over 3 months who rolled over, AND younger newborns who suffocated due to positional asphyxiation. The latter is what's being ignored on this thread and many other places, and that's perhaps the most dangerous part.

No one has provided evidence of the latter. The former is the subject of the news article last week which is the first definitive information about RnP safety I have ever seen.

Read: https://www.consumerreports.org/recalls/fisher-price-rock-n-play-sleeper-should-be-recalled-consumer-reports-says

There is not concrete unbiased information in that report. CR acknowledges that 'some' of the 22 (32-10) are accounted for by underlying medical conditions. There is a discrepancy in the death of a five month old where the death certificate says they were not restrained and the parent says they are.

How many infants have died in cribs since 2009? This article is an example of what I hate most about modern parenting culture. It is full of dramatic scare tactics like, 'if you as a parent put your child in that there is an increased risk of death.' Which ok, lets call that true. There have been approximately 36 million babies born in the US since 2009. I have yet to meet a parent that doesn't have an at least occasionally use an RnP but lets say 25% of babies sleep at some point in an RnP. 9 million babies in the Rock n Play. That means there is a .00000355% chance that a baby will die in a Rock N Play.

To me, if parents are having an extremely hard time getting any sleep, an increase from 0 to .00000355% seems reasonable. But of course if you frame it as, if you use an RnP you increase your child's risk of death, it sounds exponentially more terrifying. Relative risk is completely absent from these conversations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Good luck finding something better. Use it properly and it's fine. Don't use it, get exhausted, pull kid into bed and crush them when you roll over. Good luck.

Or just never use it? This is a ridiculous thing to say. I never used a RnP and never brought my baby into bed. She slept in her bassinet. When she woke up, I would rock the bassinet to get her back to sleep. People are right to be cautious. Why would you bother to take the risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good luck finding something better. Use it properly and it's fine. Don't use it, get exhausted, pull kid into bed and crush them when you roll over. Good luck.

Or just never use it? This is a ridiculous thing to say. I never used a RnP and never brought my baby into bed. She slept in her bassinet. When she woke up, I would rock the bassinet to get her back to sleep. People are right to be cautious. Why would you bother to take the risk.

You clearly had a baby that slept and therefore have no idea what other parents experienced. They take the risk because otherwise they don't sleep and go slowly insane.

[Anonymous]

I don't like them because it makes the babies heads misshapen. Just use a bassinet or crib.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good luck finding something better. Use it properly and it's fine. Don't use it, get exhausted, pull kid into bed and crush them when you roll over. Good luck.

Or just never use it? This is a ridiculous thing to say. I never used a RnP and never brought my baby into bed. She slept in her bassinet. When she woke up, I would rock the bassinet to get her back to sleep. People are right to be cautious. Why would you bother to take the risk.

Your anecdotal experience is not helpful to anyone. Great you had a good sleeper. Many don't. When the alternative is your baby not sleeping at all or the baby being put in an even more risky situation (like on a parent's chest) you take on some incremental risk.

[Anonymous]

This is all the fault of back 2 sleep. If I had to do it all over again, I'd do tummy sleeping. Because my child would not sleep on a flat surface for the first 10 weeks. My DH and I had to take turns holding her. It was horrible and I still am traumatized by it.

You can't just tell parents "flat surface only on their backs" and then shrug when a newborn won't sleep that way. That in and of itself leads to dangerous outcomes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think there’s anything special about the rock n play that is making it any more dangerous than any of the alternatives - it’s just the most popular, brand name item out there. AAP recommendation is the flat surface, on back, etc.

Listen, no parent starts out intending to have their kid sleep in a swing or a rock n play - mostly borne out of sheer desperation. I fought it so hard given the emphasis on back to sleep! but my DS had reflux and elevating the crib mattress did not work especially as he would slide down when that small. It was the rock n play, or falling asleep with him on our chests which seemed less safe. We got the owlet which ended up being sort of useless anyway since we would have the rocker going most of the night anyway, but it did make me feel somewhat better knowing that I would know if he stopped breathing. That might be one way to get peace of mind if you have to use a rock n play or an alternative

The fact that it's the most popular and widely used is what is increasing the number of deaths, prompting AAP and CR to warn about improper use. When a product or technology becomes normalized people tend to overlook the risks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think there’s anything special about the rock n play that is making it any more dangerous than any of the alternatives - it’s just the most popular, brand name item out there. AAP recommendation is the flat surface, on back, etc.

Listen, no parent starts out intending to have their kid sleep in a swing or a rock n play - mostly borne out of sheer desperation. I fought it so hard given the emphasis on back to sleep! but my DS had reflux and elevating the crib mattress did not work especially as he would slide down when that small. It was the rock n play, or falling asleep with him on our chests which seemed less safe. We got the owlet which ended up being sort of useless anyway since we would have the rocker going most of the night anyway, but it did make me feel somewhat better knowing that I would know if he stopped breathing. That might be one way to get peace of mind if you have to use a rock n play or an alternative

I always wonder if tummy sleeping on a firm, flat surface with no bedding would actually be safer than any of the sleep devices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think there’s anything special about the rock n play that is making it any more dangerous than any of the alternatives - it’s just the most popular, brand name item out there. AAP recommendation is the flat surface, on back, etc.

Listen, no parent starts out intending to have their kid sleep in a swing or a rock n play - mostly borne out of sheer desperation. I fought it so hard given the emphasis on back to sleep! but my DS had reflux and elevating the crib mattress did not work especially as he would slide down when that small. It was the rock n play, or falling asleep with him on our chests which seemed less safe. We got the owlet which ended up being sort of useless anyway since we would have the rocker going most of the night anyway, but it did make me feel somewhat better knowing that I would know if he stopped breathing. That might be one way to get peace of mind if you have to use a rock n play or an alternative

The fact that it's the most popular and widely used is what is increasing the number of deaths, prompting AAP and CR to warn about improper use. When a product or technology becomes normalized people tend to overlook the risks.

.00000355% risk

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:32 deaths in 10 years? How does it compare to SIDS rate generally over the same time? There is no way to evaluate the number 32 without a comparator.

They weren't sids deaths. All those infants were over 3 months, not restrained and rolled over and suffocated. Horrible but not sids.

do we actually know this? I had my baby swaddled in the rock n play all night until around 16 weeks. He never got close to rolling over, but I always felt the positioning was suspect, the way it might impact the airway. Is rolling the only issue?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is all the fault of back 2 sleep. If I had to do it all over again, I'd do tummy sleeping. Because my child would not sleep on a flat surface for the first 10 weeks. My DH and I had to take turns holding her. It was horrible and I still am traumatized by it.

You can't just tell parents "flat surface only on their backs" and then shrug when a newborn won't sleep that way. That in and of itself leads to dangerous outcomes.

+100000. I want the AAP to measure the unintended consequences of back to sleep -- all the babies who died in rock n plays, nap nannies, and from being crushed by exhausted parents or slipping between couch cushions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is all the fault of back 2 sleep. If I had to do it all over again, I'd do tummy sleeping. Because my child would not sleep on a flat surface for the first 10 weeks. My DH and I had to take turns holding her. It was horrible and I still am traumatized by it.

You can't just tell parents "flat surface only on their backs" and then shrug when a newborn won't sleep that way. That in and of itself leads to dangerous outcomes.

+100000. I want the AAP to measure the unintended consequences of back to sleep -- all the babies who died in rock n plays, nap nannies, and from being crushed by exhausted parents or slipping between couch cushions.

I'm a PP who thinks increasing your risk slightly is acceptable if your baby can't sleep. But I don't understand the back-to-sleep hate. Less babies die now than die in the 70s/80s. This was a fantastic and successful public health campaign.

The problem isn't with back to sleep, it is with the rigid adherence to it even in situations where baby and parent are not safe because both are exhausted because no one is sleeping when adhering to back-to-sleep. The problem with a lot of parenting guidance is that it is black and white and it is really hard to apply black and white guidance to parents. The AAP is afraid of saying, 'if your baby can't sleep in back to sleep try an incline first, then tummy sleep, then blah blah blah because they're afraid people will leapfrog steps and they don't want to be responsible for a baby dying so they take the most risk averse position.

It is difficult to rationally hear, "position x is safest for your baby but if that is not working then position b, while slightly more risky than position a, might be better for your family because sleep and parental well being is an important part of the equation." We're programmed to think parental well being ISN'T part of the equation, even though clearly, well parents are better able to be good parents. I think there should be a gradual set of instructions that pediatricians can go to (and a lot of them already do this). If there was an ability to rationally discuss this we could have conversations like, 'if your sofa has separating cushions then napping with a child on that sofa should be your last resort, try a swing and a bobby and an RnP or whatever before you resort to that. We could safe more babies from unsafe sleep if we had actions parents could take if back to sleep is completely failing them. But that doesn't mean back to sleep should be abandoned, just that the guidance should be more nuanced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t think there’s anything special about the rock n play that is making it any more dangerous than any of the alternatives - it’s just the most popular, brand name item out there. AAP recommendation is the flat surface, on back, etc.

Listen, no parent starts out intending to have their kid sleep in a swing or a rock n play - mostly borne out of sheer desperation. I fought it so hard given the emphasis on back to sleep! but my DS had reflux and elevating the crib mattress did not work especially as he would slide down when that small. It was the rock n play, or falling asleep with him on our chests which seemed less safe. We got the owlet which ended up being sort of useless anyway since we would have the rocker going most of the night anyway, but it did make me feel somewhat better knowing that I would know if he stopped breathing. That might be one way to get peace of mind if you have to use a rock n play or an alternative

The fact that it's the most popular and widely used is what is increasing the number of deaths, prompting AAP and CR to warn about improper use. When a product or technology becomes normalized people tend to overlook the risks.

Right- my point was that a rock n play alternative has the same risks, the rock n play specifically is being called out because it is the clear market leader w brand recognition. Not that there’s something specifically wrong with it or any other infant swing or rocker.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't like them because it makes the babies heads misshapen. Just use a bassinet or crib.

Lol well obviously if a baby would sleep in a bassinet or crib it would. This is such a stupid comment