"Back to sleep" isn't working - I feel awful about

TzenaRena

Tue, May 01 2007, 10:20 am

Quote:

elmofood wrote:
why are people here so ignorant? if we know that 50 percent of sids deaths have been reduced due to back sleeping, why are all of you having difficulty with that? do you want to be the one to take a chance and suffer? I think not. lots of things have changed over the years in regards to child rearing. deal with it

I'm pretty sure there are statistics as well about breastfeeding, that it also reduces the chances by perhaps 50%. I'm just curious whether mothers who give formula instead of nursing are made to feel ignorant, or guilty, because I haven't noticed that the medical establishment insists on breastfeeding with the same urgency as backsleeping, and yet it is probably just as significant.

I have my own theory about this: that that would spark a women's rights issue, which they wouldn't want to do for politically correct reasons.

Hashem_Yaazor

Tue, May 01 2007, 10:38 am

TzenaRena wrote:

Quote:

Babies should be in close proximity, not too warm, no smoking in the house, but all we hear is back to sleep. When a child rolls over, SIDS is not non-existent, and maybe Back to Sleep is not as important anymore, but all the other prevention factors are!!

FWIW, both my sons I attempted to put to sleep on their backs. The first one didn't last so long since I would lie down when nursing and he got used to being on his side. He was rolling over from tummy to back by 1 month, so there went that. The second lasted a bit longer, but by a week and a half he was lifting up his neck pretty high, so I didn't feel terrible if I did end up putting him to sleep on his stomach. By 2 months, he was rolling over and he always sleeps on his stomach now, even though he'll be 4 months in 2 days.

(I think sleep is a major health necessity of babies [and parents] and my personal reasons for letting my children sleep on their stomach basically amounted to the fact that no other SIDS risks were there [I wouldn't have been as lenient with a preemie] and the SIDS rate is so low as is that the sleep they would get outweighed a potential risk. I also happen to notice any slight changes in my baby's breathing patterns, so that calmed me a little. My rav said you do your hishtadlus, and if it doesn't work, you can't force it to. I don't think anyone should take my personal experience and use it for herself, and I don't advocate ignoring the Back to Sleep recommendation, but I just want to bring up the point that there is much more to reducing SIDS than back to sleep.)

gryp

Tue, May 01 2007, 10:55 am

Quote:

I didn't enter in this discussion for the very reason you brought up -- no one wants to hear other SIDS risk factors! Yes, BF is a tremendous help, but we can't tell mothers to "give up their body" to nurse, now can we? Babies should be in close proximity, not too warm, no smoking in the house, but all we hear is back to sleep. When a child rolls over, SIDS is not non-existent, and maybe Back to Sleep is not as important anymore, but all the other prevention factors are!!

exactly!

I'm not saying no one should put kids on their backs to sleep. I'm saying what I do and why.

Mommastuff

Tue, May 01 2007, 1:45 pm

The only problem was that I didn't get sleep cuz I kept waking up to see if she's still brewathing! But I figured that since my daughter is rolling now that it wouldn't be a problem anymore.
But what about my next one, G-d willing? I had to nurse this one on her side all night just to get some sleep for both of us. I tried putting her in the swing, car seat, rocking & bouncing her, gas drops (both regular & homeopathic), rubbing her back and stomach, rolling her legs, changing my diet, davening, anything I could think of. Nothing worked and I was falling asleep while taking care of my other daughter as well - not good for any kid but especially not safe for a kid that gets into everything!

I didn't realize that ther are those mothers that put them to sleep on their stomachs but I just might have become one! Hopefully I won't have to though!

bashinda

Tue, May 01 2007, 4:35 pm

You people aren't going to like me. I started putting one of my trips on his stomach because he would not sleep otherwise. He was an extremely colicy baby and was picking up his head by the time he was 2 weeks old, ka"h. I watched him and I put him on his tummy. I figured that mothers were doing this years ago and every mother I know who did this still has their kids today B"H. Maybe I wouldn't have been so easy with this if I knew that SIDS was reduced 50% with sleeping on their back. Anyone have a source for this?

