HEALTH

Preventing Tragedy

Three new studies examine the mystery of SIDS—a condition that takes thousands of infant lives every year.

By Karen Springen | NEWSWEEK
Published Oct 6, 2008

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: time matters @ 06/07/2009 1:56:16 AM

    I strongly believe that co-sleeping and nursing (two to three times at night in addition to daytime nursings) until my baby was almost three prevented him from SIDS--as well as a few other problems. Co-sleeping and night nursing (when mama makes the best and most milk) ensure that the baby is alert enough and breathing heavily enough to get much needed O2. Which I'm sure is why the fans seem to work so well. Just think about how humans evolved. We did not evolve with baby sleeping in the next cave over. We evolved with babies attached to the mother's (or someone elses) body, and co sleeping at night. A co-sleeping baby is always on his or her back,nursing as often as they desire. This whole discussion is the result of humans moving away from the evolutionary reality in which we evolved. I also would not be surprised in the least if the other big reason the current guidelines work so well (at reducing SIDS--and also why SIDS increased so much in the first place) is because of the toxic chemicals/fire retardants that our mattresses and sheets and pajamas are soaked in. Facing upwards OF COURSE decreases you exposure to this menace. I bet a baby sleeping on her belly, on an organic mattress with organic sheets sleeping in organic clothes (meaning not sprayed with chemicals to make them "safe.") would have no different of a rate of SIDS as any other group of babies.

  • Posted By: Aubrey74 @ 10/21/2008 12:35:34 PM

    Both of my sons were born in the winter, both had bumpers and blankets in their cribs. One had a fan, and the other did not. I am also a very anit-pacifier person, and neither one ever had one. The fear of SIDS was always in the back (or front) of my mind, but I always used the "wedges" to keep them in sleeping position. My oldest son was born 6 weeks early, at 5lbs 1oz, and my second was 3 weeks early at 7lbs 5 oz. Both are healthy, at 11 and 6 now. I think we need to continue to educate ourselves, but no one knows what "links" the cases of SIDS have, and I am not sure that we are even close now. It doesn't sound in this article that they have any more answers, but we all still have lots of questions.

  • Posted By: K. Gill @ 10/20/2008 3:52:47 PM

    I don't know if the fans in my daughter's nurseries made a difference or not as far as SIDS is concerned. I can say that the white noise generated by the cheap oscilating fans (which can be purchased at any large discount retailer) did help filter out noise generated by the rest of our family. My oldest has always been a "light sleeper" which prompted me to put the fan in her room in the first place. After reading the above article I felt compelled to "put in my two cents". If nothing else, a fan might help your baby stay asleep a little longer and, as they say, it can't hurt, right...

  • Posted By: BarbaraBlue @ 10/08/2008 5:59:50 PM

    Ceiling fans make more sense in a nursery, because unlike plug-in floor or table fans, parents won???t have to worry about safety issues such as tripping over cords or the fan being knocked down by a toddler or pet.

    • Posted By: Grant M @ 10/16/2008 11:05:22 AM

      My apartment doesn't have a lot of floor space and we don't have a ceiling fan but i was able to find a clip fan that i could clip directly to the crib. I was concerned that the clip might not hold and would be dangerous but after receiving it i realized that it was very sturdy. The one i found is on http://www.vornado.com/

  • Posted By: sylviethebereavementlady @ 10/15/2008 8:02:29 PM

    In response to zillamut, not all municipalities differentiate between SIDS in the truest definition and other forms of early infant death including co-sleeping accidents, aspiration of vomit, etc. Partly this depends on the quality of the pathologist or the extent of infant autopsy. Many docs still call any death of a young infant that occurs without obvious injury or disease process SIDS. I understand BarbaraBlue's concern about standing fans, but one hypothesis that seems to be overlooked in this study would be that the oscillation of the stand fans could trigger the arousal machanism for those infants in whom it is less developed. This is one area that researchers are looking at very closely. Maybe the "stale air" theory of why this works for some children is not the case, but rather, having intermittent breeze does not givwe the infant a chance to fall into such a deep sleep that they "forget to breathe."

  • Posted By: Quinlynna @ 10/10/2008 4:02:45 PM

    One thing is that for some reason back sleeping, fan, weird things like that seem to help. However that doesn't make any sence that that is why it happens, there has to be an underlying problem and for some reason these things help. Maby there are several reasons and that's why we can't pin it on any one thing. Maby it's mattresses, vaccines, medications, who knows what elses. I don't know what kind of studies have been done but are these things being looked at?

  • Posted By: zillamutt @ 10/08/2008 3:20:27 PM

    There are several possible causes, but we must learn to see past the government and big pharma.
    1) Are vaccines a problem? Answer - Yes.. Vaccine "requirements" have doubled and tripled over the last 20 years and are given at younger ages and in bigger batches.
    2) Is it from mercury? Answer- Maybe... Supposedly mercury has been removed from MOST (not all) vaccines and the ones that still do can contain up to 300 times what is considered safe for a full grown adult.
    3) What is the problem with vaccines then? Answer- Aspertame, MSG, Formaldehyde.... and the list goes on.
    4) What about sleeping on back or belly or with parents? Answer- Doesn't really matter to the government because choking on vomit or suffocating doesn't count as SIDS.
    5) Fans? Answer- people used to sleep with the windows open (or more "open" rooms)-- also helps cover any questions about room temperature and carbon dioxide.
    6) Room temp and CO2 ? Answer- besides the open windows, central heat and air are "relatively new". Any localized heat source needed proper ventilation and usually left the bedrooms as the coldest rooms in the house.

  • Posted By: newsreader15 @ 10/06/2008 10:12:44 PM

    I am so sorry for your losses of your babies to SIDS - my heart goes out to you. Many new parents buy a new crib and mattress for their babies. What is in the mattress? Formaldehyde, flame retardants and other chemicals. Everything that gets the baby's face away from the mattress seems to also decrease SIDS. A fan would also help the off-gasing. We need to be able to buy chemical free mattresses for our babies, and for ourselves. Are these chemicals the cause of SIDS? No one has determined this, but the coincidences are something to think about.

    • Posted By: zillamutt @ 10/08/2008 2:35:13 PM

      sounds like some of the same ingredients in vaccines-- but that is "supposedly" ok-- yeah - right

  • Posted By: lauridukes @ 10/07/2008 6:55:17 PM

    I am the mother of a Sids child he died 22 years ago on his tummy. I since have had 5 more children, that never slept on ther stomach's. My son NEVER had a vaccine, and all the others did. I know there is alot of talk about this but what I don't get is that if all the things that have been implemented WHY not do it? Losing my son was the worst thing that happened to me, and I would wish it on no one! do whatever you can to protect your children! follow your heart but listen.

  • Posted By: lauridukes @ 10/07/2008 6:54:30 PM

    I am the mother of a Sids child he died 22 years ago on his tummy. I since have had 5 more children, that never slept on ther stomach's. My son NEVER had a vaccine, and all the others did. I know there is alot of talk about this but what I don't get is that if all the things that have been implemented WHY not do it? Losing my son was the worst thing that happened to me, and I would wish it on no one! do whatever you can to protect your children! follow your heart but listen.

