Article: Time To Abolish Cribs?

[Bathsheba]

(I think you can safely substitute "cot" for "crib")

Taken from the Peaceful Parenting:

Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Time to Abolish Cribs?
by Jan Hunt, M.Sc.

Two hundred years ago, Arthur Schopenhauer wrote that, "All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed. Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident." This observation has certainly passed the test of time. Copernicus's writings, in which he claimed that the earth moves around the sun, were banned for decades, and led to an Inquisition trial and house imprisonment for Galileo. Today, of course, the earth's orbital movement is accepted as "self-evident".

Unfortunately, child-rearing practices and beliefs in the areas of sleeping, feeding, and discipline seem to be moving in the wrong direction. Our society has moved away from trust and toward an unnatural, mistrustful, and distant approach to children. Parents who treat their children with the same love and trust that was "self-evident" for generations now face ridicule and opposition. In earlier societies, a child's need to be close to his parents during both night and day was a "self-evident truth", and the obvious way to meet that need was to provide safety, closeness and comfort. Throughout most of human history, mothers slept next to their babies, which fostered the bond between them, and encouraged and facilitated breastfeeding.

Breastfeeding babies who sleep next to their mother take in three times as much milk during the night as do isolated babies, thus enjoying a more natural nutritional pattern. Mothers sleeping next to their children are also reassured about their safety. Babies sleeping away from their parents have perished in fires, have been abused by relatives, have been abducted from their beds, have suffocated after vomiting, have been attacked by pets, and have died or been injured in numerous other ways. Many - if not most - of these tragedies might well have been averted had a parent been present and aware of the baby's welfare through the night. Family co-sleeping can also help prevent parental abuse by reducing the stress of raising babies and young children. A child in a family bed does not need to suffer needlessly or cry to bring his mother, and the mother can remain in bed and nurse half-asleep.

Research has shown that comatose adults have an improved heart rate, heart rhythm, and blood pressure when another person is present. It seems reasonable to suppose that infants and children derive similar health benefits from having others near them during the night. Many parents have found that siblings who share the night as well as the day build a deep and lasting relationship. And finally, Dr. James McKenna's sleep research, at the Center for Behavioral Studies of Mother-Infant Sleep, shows that a mother's breathing can provide important cues to her infant, reminding him to take a breath following exhalation, thus lessening the chances of a SIDS death. But the parents of long ago (and of most third-world countries today) did not need to weigh these benefits against other approaches, they simply followed their natural drive to love, protect, and nurture their children.

Why have we not followed Schopenhauer's predicted path? Why do we not abandon cribs, where so many babies have died, and many more have been injured? Why have the numerous deaths and injuries in cribs not led to a call for its abandonment, or at least a switch to "bedside co-sleepers" (partial cribs that fit next to the parents' bed)? When babies are injured in cribs, parents are never told to avoid cribs; they are told how to purchase and use safer cribs. But when a baby dies in a family bed, there is an entirely different response. Instead of being educated on safety factors, we are told never to place our babies in adult beds – period.

Rather than calling for the end to such an age-old, beneficial, and healthy arrangement, the causes of each situation should be investigated, and parents should be educated accordingly. We should be warned against the real dangers of bed sharing: intoxication, overly-medication, the use of a waterbed, loose blankets or soft bedding, gaps between the mattress and the frame, and leaving a baby unattended. If a baby dies in a car, we are never told to keep babies out of cars, we are advised about safety measures. The same approach should be taken with co-sleeping.

Cribs force babies to face the long night alone years before they are psychologically equipped to do so. Isolation teaches harmful lessons of mistrust, powerlessness, and despair, creating a deep sense of loneliness that no teddy bear can fulfill. Judging from the reports of adults in hypnotherapy, art therapy, and psychoanalysis, experiences of forced separation from parents in infancy and childhood are traumatic, with long-term effects on the adult personality.

Cribs, especially if located outside the parents' room, are dangerous in other ways too. An isolated baby has no protection from secret physical or sexual abuse. Night-time separation lessens the critical emotional bond between parent and child, and between siblings. Cribs keep working parents from spending the only real block of time they have left with their children.

There is probably not one baby in the world who would choose cold isolation over loving proximity if they were only given the choice. Our babies' cries and screams should be more than sufficient to convince us of the emotional harm and moral wrongness of such separation. Why do we not hear what they try so hard to tell us?