SAH

Tue, May 01 2007, 8:31 pm

The latest research believes that SIDS is like a disease that some babies are pre-destined to (having studied the brains of babies who passed away from it r"l). Parts of the brain that controlled breathing, sleeping, etc. seemed deficient in those babies. Putting babies to sleep on their stomachs doesn't cause SIDS. Yet, back to sleep has significantly reduced the cases. Seemingly (this is me, not the reserach) babies with this make-up are roused more easily on their backs--so, waking up frequently would be a good thing, if you follow my logic.

That said, here's what I did. My first also flipped to stomach during cry it out at like 5 months, so with dr's approval we didn't flip him back. He became a stomach sleeper.

My baby slept on his back swaddled until he started breaking out of the swaddle at about 5 months. Then we put him down on his stomach for him to stay asleep (the only way he was able to sleep out of the swaddle), but I kept him in the co-sleeper in my bedroom and was able to check all the time that he didn't smush up against the side, the blanket didn't cover him, etc.. Like other posters he nursed and there were no other risk factors. I kept him in the co-sleeper as long as possible.

Btw the only people we know who had a sids baby r"l had a smoker in the family. The percentage that having a smoker increases the risk is probably equivalent to the percentage that back to sleep decreases it. so there's some food for thought.

R&RMom

Tue, May 01 2007, 9:54 pm

I am the poster that went off on the SIDS tangent...

I want to start off by apologizing to the OP who wanted advice on her baby who was already turning over...like I said before, once a baby turns over, it does not matter how you put your baby in, so don't woryy.

nylon...thabk you for shedding more light on what I had to say. Of course there might be medical reasons for a baby to sleep on the stomach, but unless it is mentioned to you by your doctor...don't do it!

Now to the rest of you that keep insisting on stomach sleeping...
To the people that argue about babies developing delays becasue they are not put on thier stomach... I did not say that a baby should NEVER be put on their stomach...it is very important for a baby to get 20 minutes of tummy time a day, and even be put on thier stomachs for longer periods however a child will not be delayed becasue of only being put on the back to sleep at night.
tO THE PEOPLE WHO INSIST THAT BABIES CAN CHOKE ON SPIT UP...I have yet to meet or hear of a baby who Chas veshalom died from choking on their spit up...I have unfortunately heard stories of babies who died of sids, and most of their parents admitted that they put the baby to sleep on the stomach (not that was the reason for the death, SIDS death is not explained however it does create a greater risk). It is an involuntary reflex for a baby to swallow their spit up or to turn their heads to the side.
My point in all of this is simply to make sure that whoever reads this will think twice before putting baby to sleep on his/her back

Mommy3.5

Tue, May 01 2007, 9:59 pm

two of my kids only slept on thioer tummies from birth. Two were side sleepers for the Back to sleepers, A family friends child head got severely deformed from back sleeping, He was in a helmet for months and then died of severe brain pressure just shy of his first birthday.

Stomach sleeping is safe as long asd you follow simple guidelines.

Keep the crib clear of toys and bedding, Dress the baby in a sleeper and a light blanket

Place the baby in the center of the crib away from the bumpers.

Keep the baby in your room where you will likely hear a change of breathing

My doctor was aware of the fact that the baby was sleeping on his tummy and told us what I posted above. And remember it was not too long ago that doctors were saying to place babies on thier stomachs so they don't choke on thier own vomit.;

Also the risk of sids are greatly diminished when the baby sleeps in the room with his parents. Babies in thier own room have a higher risk of sids.

Before calling someone ignorant, Do research on the other side. Most of us make informed decisions on our childrens health even if we don't have catchy little phrases to match our informed decisions.

Hashem_Yaazor

Wed, May 02 2007, 11:25 am

[quote="R&RMom"I have yet to meet or hear of a baby who Chas veshalom died from choking on their spit up..[/quote]
I know one who did. Sad

Granted, this was a baby who had digestive track issues from birth, and since he had to be fed via a feeding tube, he never learned to properly swallow. They started introducing a tiny amount of pumped milk to teach him to swallow. Seemed to be going ok. Checked on him every 10 minutes. In between the 2 checks, he returned his neshama tehora to shamayim. This is a very rare case and obviously a doctor would give specific advice, but if there is a reason, as there was with the baby that aspiration could be fatal, the doctor would instruct otherwise.

mumoo

Wed, May 02 2007, 9:45 pm

the excuse that "all my babies did it and they turned out fine" isn't fair. Once, when I was expecting, I was at a simcha and someone (not Jewish) noticed I turned down a glass of wine. She asked why, I told her because I was pregnant. She went on to tell me that her mother smoked and drank and she turned out ok. (in her opinion, apparently).

I told her the babies that didn't live aren't here to tell their story. Neither are the children who died without car seats, or who strangled on their crib bars, or who tumbled down stairs in a walker or when sleeping on their bellies. It is neglectful if you know a safety practice and consciously choose to ignore it.

For the record, 4 of my 5 were belly sleepers because that's what we were told at the time; #5 was put on her back, as per pediatrician's instructions.

GAMZu

Thu, May 03 2007, 12:33 am

Quote:

delayed in reaching all the milestones that begin with tummy time, such as crawling, sitting up, rolling over. I think therapy helped but it might not have had to be a concern at all

As mentioned before- give plenty of tummy time outside of sleep time.
Anyway, what is a small delay? The child will catch up.

Someone mentioned above that SIDS babies have underdeveloped parts of their brain that should wake them when there's not enough oxygen. But it doesn't work. Therefore putting the baby in a position that is not 'natural' for sleeping helps a baby wake when he stops breathing.

chavamom

Thu, May 03 2007, 1:31 am

elmofood wrote:

why are people here so ignorant? if we know that 50 percent of sids deaths have been reduced due to back sleeping, why are all of you having difficulty with that? do you want to be the one to take a chance and suffer? I think not. lots of things have changed over the years in regards to child rearing. deal with it

I'm going to introduce a bit more controversy here. I recently read an article about a medical researcher who actually believes that the "back to sleep campaign" is not the cause of the "decrease" in SIDS deaths. According to the article, the push to lay babies prone coincided with an effort to decrease the number of deaths attributed to SIDS by identifying an underlying cause and improvements in technology and knowledge that allowed for identification of deaths that would have previously been attributed to SIDS. Stay tuned - I'll see if I can link to info on the topic.

R&RMom

Thu, May 03 2007, 9:00 am

healthymama--

Quote:

There are now four published, well-designed studies which support a substantially lower incidence of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome in infants who use pacifiers compared to those who do not. According to the current data, the use of pacifiers appears to halve the risk. Two other studies, published in abstract form, report similar results. A review of the recent scientific literature demonstrating an apparent protective association between pacifier use and SIDS was presented by John Brooks, MD*, at the SIDS Alliance National Conference in Atlanta on April 9, 1999.

The reason or reasons for this apparent protective effect are not yet evident. A variety of mechanisms by which pacifiers may protect against SIDS have been proposed. It has been suggested that the presence of a pacifier in the mouth may discourage babies from turning over onto their faces during sleep. Moving or turning may dislodge the pacifier, which may have the effect of encouraging babies to stay on their backs.

Another theory suggests that pacifier use might help to keep the tongue positioned forward, keeping the airways open. Some scientists speculate that an infant sucking on a pacifier may be more attuned to keeping his or her nose free of bedding in order to breathe. It has also been hypothesized that pacifier use may quiet a restless infant, who might otherwise move more aggressively around the crib and end up underneath the bedding. On the other hand, pacifiers may stimulate the upper airway muscles and saliva production, possibly triggering brain activity and ability to arouse from sleep. Increased arousability is seen in infants who usually sleep with a pacifier, even if the pacifier is not being used