Comments on: The Post-Logical Parenting Conference (2)! http://www.mama-is.com/the-post-logical-parenting-conference-2/ old comic archives... Mon, 20 Jun 2011 01:05:30 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.2 By: Sarah V. http://www.mama-is.com/the-post-logical-parenting-conference-2/comment-page-1/#comment-1433 Sarah V. Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:29:53 +0000 http://www.mama-is.com/?p=409#comment-1433 I agree that sometimes, in practice, it's difficult or impossible to get babies to sleep in cribs. But that wasn't the point Hathor was making. She was trying to claim that the AAP are ignoring facts and being illogical. There are also babies who won't or can't breastfeed, and their mothers need advice about using formula as safely as possible. But just because not every mother can breastfeed or wants to do so doesn't mean that we call the AAP 'post-logical' for recommending breastfeeding as the safest overall option. It means that they're giving us the facts, even if those are uncomfortable for some mothers. I wasn't trying to claim that no baby ever found it stressful to sleep in a crib; I was disagreeing with Hathor's claim that babies shouldn't sleep in cribs, full stop. (I find it ironic that one of the links she gives in her support is to James McKenna's paper, when he objects on the first page to the practice of 'labelling one sleeping arrangement as being superior to another'.) Hathor: Thanks for the links. McKenna talks about one of the studies that shows increased risk even in babies of non-smoking parents - the Carpenter study done in Europe – and criticises it on the grounds of not adjusting properly for the sleeping conditions or for breastfeeding status. But the McGarvey et al study in Ireland did adjust for sleeping conditions and still found an increased risk associated with co-sleeping. The Tappin et al study in Scotland and the Ruys et al study in the Netherlands found that breastfeeding didn't modify the risks as had been previously hoped. So, even when you figure those factors in, you're still looking at something of an increased risk for bedsharing with small babies. Both McKenna and the author of the letter to which you posted a link claim that the AAP should recommend bedsharing regardless because of fears that advising against bedsharing may cut the rates of exclusive breastfeeding. But, even if there was sound evidence for that, breastfeeding isn't something we do as an end in itself – it's something we do as a means to the end of optimising our babies' health. Trying to increase breastfeeding rates by advising mothers to do something that may *increase* the risk of SIDS strikes me as... well, would 'post-logical' be the right word there? I agree that sometimes, in practice, it’s difficult or impossible to get babies to sleep in cribs. But that wasn’t the point Hathor was making. She was trying to claim that the AAP are ignoring facts and being illogical. There are also babies who won’t or can’t breastfeed, and their mothers need advice about using formula as safely as possible. But just because not every mother can breastfeed or wants to do so doesn’t mean that we call the AAP ‘post-logical’ for recommending breastfeeding as the safest overall option. It means that they’re giving us the facts, even if those are uncomfortable for some mothers.

I wasn’t trying to claim that no baby ever found it stressful to sleep in a crib; I was disagreeing with Hathor’s claim that babies shouldn’t sleep in cribs, full stop. (I find it ironic that one of the links she gives in her support is to James McKenna’s paper, when he objects on the first page to the practice of ‘labelling one sleeping arrangement as being superior to another’.)

Hathor: Thanks for the links. McKenna talks about one of the studies that shows increased risk even in babies of non-smoking parents – the Carpenter study done in Europe – and criticises it on the grounds of not adjusting properly for the sleeping conditions or for breastfeeding status. But the McGarvey et al study in Ireland did adjust for sleeping conditions and still found an increased risk associated with co-sleeping. The Tappin et al study in Scotland and the Ruys et al study in the Netherlands found that breastfeeding didn’t modify the risks as had been previously hoped. So, even when you figure those factors in, you’re still looking at something of an increased risk for bedsharing with small babies.

Both McKenna and the author of the letter to which you posted a link claim that the AAP should recommend bedsharing regardless because of fears that advising against bedsharing may cut the rates of exclusive breastfeeding. But, even if there was sound evidence for that, breastfeeding isn’t something we do as an end in itself – it’s something we do as a means to the end of optimising our babies’ health. Trying to increase breastfeeding rates by advising mothers to do something that may *increase* the risk of SIDS strikes me as… well, would ‘post-logical’ be the right word there?

]]>