Stomach sleeping for baby--should they arrest me?

MetroMom

Mon, Dec 28 2009, 2:09 pm

natmichal wrote:

My kids were both preemie, and believe it or not, in NICU they sleep on their....tummy!
The reason is that they are monitored and therefore safe. Why do it then? Well, I got the explanation from dd's nurse when they started making her sleep on her back (they start a week or two before they release them so that the baby gets "good habits" and makes it easier on the parents) : We used to check how many food residue (if any) was still in dd's stomach before each feeding (she still had a feeding tube so it's nt painful or anything). And guess what: she always digested everything....till she was moved onto her back. The nurse said that for good digestion, the babies are better on their stomach!
My kids, as I said, were "trained" to sleep on their backs. At home, that's what I did, or, if it was daytime, I'd start them on their tums under supervision (so they practiced lifting head and digest my milk) , and would turn them over when fast asleep . Both hated being on their tums for playtime.....

I have two children (twins) that were micro-preemie and two children (twins again) that were preemie, and believe it or not, just like you, in the NICU they sleep on their.....tummies! They explained pretty much the same thing to me about digesting food better on their stomachs and they told me that when I go home I should allow them to fall asleep on their stomachs as they (my micro-preemies) were doing that for the many months that they were in the NICU and then flip them onto their side or back about an hour or so after they had fallen asleep to give their tiny bodies a chance to digest the food they ate.

I worked out a way to put them to sleep that made me very comfortable and kept them comfortable as well. I swaddled them in a very thin blanket. Flannel? Toys R'us makes them in pink, yellow, blue and white...really thin. I had a whole system of exactly how I would 'wrap them up' that would keep them really cozy. Then I would fold another blanket into a thin roll and put my baby somewhere between on his back and on his side and place this rolled up blanket underneath him as a prop, going along his length from his shoulder blades to the small of his back, so that he'd be leaning on it. They found this very comfortable and slept very well. My first set of twins actually slept together until they were 2.5 years old and in the beginning I would prop the first baby like that and then the second baby would be propped up a bit against the first baby but starting lower down, like from his neck down as I was afraid of anything being in front of the baby's face. They loved this position. (They are nine years old today and are still as close as is humanly possible.)

Barbara

Mon, Dec 28 2009, 2:32 pm

Mama Bear wrote:

barbara those things you list arent equal to putting babies on their stomachs. car seats, hotdogs, and leaving kids at home alone are far riskier than letting a healthy full term baby with no blanket and no smoking parents sleep on their tummy.

Its estimated that 2000 babies' lives are saved each year by back sleeping (SIDS deaths reduction from 5000 to under 3000 per year in US since early 90s when Back to Sleep was introduced).

Its estimated that car safety seats save the lives of fewer than 500 children under the age of 5 aech year. (Unfortunately, these numbers are from early 2000s, most recent I could find.)

Its a bit of a false comparison, since it doesn't take into account injuries saved. SIDS is all or nothing -- your baby lives or dies -- so its the best I could do.

But even if that comparison were not true, it wouldn't matter. For whatever reason, babies placed to sleep on their stomachs die at a much higher rate than those who are placed to sleep on their backs. I really don't care what people do. Its your baby's life. But please don't put OTHER people's babies' lives at risk by telling them that it doesn't increase the risk of the baby's death. It does.

Barbara

Mon, Dec 28 2009, 3:13 pm

Shmerling wrote:

Quote:

Its estimated that 2000 babies' lives are saved each year by back sleeping (SIDS deaths reduction from 5000 to under 3000 per year in US since early 90s when Back to Sleep was introduced).

But I think a major percentage of those 2000 who would have died, would have been from loose sheets, blankets, pillows etc... If you're extra careful with such things, the risk is not any greater than on the back.

Please cite the studies that have shown that placing a baby to sleep to its stomach does not increase the risk of death if there is no loose bedding. EVERY study I have seen states the exact opposite. So if you have evidence, let's see it.

Mommeeeeeeee!

