Rock n Play Recall- alternatives?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm the PP and I 100% agree with you. The issue is not so much communicating information like that SIDS can be reduced by sleeping on the back, but the black & white RULES that don't take into account how people actually behave, key variables (sleeplessness!), and unintended consequences.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm the PP and I 100% agree with you. The issue is not so much communicating information like that SIDS can be reduced by sleeping on the back, but the black & white RULES that don't take into account how people actually behave, key variables (sleeplessness!), and unintended consequences.

Nuanced guidance is not possible in a litigious society and with the astronomical medical malpractice insurance. In the very rare event a child dies from sids and it comes out that their pediatrician said it would be ok to try tummy sleeping against the AAP black and white rules they would be sued and not have a job ever again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm the PP and I 100% agree with you. The issue is not so much communicating information like that SIDS can be reduced by sleeping on the back, but the black & white RULES that don't take into account how people actually behave, key variables (sleeplessness!), and unintended consequences.

Nuanced guidance is not possible in a litigious society and with the astronomical medical malpractice insurance. In the very rare event a child dies from sids and it comes out that their pediatrician said it would be ok to try tummy sleeping against the AAP black and white rules they would be sued and not have a job ever again.

I am the PP who asked for nuances guidance and I understand this but am frustrated by it. I believe that less babies would die with graduated nuanced advice than the black and white advice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm the PP and I 100% agree with you. The issue is not so much communicating information like that SIDS can be reduced by sleeping on the back, but the black & white RULES that don't take into account how people actually behave, key variables (sleeplessness!), and unintended consequences.

Nuanced guidance is not possible in a litigious society and with the astronomical medical malpractice insurance. In the very rare event a child dies from sids and it comes out that their pediatrician said it would be ok to try tummy sleeping against the AAP black and white rules they would be sued and not have a job ever again.

This. FTW. We went from zero guidance at all to the current rigid/impractical guidance. The risk of babies being harmed by these types of devices is always going to be there as long as US society is set up the way it is - lack of support for new families, minimal parental leave, income inequality, lack of product safety regulations, and so on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I never had one but really - it’s fine to use. Just use it according to the instructions. Get an Owlet or another type of wearable baby monitor if you’re concerned. But there’s no “alternatives” to the R&P because literally everything apart from Alone, Back, Crib is “unsafe.”

This. The alternatives are all going to be equally unsafe for many of the same reasons.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nope. Baby woke up every hour every night for 7 weeks straight before I hired a sleep consultant out of desperation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nope. Baby woke up every hour every night for 7 weeks straight before I hired a sleep consultant out of desperation.

so rather than buy a rnp you tortured yourself and spent untold money on a sleep consultant to avoid a small risk? Not impressive

[Anonymous]

Does anyone have information on how many of these things have been sold in the last year, or 10 years, or any other way of estimating use incidence? Then we could have a conversation around risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone have information on how many of these things have been sold in the last year, or 10 years, or any other way of estimating use incidence? Then we could have a conversation around risk.

PP again. Let me try a very crude analysis. 4,000,000 babies were born in the US in 2015. Let's assume that 5% of them slept in a Rock N Play. If we multiply 200,000 times 7 (the 32 deaths occurred between 2011 and 2018, ie over 7 years), and divide 32 by the result, 1,400,000, we get 0.000023, or 0.0023 percent. The overall risk of SIDS in 2016 was 38 in 100,000, or 0.038 percent. Thus, one could conclude that a baby in a RnP is 16.5 times LESS likely to die of any cause than any given baby is likely to die of SIDS.. (And I would bet money that more than 5% of babies have slept in these, although probably not regularly.)

So, should my newborn go straight into one of these when she's born?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

This exactly. Add to that that AAP’s completely risk adverse stance on sleep (and other topics), and lack of available data about relative risk from other products, like car seats, and you have borderline fear mongering about the RNP.

I’m not judging any parent who declines to use a RNP for this or any other reason. But I’m also not judging parents who continue to use it, as we are doing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

And also bassinets and cribs also cause flat heads if baby isn’t given a chance to change positions or tummy time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I'm the PP and I 100% agree with you. The issue is not so much communicating information like that SIDS can be reduced by sleeping on the back, but the black & white RULES that don't take into account how people actually behave, key variables (sleeplessness!), and unintended consequences.

Nuanced guidance is not possible in a litigious society and with the astronomical medical malpractice insurance. In the very rare event a child dies from sids and it comes out that their pediatrician said it would be ok to try tummy sleeping against the AAP black and white rules they would be sued and not have a job ever again.

This. FTW. We went from zero guidance at all to the current rigid/impractical guidance. The risk of babies being harmed by these types of devices is always going to be there as long as US society is set up the way it is - lack of support for new families, minimal parental leave, income inequality, lack of product safety regulations, and so on.

YES!

[Anonymous]

Babies fall asleep in carseats and die of positional asphyxiation too (32 reported in the past 4 years): https://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(15)00498-9/abstract

This could happen to any of us, even the PP who's baby "always" slept in the bassinett. I'm just saying that IMO you're all right that black and white rules can be nuanced; we need to stay educated but we're all just doing our best.

[Anonymous]

The rock n plays were officially recalled and should no longer be used. https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2019/fisher-price-recalls-rock-n-play-sleepers-due-to-reports-of-deaths

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The rock n plays were officially recalled and should no longer be used. https://www.cpsc.gov/Recalls/2019/fisher-price-recalls-rock-n-play-sleepers-due-to-reports-of-deaths

Yeah no way im sending mine back.