NYT article about baby who died first day of daycare

[Anonymous]

If the woman is the one giving birth, shouldn't the man demand health insurance for his family from HIS job? Shouldn't he refuse a job without this essential(?) benefit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think some very important details have been left out of this essay. Babies do not die just because they are separated from their moms for 2.5 hours.

Did you read the article? He wasn't put on his back to sleep and died of SIDS and poor CPR.

[Anonymous]

Am I the only one who noticed that the parents appeared to be cosleeping, since she mentions that the baby was laying between DH and her in the morning when they woke up? I'm not anti-cosleeping, and have done it for short periods myself, but I'm also acutely aware of the risks involved and was always terrified of doing it.

I'm not trying to blame the mom, but I don't think it's entirely fair to say this baby would have been safer with the mom because she wouldn't have put him down on his side. Maybe not, but she was cosleeping with him, which carries its own risks. And it's likely she wasn't a CPR expert herself, as most of us parents aren't.

This is terribly sad and a horrible tragedy, but it's not about her going back to work or the fact that the baby would have been safer at home with her. It's a weird fluke, and it's a mistake on the part of the childcare providers.

[Anonymous]

My relative's baby died of SIDS at daycare also at 4 months old. It was heartbreaking beyond words.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Our OT worked at a local Bright Horizons center while getting her degree and she specifically told me she ended up quitting because her coworkers kept putting babies down on their stomachs and the management turned a blind eye. Apparently they sleep better/longer on their stomachs, which makes it easier to take care of them and allows less workers in the infant room.

So I don't think whether the daycare is licensed or not matters.

This. This is what happened in the Howard County daycare I mentioned. Otherwise babies appeared to be on their stomachs at young ages. Too many to all have just turned.

[Anonymous]

The mom isn't saying that her having to go back to work CAUSED her baby to die. She's saying that her baby's death caused her to reflect on our country's crappy parental leave policies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This article was horrific and gut-wrenching, and I agree parents should have more parental leave in the U.S. But, making a connection between those two things is basically saying "If parents have to put their babies in daycare they might die." That seems not accurate to me.

Yeah, I am very sorry for the author and her family. What a nightmare!

But this article failed to do it for me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The mom isn't saying that her having to go back to work CAUSED her baby to die. She's saying that her baby's death caused her to reflect on our country's crappy parental leave policies.

OK, there's a point here. But the article in general was weak.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who noticed that the parents appeared to be cosleeping, since she mentions that the baby was laying between DH and her in the morning when they woke up? I'm not anti-cosleeping, and have done it for short periods myself, but I'm also acutely aware of the risks involved and was always terrified of doing it.

I'm not trying to blame the mom, but I don't think it's entirely fair to say this baby would have been safer with the mom because she wouldn't have put him down on his side. Maybe not, but she was cosleeping with him, which carries its own risks. And it's likely she wasn't a CPR expert herself, as most of us parents aren't.

This is terribly sad and a horrible tragedy, but it's not about her going back to work or the fact that the baby would have been safer at home with her. It's a weird fluke, and it's a mistake on the part of the childcare providers.

Cosleeping reduces the risk of SIDS. It can increase the chances of suffocation. Please research before you accuse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I the only one who noticed that the parents appeared to be cosleeping, since she mentions that the baby was laying between DH and her in the morning when they woke up? I'm not anti-cosleeping, and have done it for short periods myself, but I'm also acutely aware of the risks involved and was always terrified of doing it.

I'm not trying to blame the mom, but I don't think it's entirely fair to say this baby would have been safer with the mom because she wouldn't have put him down on his side. Maybe not, but she was cosleeping with him, which carries its own risks. And it's likely she wasn't a CPR expert herself, as most of us parents aren't.

This is terribly sad and a horrible tragedy, but it's not about her going back to work or the fact that the baby would have been safer at home with her. It's a weird fluke, and it's a mistake on the part of the childcare providers.

Cosleeping reduces the risk of SIDS. It can increase the chances of suffocation. Please research before you accuse.

I'm not accusing (as I obviously noted when I said "I'm not trying to blame the mom"). And I'm well aware of the fact that cosleeping increases the chances of suffocation. If the baby was put down on his side at the daycare, chances are he didn't die from SIDS anyway but from suffocation. The line between the two can be fine, and many cases it's difficult to tell exactly why a baby died, which is why SIDS is the label. Sleeping in the same room with a mom reduces the risk of SIDS. It doesn't have to be in the same bed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/a-baby-dies-at-day-care-and-a-mother-asks-why-she-had-to-leave-him-so-soon/

Pretty gut-wrenching.

I think all mothers should get a minimum of one year at home with their infant, if they so choose.

This choice is currently available to mothers. What are you talking about?

The choice is availabke. Most women want the paycheck and wont give it up.

The mother said she only kept working for health insurance. We are still paying off a medical bill from when my husband was uninsured 5 years ago. I know that Obamacare is an option now, but I'm not sure how good the options are. I can fully understand her fear about being uninsured because you just never know when something bad will happen and you end up with a $20k bill from a hospital that ends up taking years to pay off.

I thought I knew what others are going through. But you can never fully appreciate the fear and helplessness unless you go through it yourself.

I never really understood until my spouse was fired, and I was on the list to get fired, and our health insurance was linked to my job. I was very scared. Health Insurance should not be linked to a job. It is a f'cked up system.

I have not used Obamacare but it is a major step in the right direction.

Our culture has still not adjusted to 2 working parent families. But it is consistent with every other aspect of american culture, every man woman and child for himself. Time to import millions more immigrants to take our jobs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/a-baby-dies-at-day-care-and-a-mother-asks-why-she-had-to-leave-him-so-soon/

Pretty gut-wrenching.

I think all mothers should get a minimum of one year at home with their infant, if they so choose.

This choice is currently available to mothers. What are you talking about?

The choice is availabke. Most women want the paycheck and wont give it up.

Many families NEED the paycheck.

[Anonymous]

A close friend of mine's first child died at 3 months of age the very first day he was at an in-home daycare (here in DC). It was actually her last day of leave; she was planning to return to work the following Monday. He also was left for a half-day only. This was in 1991, though, right around the time that the recommendation changed to putting babies down on their backs to sleep.