|
|
|
|
|
|
by gregjor
1115 days ago
|
|
|
> That goes against current guidelines on sleep for babies.. the risk of SIDS drops when the baby sleeps on their own rather than with their parents. True, but if you look at the studies you see alcohol and drugs involved, parents who smoke, babies sleeping with parents on sofas, improper bedding, low birth weight and other risk factors, etc. A hard mattress, light bedding, and a baby bed that can go between the parents or on the side of the bed eliminates most of the risks. Pediatrician advice on this topic has gone from "never do it under any circumstances" to "don't smoke, drink, do drugs, or let babies sleep on soft mattresses with heavy bedding." Babies should not sleep prone. Parents all over the world routinely sleep with babies and young children with no increased SIDS rate, probably because they don't use padded soft mattresses and heavy bedding. Cribs and baby bedding and toys cause their own problems. > People existed for a long time without lots of things we have today. Should we stop using lots of stuff? Not really an argument, since I was referring to a single specific practice, not "lots of stuff." At one extreme you have Balinese mothers who carry their babies everywhere and sleep with them. At the other you have parents who hire nannies and keep their children in separate rooms under video surveillance. Because raising children is a very personal and human activity I don't get why people would introduce unnecessary distance or technology, but everyone can find their own way. |
|
|
Of course it's an argument. Why would you apply the logic to a single specific practice and hand wave away everything else? Makes no sense.