quote:

---

Roughly 400 Texas babies die in their sleep each year; last year, Texas Child Protective Services investigated 167 infant deaths that occurred while babies slept with adults or older children.

---

Or put another way, children were 3 times more likely to die in their sleep when placed in a crib than co-sleeping.

Of those, 99.9 % of the parents were asleep at the time. Is it reckless or negligent, knowing those stats, not to have one parent awake at all times?

Or if the baby died in the crib and did not have the non-motion sensor (sell on-line to protect from SIDS deaths) to detect when baby stops moving, is that reckless or negligent? Or you put your baby in a crib and didn't bother to check that it had been recalled? Reckless, negligent?

I think the car analogies are not applicable because even driving a car is inherently dangerous, and society does accept those risks. Not the same with sleeping.

If a mother eats a lot of junkfood during pregnancy and baby is born with diabetes, has she committed agg assault? Not the same as the drug moms because the drugs are illegal and inherently dangerous.

I agree with the tragedies happen at times line of thought. Otherwise, babies are so fragile, the list of ways that one could recklessly or negligently hurt / kill would be never ending.

But why does society accept the risks of driving (or swimming pools or stairs or baby slings or any other number of things that cause child deaths) but not co-sleeping, especially if more children are dying in their cribs alone than in bed with their parents? Given those numbers, shouldn't we be prosecuting the parents who AREN'T co-cleeping?

And those numbers are exactly why we shouldn't be prosecuting those who safely co-sleep, and if we did, why we would (and should) lose.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brody V. Burks:

quote:

---

Roughly 400 Texas babies die in their sleep each year; last year, Texas Child Protective Services investigated 167 infant deaths that occurred while babies slept with adults or older children.

---

Or put another way, children were 3 times more likely to die in their sleep when placed in a crib than co-sleeping.

---

Actually, no, that is an incorrect probability analysis. Without knowing the total number of children who co-sleep and who do not co-sleep, you cannot determine the probability ("X times more likely ...").

Assuming exactly 400 sleeping deaths, 167/400 = 42% of sleeping deaths were during co-sleeping episodes, while the remainder (233/400 = 58%) were during either non-co-sleeping or unknown sleeping arrangements. Since anecdotal evidence is that co-sleeping is less common than non-co-sleeping, I would bet that co-sleeping is more dangerous. However, in the absence of more information, it's all just speculation.

(p.s. - Warning! This is what happens when you marry someone with a PhD in statistical research. )

Many more people die in ambulances than on motorcycles so you are basically asking for trouble if you don't ride a motorcycle.

Another thought occurred to me...

The stats say that 400 infants died and 167 of them were sleeping with parents when that happened. I would like to know how many babies slept with their parents over that same period of time and did not die. That would be more telling about the dangerousness. If 10,000 babies slept with parents and didn't die, then 167 is not statistically significant to show reckless or negligent. But if only 180 kids slept with their parents and 167 died, that's a different story.

But to actually prosecute, you'd have to show that the parent knew or should have known it was dangerous. Still going to be a problem.

I'm knee deep in "new baby books" these days, and from what I've read, there are no major warnings against co-sleeping. Especially at the beginning when baby eats so often...the experts say doze during late night feedings if you can, get every bit of shut eye possible.

If you have a mom who has lost two babies this way, would there be any reason to believe that they weren't accidental? That sounds a little strange that a mom would allow the child to sleep with her after having lost one that same way--you'd think if anything, mom would be overly vigilant.

Having recently been knee deep in baby books myself, I remember reading somewhere that something like 75% of parents have co-slept with their baby at some point.

And with all those new baby books talking about the benefits of co-sleeping, how are you ever going to show that a parent knew or should have known it was dangerous?

Leanne Courtney, a forensic nurse, said an easy way to remember infant death prevention methods is through an ABCDE memory device: Alone, on the Back, in a Crib, with the Dangers Eliminated. Infants should be placed on their backs, alone in their cribs, without any objects surrounding them, she said.

Adults sharing a bed with an infant is the biggest risk factor in sleep-related infant deaths, Courtney said.

Details.

Bed sharing fatalities of children under one year of age are on the rise in Travis County, across Central Texas and the entire state. The term "bed sharing" refers to a child sleeping in the same bed, chair or other piece of furniture as an adult, sibling or any other caregiver.

"Bed sharing" is different from "co-sleeping," which refers to a child sleeping in the same room as a caregiver but in a separate bed.

Details.

That's so Crazy!! What happened to Criminal Intent?

Besides the risk that a parent could accidentally roll over on the baby, the article mentioned another fact which makes bed sharing problematic: soft mattresses and bedding. Crib mattresses are very firm with tight fitting sheets and if the parents follow pediatric guidelines, no other bedding such as blankets. Not so the average bed. Many have soft pillow tops as well as blankets, comforters, etc. This is what happened to the Eaten baby in the story; she smothered when she ended up face down on the mattress. When my children were infants and I was nursing them, they sleeped in their own cribs, but in our bedroom for easy access during the night.

Janette A