Cribs are dangerous, and prevent parents from intervening quickly in emergencies. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, the same organization that recently warned about family beds, has reported 40 to 50 crib deaths per year, and thousands of serious injuries. Their own web site is filled with warnings of the potential hazards of crib use. Yet they never consider the possibility that cribs should be abandoned. This is a nonsensical double standard that no one seems to be questioning.

Cribs are lonely cages for babies who deserve to have their age-old needs met with love and compassion. Cribs have no real benefits at all. Let's abolish them!

[Heaven]

Did you see this one too Bath?

peaceful parenting: Reason #742 to Share Sleep

This is exactly what DD does to use when we're in bed, lol, she just wants to be close.

[Bathsheba]

I'll check that out now.... such a brilliant site Heaven! Well done unearthing it!

[onthefly]

The article starts out ok, but I think listing all the catastrophes that might befall your infant if sleeping alone is a bit of a stretch - abductions, abuse and pet attacks may well happen, but how likely is it really? There are plenty of good reasons to advocate shared sleeping spaces without going down that road.

How on earth could a cot take that much weight? DS did suggest I get in with him but I was never game.

[Bathsheba]

LOL My boys and I loved and LOL at the video clip (scroll down the page a bit).

But FaceBook won't let me post the link! Message said it contained reported infomation! Typical!

UM... I've been there and done that... been known to crawl into our cot in moments of desperation... I don't know why I did it now...

[Heaven]

Was Barb that got me onto it actually! With that article about breastfeeding in Mongolia.

[Bathsheba]

Marcellus... the author was probably just stating reported deaths and how they happened... I have heard of pets (mainly cats) smothering sleeping babies... and abductions... on the news, unlikely I agree but they've happend. I guess having a car accident in which your child is killed is also unlikely... but it happens.. maybe that was her point. I don't think was trying too hard to push her barrow... no more passionately than people who advise against co sleeping and their fear-mongering.

ETA: I know that not all parents should or can co-sleep.

[murraysmum]

ild co sleep with this bub but ild feel more comfy with her in a snuggle bed or a bassinete only cause im a heavy sleeper and ild be scared ild squash her

[Bathsheba]

Yep, when I really needed a deep sleep I would put my babies (mainly when they were newborns) into cradles that were placed right beside my side of the bed... so they could still hear me breathing... and me their breathing! I still call that co-sleeping We were like, 30cms away.

[murraysmum]

yeah same my ds1 didnt go into his own room till 5mnths and even then i ended up moving the cott into my room lol

[misty]

Honestly, I found this article just as inflamatory and bias 'against' cots as all those articles that display an extreme bias against co-sleeping. Really didn't think much of the article at all.

I have and do use both co-sleeping and seperate rooms (and cot) interchangably, depending on both myself and bubs. IMHO - promoting one method over another is a rediculous proposition. IT really depends on what works for the baby, the parents and the family as a whole.

[onthefly]

I don't think was trying too hard to push her barrow... no more passionately than people who advise against co sleeping and their fear-mongering.

This is precisely my point - why bother stooping to the same schtick?

[Bathsheba]

It's interesting... I didn't read it as inflammatory at all even though I partly used a cot for all my babies. Maybe I just don't take things that personally. I think lots of good points were raised. Many families simply do what their parents did... ideas are passed down... i think it's healthy to question ideas. With my first baby I got a cot just because I blindly thought "well... that's what you do when you have a baby, right?" It didn't even occur to me that there was any other option. It wasn't until i was incredibly sleep deprived that I thought of another solution... "ah stuff it... baby can sleep in here with me! I'm not getting up anymore in the middle of winter!" So I kept her in with me and then discovered how easy it was to breast feed in bed... it was a total epiphany! I thought I had invented co-sleeping! ROFL Because I didn't have any friends with babies at that point and had lived a childhood sadly devoid of contact with babies... or at least discussion about babies.

I just think the point of the article is to get parents to think about things... you don't HAVE to do things the way your parents did

[ss_storm]

Geez...she may have a point about co-sleeping but I don't think there is a need to make a cot sound like a death sentence for your baby!

