Note Added July 16, 2014
For those of you who may have seen news reports in mid-July of 2014 about a new study that allegedly reinforces the risks of bed-sharing and are wondering if that study negates what I’m saying here, it doesn’t really. For an excellent deconstruction of that study check the Evolutionary Parenting blog.
Original Post June 4, 2013
As the debate rages — and I’d bet it will continue to rage for a long time — about whether or not bedsharing increases the risk of Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS), something else needs to be said about the way this whole conversation is framed in public discourse.
SIDS prevention is often couched in terms of safety. This sleeping arrangement, or these sleep practices, are safe and these other ones are risky. There’s an implication, perhaps unintended, that SIDS is the parents’ fault if they weren’t following SIDS prevention advice exactly to the letter.
That is a misleading premise.
SIDS is not an accident. In many ways, we still only have a bunch of clues about the biological mechanisms that cause SIDS. I think researchers are right to try to look for environmental risk factors for SIDS. After all, that kind of research led to lives being saved by getting parents to put babies on their backs for sleep. The mistake some researchers and health promoters make is thinking that lots of other SIDS research findings translate into “evidence-based” (there’s a term I’m starting to hate because it is misapplied so often) advice for parents.
There is no proof that so-called environmental risk factors (being male is a big one, by the way) cause infants to die in their sleep, at least not of SIDS. The best guess anyone can really make is that the risk factors researchers have identified – sleeping on the stomach, parental smoking, overheating, etc. – may somehow interact with the child’s biologically-based vulnerability. But even that’s still an educated guess right now. And educated guesses are not a sound basis for advice for parents.
Now, keep in mind a couple of things. First there is a legitimate discussion to be had about sleep safety. There are infants who suffocate accidentally during sleep. So yes, use common sense and keep babies’ sleep environments uncluttered, sleep surfaces not too soft, not too crowded and ensure there are no places where the baby could become wedged. But suffocating isn’t SIDS. SIDS is still a sad, tragic puzzle.
Second, with respect to SIDS the evidence about back sleeping is pretty overwhelming. There is no doubt that substantially fewer babies die of SIDS, particularly in cribs, since the advent of the “back to sleep campaign.”
But, anyone who tries to tell you that any sleeping arrangement or place – ANY sleeping arrangement or place – is perfectly “safe” — is going too far. Babies can and do die of SIDS in the sleep arrangement many pundits promote as ideal: on their backs, in a certified safe crib with nothing in it but the baby and a light blanket, and the crib is located in the parents room (which is at just the right temperature).
Because, from my reading of the research evidence, front sleep, and parents and babies sleeping together on sofas, are the only risk factors where the evidence is clear enough to translate into general SIDS prevention advice for parents about how and where babies should sleep. Having the baby sleep in a crib your room makes sense (if your baby sleeps in a crib and your bedroom is big enough), but I remain underwhelmed by the evidence that room-sharing protects against SIDS. Some researchers speculate that room-sharing parents may become aware that their babies are in trouble and intervene. Perhaps, but again, it’s a guess. And, um, geez, if that’s true, wouldn’t bedsharing parents be in an even better position to detect a baby in respiratory distress? Just sayin’.
By the way, while I am very sympathetic to bedsharing, no one can tell you it is perfectly SIDS-proof or perfectly “safe” either, although, if you are a sober, non-smoking breastfeeder who is not socially deprived (poverty is one of the biggest risk factors for SIDS, but health promoters don’t seem to like to talk about that), your baby’s risk of SIDS is very small indeed. Here’s a link to a Today’s Parent article with some reasonable information about safe bedsharing. Much of the info comes from anthropologist and co-sleeping researcher James McKenna, one of the people whose knowledge I would trust on this topic.
There is also strong evidence about two other potentially modifiable risk factors: fetal and infant exposure to cigarette smoke and intoxicated (or drugged) parents sleeping in the same bed with babies. Mind you, some of the deaths related to parental substance use are probably due to suffocation, not SIDS. But smoking and substance abuse are complex problems that cannot be solved simply by posters, pamphlets and public service announcements. It’s a lot easier get parents to put babies to sleep on their backs via public health advice than it is to help them shed an addiction to tobacco, raise them out of poverty, or cure them of substance abuse problems.
Another problem I have with the SIDS safety paradigm is that it tries to put SIDS into this little box where the only thing that matters is trying to eliminate “risk factors.” Sorry. Sudden Infant Death is not this little world unto itself. The sad realities of SIDS reside within the diverse, messy world of family, the same world occupied by breastfeeding, tired parents looking for a decent night’s sleep, parent-child attachment, infant temperament, parent temperament, socioeconomic status, cultural norms and a whole bunch of other things. You can’t just put advice for SIDS “safety” in this little silo and pretend that it has nothing to do with the other parts of the infant/parent world.
Prime example of how this sort of tunnel vision works. Advice against bedsharing totally bumps head-on into the realities of breastfeeding. Tired mothers are likely to breastfeed their babies in bed (they’ve done it for eons) and given the hormones in breastmilk and the ones released by the mom during breastfeeding, both mom and baby are quite likely to fall asleep in the process. Anybody who constructs advice that ignores this biological reality (not to mention the fact that mothers and babies have slept together in various cultures for thousands of years) should not be in the parent advice business. Actually, some experts are now starting to think that the blanket (no pun intended) advice to never bedshare has backfired, specifically in cases where parents fell as sleep with babies on couches or chairs because they were trying to avoid falling asleep with their babies in beds.
Fortunately I have seen examples of health promoting organizations – the Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) comes to mind – which have made admirable efforts to avoid rigidity in safe sleep messages. An organization like the CPS has to be careful to stay within the bounds of what the medical establishment calls evidence, but they have made great efforts to understand and acknowledge the realities of parents and constructed reasonably balanced advice as a result. I may not totally agree with everything they say, but I applaud their efforts to understand and communicate realistically with parents.
Mainstream organizations like the CPS really do need to have parents listening to them. As for the organizations and individuals who seem bound and determined to eliminate bedsharing, I’ve got two things to say to you. 1. Not gonna happen. 2. Lots and lots of parents are tuning you out because they see you as biased and irrelevant. You need to ask yourselves. Is that what we really want?
One more thing. The number of SIDS cases has declined drastically in the past 20 years. So, the risk, which was very, very small even when I was a child, is much smaller now. Keep reminding yourself of that as this debate continues.
Update (added, July 4, 2013) For a very wise and sensible perspective on all this read this reassuring interview with anthropologist Helen Ball, an academic with deep knowledge on SIDS and breastfeeding.