  • Posted By: mewot @ 10/06/2008 9:53:37 PM

    This article rightly points out the lack of understanding regarding causes of SIDS. The persistent campaign spreading parental fear and guilt by insisting on infant back sleeping raises some ethical issues. The American Academy of Pediatrics has successfully managed media to add to a 'no win' for parents of new babies. Since none of the recommendations actually prevent SIDS, no matter what parents do, babies continue to die and parents end up feeling guilty.
    Studies quoted continue to show various situations, positions, environments, etc., etc, etc. ASSOCIATED with SIDS and then imply or state outright and incorrectly (as on the evening news with Brian Williams) that the ASSOCIATION is the CAUSE. One could make the argument that insisting babies be placed on their backs for sleep (and/or using fans, pacifiers, etc.) is a harmless precaution.
    However, that is not the case with respect to Back-to-Sleep. Since its implementation, researchers quote statistics regarding the drop in death rates. This sounds great because they do not stop to consider the cost of forcing millions of infants into an unnatural sleeping position. They do not mention (nor study) the sudden increase in reflux and other digestive problems; the poor sleep rhythms of infants on their backs, increasing parental stress and sleep deprivation; the increase in plagiocephaly, torticollis, and scoliosis; the delays in quality, motor development, seen as a result of infants resisting ???tummy time??? after spending so much time on their backs or in sitting devices because parents are afraid to place babies on their tummies.
    The ramifications have not been discussed or even considered by the medical establishment. What is the cost to development, health and learning when an infant cannot get adequate, restful sleep? What will be the long term affects of late developing head and neck control in so many children? Most parents don???t realize that an extensive amount of time in prone facilitates ocular motor development, posture, eye-hand coordination, digestion, respiration and much more. Shouldn???t there be more discussion about the long-term cost to millions of infants in the face of evidence that no one really understands why death rates have diminished but certainly not stopped?

    • Posted By: ikie12pts @ 10/06/2008 11:38:00 PM

      I completely agree with mewot on this subject. Children thirty years ago did not have SIDS and they slept on their tummies. How can we explain that. Their mattresses were very firm and did not smother them. I never put a bunch of toys or blankets in the crib either. COMMON SENSE PEOPLE!!! Anything extra in the bed could cause smothering. How hard is that?
      Also kids who sleep on their backs have "flathead syndrome". Have someone do some research on those kids. I can remember those students in school and most were "slow" to put it mildly. Babies who sleep on their backs never learn to use their legs to crawl or pull up. If anything, babies who sleep on their tummies are far safer because they can't get choked on vomit. Common sense.
      How can children satisfy their curiosity without crawling or attempting to grasp certain objects?
      Perhaps SIDS is caused by flame retardant in pajamas, blankets etc..I don't know, but if that's the case, we should find solutions to that and NOW!!!!!

      • Posted By: dgirl1010 @ 10/07/2008 1:13:37 PM

        First, SIDS existed 30 years ago. It's been around as long as humans have. No one knows what the cause is, but they've been able to determine some actions that seem to reduce risk: sleeping on their back, using a firm matress, keeping the crib clear of toys, blankets and bumpers, and keeping the baby/room from being overheated.

        You say that "Babies who sleep on their backs never learn to use their legs to crawl or pull up". That statement makes no sense. If that were the case we'd have hundreds of thousands of people growing into adulthood with no ability to walk, simply becasue they slept on their backs. In a month my son will turn two.. He slept on his back starting with day one and has met every single milestone on time or ahead of time. He walks, runs, and is learning to jump right now. He talks and plays and is 100% normal. He's never had a "flathead". We followed every Back-to-Sleep guideline with him, and will with his brother when he's born in Feb.

  • Posted By: bookagirl @ 10/07/2008 12:57:58 PM

    I am a little ashamed of the women who post their own opinions as fact even though it is seeped with personal bias. All that is imortant is that parents are taking extra pre-cautions to make sure that their children are safe. That doesn't mean that other parenting styles are wrong, only that, like myself, some parents can sleep a little easier knowing that they are doing the best that they can and maybe their child is a little safer. I don't beat my chest in belief that I am "all-knowing super mommy." I do understand coorelations in nature/nurture issues with health or cognitive impairments, but coorelations can be mistaken as well. There is an onset of new understandings and technologies which open our eyes everday. Generations obviously change with that and for good reason.

  • Posted By: bookagirl @ 10/07/2008 12:56:33 PM

    I am a little ashamed of the women who post their own opinions as fact even though it is seeped with personal bias. All that is imortant is that parents are taking extra pre-cautions to make sure that their children are safe. That doesn't mean that other parenting styles are wrong, only that, like myself, some parents can sleep a little easier knowing that they are doing the best that they can and maybe their child is a little safer. I don't beat my chest in belief that I am "all-knowing super mommy." I do understand coorelations in nature/nurture issues with health or cognitive impairments, but coorelations can be mistaken as well. There is an onset of new understandings and technologies which open our eyes everday. Generations obviously change with that and for good reason.

  • Posted By: genmama @ 10/07/2008 2:18:53 AM

    Some interesting research about SIDS, relating to the toxic flame retardant chemicals put in crib mattresses.
    http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2000/11/05/victory-over-sids.aspx
    http://www.babysake.com/publication.htm
    I ended up sleeping with my first, he was so incredibly colicky he would only relax and sleep on my chest while I semi-reclined. He could finally sleep on his own after 6 weeks, and i delayed all vaccines. I used a positioner and put him on his side b/c he spit up often and on his back he would choke. My 2nd was much easier and slept on her own, w/ a positioner. I also used an organic mattress w/o flame retardants. Both slept in our room with us. I believe in educating ourselves from more than one source (AMA).

    • Posted By: mewot @ 10/07/2008 12:00:19 PM

      Thank you for this reference. It was very interesting and encouraging.

  • Posted By: mewot @ 10/06/2008 9:53:52 PM

    This article rightly points out the lack of understanding regarding causes of SIDS. The persistent campaign spreading parental fear and guilt by insisting on infant back sleeping raises some ethical issues. The American Academy of Pediatrics has successfully managed media to add to a 'no win' for parents of new babies. Since none of the recommendations actually prevent SIDS, no matter what parents do, babies continue to die and parents end up feeling guilty.
    Studies quoted continue to show various situations, positions, environments, etc., etc, etc. ASSOCIATED with SIDS and then imply or state outright and incorrectly (as on the evening news with Brian Williams) that the ASSOCIATION is the CAUSE. One could make the argument that insisting babies be placed on their backs for sleep (and/or using fans, pacifiers, etc.) is a harmless precaution.
    However, that is not the case with respect to Back-to-Sleep. Since its implementation, researchers quote statistics regarding the drop in death rates. This sounds great because they do not stop to consider the cost of forcing millions of infants into an unnatural sleeping position. They do not mention (nor study) the sudden increase in reflux and other digestive problems; the poor sleep rhythms of infants on their backs, increasing parental stress and sleep deprivation; the increase in plagiocephaly, torticollis, and scoliosis; the delays in quality, motor development, seen as a result of infants resisting ???tummy time??? after spending so much time on their backs or in sitting devices because parents are afraid to place babies on their tummies.
    The ramifications have not been discussed or even considered by the medical establishment. What is the cost to development, health and learning when an infant cannot get adequate, restful sleep? What will be the long term affects of late developing head and neck control in so many children? Most parents don???t realize that an extensive amount of time in prone facilitates ocular motor development, posture, eye-hand coordination, digestion, respiration and much more. Shouldn???t there be more discussion about the long-term cost to millions of infants in the face of evidence that no one really understands why death rates have diminished but certainly not stopped?

    • Posted By: lateshift @ 10/07/2008 1:30:30 AM

      I do have to disagree with mewot
      Unfortunately SIDS was around 30 years ago; it just wasn???t as publicized and the info there was out wasn???t as readily available, no label and very little federally funded studies as to why it happened.
      My wife and I have a 13 yo that slept on her back at night, with out clutter(agreeing with the common sense) in the crib and she did fine crawled, walked, and was just as big a handful as all the others. She is now a straight A student. We now have a 10 month old son that is now sleeping on his back, no flat head, he crawls, walks and has excellent motor skills. Both of them got tummy time on a blanket in the front room while we were watching. They meet every milestone that they should have (another thing that people weren???t as aware of 30 years ago no one to tell them there kids were ahead of or behind the pac) neither had problems sleeping (until teething oh what fun that is) or with acid reflux.
      We use a fan and cool air humidifier because we live in the phoenix area and the air is dry here. We do these things because as many of you we were raised that way
      Something I hope you all may be able to help clue me in on, How/why is sleeping on the back an unnatural position?