Mon, Dec 28 2009, 3:23 pm

well, obviously, how you're going to put your infant to sleep is an individual decision everyone makes (well, at least until baby learns to roll over and decides for him/herself), and you could base your choice on medical advice, your own research, what other people tell you, or even just what is easier for you. but personally, I wouldn't do it. maybe my babies would have slept better on their tummies, but I wouldn't know, since I never tried it. it's true that they sleep on their tummies in nicu, but they are monitored by both humans and machines 24/7 there, so it's not at all the same thing as when you put them down on their tum at home. I have found it very helpful to swaddle my back-sleeping babies with arms inside to prevent the startle reflux from waking them up - it also helps them sleep better/longer, calms them when upset, and becomes part of the pre-sleep routine so baby associates being swaddled with sleep time and it cues them to go into "sleep mode". you can also have the baby fall asleep on their stomach while you are watching them and then turn them over once they are asleep and you are ready to leave the room.

the world's best mom

Mon, Dec 28 2009, 9:14 pm

Barbara wrote:

The vast, vast majority of car trips don't result in car accidents. Babies are much happier if they are held lovingly in an adult's arms. Toddlers and older children are happier with freedom in the car. Chances are they'll be just fine. Don't worry about a seatbelt or carseat.

Chances are, if you feed your baby hot dogs, he won't choke. Most kids fed peanut butter before age 3 don't develop allergies.

Hey, we can do that with a milion things. I mean, if you leave your kids at home alone for a few hours, after they're already asleep, chances are you'll find them safe and sound in their beds when you return.

You're not taking chances on those things. Why are you taking chances with your baby's life by placing him on his stomach?

The difference between tummy sleeping and the rest of these, at least for me, is that I can manage with a baby who cries in his car seat occasionally but not with a baby who is awake all night. I am human; I need sleep. It's a choice between not sleeping at all because the baby wakes up every time he's put down on his back, or sleep an hour or 2 at a time with him on his belly or in my bed with me. And I dson't think my babies slept deeply enough, even on their bellies, that it would be such a major concern.

Hashem_Yaazor

Tue, Dec 29 2009, 1:30 pm

As someone mentioned, the diagnoses of SIDS cases changed at the same time Back to Sleep was introduced.
Infant mortality has NOT gone down; just the classification of SIDS, so it's not so clear cut that back sleeping has reduced SIDS cases; just that there are less SIDS cases reported since the deaths are attributed to other causes.
We had a mother post here once about her baby who she noticed stopped breathing and B"H they were able to treat her and find a cause. The doctors had said if she hadn't made it, it would have been classified as a SIDS case, even though there was a different factor involved that caused the breathing lapse -- it was only noticed since with tremendous hashgacha, the baby was found before she passed away.

Jewishmofm

Sun, Sep 11 2011, 1:39 pm

I quote doctor "anyone putting baby on stomach to sleep is a rodef".
end quote. my babies don't sleep either way. we get 1/2 hour stretches round the clock.
and no, people have not been stomach sleeping babies for thousands of years. almost all "original peoples" (think native americans, aborigines) have always used back to sleep methods. a popular european sleep method for babies was hammocks impossible to use on the stomach. that's why the medical community had to put so much effort into its more recent stomach sleeping campaigns.
would you let your baby sleep overnight in your car because it is more convenient?

Hashem_Yaazor

Mon, Sep 12 2011, 9:20 am

Jewishmofm wrote:

I completely disagree with that misuse of the word rodef. A rodef is someone who is actively working on killing someone.
The risk of SIDS is not so high to begin with (back to sleep or not), that I don't think it would even be halachically considered a sakana (and I have heard rabbonim say this as well) to not do what current mainstream medicine practices in this case. If it's not a sakana, how can one be a rodef?
Also, to ignore the fact that there are so many other variables, many of which are still unknown, is not fair for patients who rely on the doctor. It's not as simple as back to sleep == no sids, stomach to sleep == sids. Most babies who R"L die of SIDS most likely have something else that was undetected going on. We don't know if our babies do or don't, and we try our best, but it's too simplistic to imply that back to sleep is the only variable to focus on.

(Why was this bumped?)