I think this statement: "Why do we not abandon cribs, where so many babies have died, and many more have been injured?" is a bit off too...I don't know the statistics but I'm sure babies have also passed or been injured in co-sleeping situations as well. Just like every other method of parenting, co-sleeping is not going to suit everyone, just like bub sleeping in a cot isn't going to suit everyone.
If you want to co-sleep fine, go for it and enjoy (we co-sleep occasionally if DD is really unsettled or wont go back to sleep at 3am and it is lovely but I do still enjoy having the bed to ourselves), but don't make cots sound like a death trap! JMO but provided the SIDS guidelines are followed there should be no reason why cot sleeping isn't as safe as co-sleeping.

[widdly]

I think referring to cots as prisons was a bit OTT, but other than that a very interesting read, thanks Bath

[boomba]

Thanks for posting Bath. Great article....I really enjoyed it.

With my first baby I got a cot just because I blindly thought "well... that's what you do when you have a baby, right?" It didn't even occur to me that there was any other option. It wasn't until i was incredibly sleep deprived that I thought of another solution... "ah stuff it... baby can sleep in here with me! I'm not getting up anymore in the middle of winter!" So I kept her in with me and then discovered how easy it was to breast feed in bed... it was a total epiphany!

Bath this was me! We have not used the cot since DS1 was tiny and it breaks everytime I think of how I put him in that cold lonely cot when he was born I think we will use it agin though but as a sidecar cot

I think its very true about how so many accidents and deaths occur in cots but your not told its unsafe...where as co sleeping is really frowned upon if a baby has an accident or dies...which brings me back to why dont we trust our instincts and lead with our hearts????

I know I would love a night where I dont wake up wiht a stiff neck and sore back from sleeping like the letter P, buttta the end of the day my baby is first in my life and he is going to be tiny for such a short time and I want him to feel safe and secure...please dont feel I am saying you love your baby less if they sleep in a cot.. I just feel this is best for my babies and family

[~clover~]

DD1 was in a cot next to my bed til she was 5 months old. Then in another room for a few months. Then back in a single bed in my room at 13 months, or in my bed, til DD2 was born when she was 3. Even then she often snuck in.

DD2 was my first real co sleeper. It scared me with DD1, but I wasn't given an option with DD2. Colic made sure of that! She was in our room til she was 9 months, then occasionally co slept til DS was born. Still does very occasionally.

I have no idea why I bothered buying a cot for DS, lol. Myself & 2 friends have cots set up that have hardly been used. DS sometimes goes into his after he's asleep for half the night. One of my friends only really used hers for day sleeps & even then rarely, the other has her DS in his now as she's due for another baby any day, but that is the only reason.

[*Infinity*]

I've read the article a couple of times. I don't find it inflammatory, and I certainly don't take any of it personally. We choose not to co-sleep which is a parenting choice we are comfortable with for a number of reasons.

Bathsheba, I think if the author's intention was to get people to think about things, and question what has always been done, that is commendable. But after reading it a couple of times, I guess I feel like the author has lost a great opportunity to present the facts about the benefits of co-sleeping by using some very emotive language which is likely to alienate a lot of people. I'm with marcellus - I think she's just taken it that little bit too far.

Clearly the author is a passionate advocate for co-sleeping and is frustrated by the reactions of those that don't understand the value of it and choose to perpetuate myths and provide fear based arguments to parents to warn them of the dangers of sleeping together. I just feel she has sort of done the same thing in the reverse IYKWIM.

I guess my point is that I don't find it a balanced POV - when words and phrases like cold isolation, moral wrongness, traumatic, dangerous, lonely cages etc. are used its more likely to drive people away rather than allow them to read it and say, you know what, I kind of like this idea. But maybe that's a reflection on the way *I* prefer to receive information? I guess I would have appreciated the article and her advocacy for the practice of co-sleeping a lot more had it not smacked of such a biased view of the alternative - cot sleeping.

As for the judgement about working parents and the authors assumption about how they use their time, that sort of tipped it over the edge for me too (and I'm not a working parent either).

The danger POV is an interesting one. What choice that we make as humans going about our everyday activities does not involve an element of risk? There is always a spectrum and its up to us to inform ourselves, analyse those risks and make choices. I think we all accept that there are different benefits & risks to all manner of ways that we and our children sleep. We all have to weigh those up and make our decisions accordingly.