Reply to Rock n Play Recall- alternatives?

Forum Index » Expectant and Postpartum Moms

Reply to "Rock n Play Recall- alternatives?"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=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.[/quote]

+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.  [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics