Anne's Rebuttal to the Infamous CPSC Recommendation against Co-Sleeping

Anne's Rebuttal to the Infamous CPSC Recommendation against Co-Sleeping

NOTE: The author of this editorial is not a doctor, or a medical professional! This editorial contains her personal opinion only, and should not be construed as medical or legal advice!
The now rather infamous CPSC study has several things wrong with it. Most notably, it did not distinguish between deaths occurring when there was a knownprecipitating factor, and otherwise. Nearly all of the infant deaths occurring in a family bed involve a known negative factor, such as one or both of the parents being under the influence of drugs or alcohol, having some sort of medical problem which contraindicates family bedding (such as epilepsy),

The original research, on which the CPSC's report is based, can be found at http://www.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/full/103/5/e59

Some of the problems with the CPSC's report (and with the original research) include:

1. The CPSC report fails to mention that the 180 infants they claim died as a result of "overlying" came from a population of 2178 infant deaths.

2. The CPSC report fails to highlight that the report is based on total deaths over an *18* year period! (1980-1997)

3. There is no mention of the fact that the research found that the number for _all_ infant deaths studied (including being wedged between the wall and bed, etc.), the rate was 29 deaths per 100,000 infants.

4. The CPSC report fails to mention that of the 180 infants they claim died as a result of "overlying", only 102 were actually sleeping in a bed. The others were on a sofa, or "other".

5. The CPSC report fails to mention that of the infants they claim died as a result of "overlying", 37 were in waterbeds. This means that of the 180 deaths reported in an 18 year period, only 65 occurred in a standard bed, or 3.61 per year.

6. Of those 65 remaining deaths, there is _no_ accounting for whether or not the parents of the infants in question were under the influence of a substance, or morbidly overweight (both being contraindications for co-sleeping). Nor is there any analysis of the type of bedding used.

7. More generally, there is _no_ control as to the use of the term "overlaying". The original research was based on this: the CPSC purchases death certificates from all 50 states, and D.C.. They purchased ones specifically coded for infant deaths resulting from asphyxia. Some of these were blamed on "overlying". However, that classification is done by the person reporting the death, who may be a doctor, or may be a coroner with no medical training), etc. etc.. 'Overlying' is a catch-all term, and describes only that the family co-slept, and they may have had no other obvious explanation. Also, it does not take into account WHERE the baby was sleeping (so it would include babies who had been sleeping on, say, the couch with a parent), or the condition of the parent (so it would include parents who were under the influence of a substance). Finally, of course, it does not screen out for those parents who have intentionally caused their child's death, and blamed it on rolling on the infant. None of these factors are screened out, so there is no way to know which, *if any*, of these infant deaths were _truly_ the result of overlying by a sober, non-morbidly-obese parent in an appropriately baby-safe bed.

8. The report fails to highlight that of this sample, at least *43* deaths involved _cribs_! (Yet the CPSC's report rushed to recommend sleeping *only* in cribs!) NOTE: The author of this editorial is not a doctor, or a medical professional! This editorial contains her personal opinion only, and should not be construed as medical or legal advice!

Back to main page of Intuitive Parenting