      • Posted By: mewot @ 10/07/2008 10:38:24 AM

        Actually, SIDS has been around for thousands of years. There are references to unexpected infant deaths in biblical times and before. I was very aware of SIDS 30 years ago since my 9 month old son died of SIDS during an afternoon nap in 1979. He was mobile and perfectly capable of moving his face to avoid rebreathing exhaled air. Given all the reports of infants who sleep on their backs, and die anyway despite avoiding all the risk factors, isn't it time to accept that we and doctors are not omnipotent and cannot prevent some things by simple positioning strategies? I've come to accept that SIDS is some kind of undetectable birth defect that only affects some infants and may be triggered by any number of environmental or internal factors. I was most encouraged by the retrospective study that found SIDS infants demonstrated an abnormal new born audiogram. Hopefully there will soon be a way to identify infants who are at risk so that most infants and parents can grow and live normally.
        Here is how I would answer the question of how sleeping on the back is an unnatural position for newborns and infants. Babies arrive from utero pretty flexed (curled) up. Putting them on their backs makes it hard for them to feel comfortable and safe (note how the newborn nurseries keep them swaddled tightly). They are more apt to startle in this position, disrupting restful sleep. They do not have the opportunity to lift their heads and start developing their neck muscles. They miss the pressure on their abdomen that helps digestion and colic. Their rib cage stays high and flat delaying development of deeper breathing for concentration and attention. The very fact that parents have to use extra methods such as positioners and planned tummy time speaks to how unnatural it is. Babies who sleep on their tummies don't need any special measures to develop normally.
        Parents who follow all the instructions can congratulate themselves when their babies don't die. But the fact is, their babies were most likely normal and would have thrived anyway. That is the cruel result these edicts place on parents of infants who do die. No matter what these parents do, a certain number of babies will die. Given the state of understanding (or lack there of) is it right make all families fearful, pressure them to take all sorts of precautions, believing they can prevent something that will only happen rarely and possibly, inevitably? I work with children with special needs and my colleagues and I have seen an explosion in structural, digestive/elimination, motor and learning problems since implementation of back to sleep. The death of any infant is devastating, but can it really be avoided? In the meantime, thousands of normal infants are being forced into (again, I say) unnatural positions which some can overcome to eventually achieve normal development, and which many cannot.

  • Posted By: sigkapoli @ 10/07/2008 9:16:56 AM

    We slept with all three of our children because they were already regulated to my heartbeat and breathing. Why should we be putting them in another room? Why shouldn't they sleep with us? Third world nations sleep with their children and don't have the rate of SIDS that the US does. Makes you wonder....

  • Posted By: Bunni @ 10/07/2008 8:44:37 AM

    My youngest daughter was a SIDS candidate. Her doctor told me he believes that SIDS is like sleep apnea in adults. During the day there is noise in the house and the baby does not sleep soundly. At night, everything is quiet and the baby goes into deep sleeps. He suggested leaving a radio on during night time hours. She is now 26 and has children of her own and is healthy and happy. She did this same thing with her children.

  • Posted By: genmama @ 10/07/2008 2:21:58 AM

    This is a great website showing the ingredients of all the vaccines. Will make you think twice about such early and mass vaccinations.
    http://www.rense.com/general59/vvac.htm

  • Posted By: AZErthAngel @ 10/07/2008 2:12:01 AM

    quinn - i agree with you. When in my 20's I had a close friend whose baby died the day after vaccines and the family recieved a payout after a court case. I have heard of similiar incidents. I personally feel that every parent should be open to research and choose whether and when to vaccinate - You do leagally have a choice.

  • Posted By: Quinlynna @ 10/07/2008 1:17:46 AM

    How come vaccines are not even being looked into with any association with SIDS? I have heard SIDS often occurs within weeks or days of being vaccinated. The only baby I've personally heard about SIDS taking was a 9 month old boy and he died the day after being vaccinated. I think it's stupid to go after all these little weird things and not look into something that I believe is the main cause of SIDS. These seem like one sided studies to me.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse