Grieving mothers blame baby slings for infant deaths

[Ken Burch]

Source: CNN

CNN) -- It wasn't a long walk to Lisa Cochran's car in the Costco parking lot from the store. But by the time she got there, her infant son was near death.

Cochran had just enjoyed a hot dog at the Salem, Oregon, wholesale outlet with her grandmother and put 7-day-old Derrik back in his Infantino "SlingRider."

Cochran had him out of the sling while she was eating, and people at nearby tables asked about Derrik's age and expressed amazement that Cochran was already out and about after the pregnancy.

But something about Derrik was amiss when she reached the car, she said.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/03/24/baby.sling.deaths/index.html?hpt=T2

---

The company is doing a recall. But still, this is sickening. You'd think they'd make sure the freaking baby slings would be safe.

[Ken Burch]

1. More from the article

"In the first few months of life, babies cannot control their heads because of weak neck muscles. The sling's fabric can press against an infant's nose and mouth, blocking the baby's breathing and rapidly suffocating a baby within a minute or two," the joint statement said. "Additionally, where a sling keeps the infant in a curled position bending the chin toward the chest, the airways can be restricted, limiting the oxygen supply. The baby will not be able to cry for help and can slowly suffocate."

[Jennicut]

3. I never used one with my two girls and now I am glad I didn't.

But my sister in law has a newborn. I will warn her on this. Nothing I would have thought of...we get bombarded as new Moms with all the new way to do things. Don't put babies to sleep on their stomachs, don't feed them solid food until a certain date, etc. This is nothing about baby slings anyone warned me about when I had my kids in 2004 and 2005.

[nodehopper]

23. it's not ALL slings, it's this particular sling, and I can see why from the design

There are plenty of baby slings that have been used by millions, designed in shapes that have been used traditionally in non-Western cultures for centuries, that are perfectly safe. I used a Moby wrap with my son for the first year of his life, which is just a long piece of stretchy cloth that you wrap a baby in, and after that we used Ergo, neither of which pose a suffocation hazard. Like, in theory if someone is not careful their baby can suffocate in their arms on their sleeve or something. I wouldn't warn someone off of all slings, just this one. Slings can be wonderful for some parents.

[Hekate]

24. You're right. I just looked at the photo and it's a terrible design. Traditional slings...

... have been used for millenia all over the world. This one's awful.

Hekate

[Jennicut]

30. Thanks for clarifying. I will tell her about this one though it is being recalled.

The design looks really, really unsafe.

[rocktivity]

39. Seven days is WAY too young for babies to be in ANY kind of sling.

They need something that provides back and neck support, like a carriage or a pair of loving arms.

:(
rocktivity

[xxqqqzme]

59. Agree .

I had my first inn '71 so there were no 'pre-made' slings on the market. I used a length of fabric and fashioned a tie on the ends. I didn't put my daughter in it until she could support her head as she sat on my hip.

[rocktivity]

36. I agree--this story is very unprofessionally done

It takes you from "baby slings" to "certain baby slings" to a particular model, and literally tops it off with a "grieving mother"--as if the father just laughed it off!

On edit: Here's a sling that a even a mother of twins could love!


rocktivity

[marshall]

40. I wouldn't think ANY sling would be safe for a 7 day old infant

And even when directions clearly state how to position the child in the sling, users don't often read or pay attention.

[Orrex]

2. And it's not as though these damn things are new technology

:wtf:

[xultar]

4. Last week a DUer wanted to ban all strollers in favor of these because strollers

were dangerous.

[Dappleganger]

11. Hope she has a good back.

[snooper2]

56. you have to be shitting me

:rofl:

[GreenPartyVoter]

5. Poor little babies and their parents. :^(

[KittyWampus]

6. Is it possible the slings weren't used properly? How many were sold v. how many problems?

I don't know if there is a proper way to use these. If the sling comes with directions for use etc. JUST ASKING.

[Ken Burch]

7. Don't have the answers to those particular questions

Still, in theory, you should be able to count on baby products being non-lethal.

[JVS]

28. While I agree with your sentiments, positioning a very young infant who cannot move its head...

is never an area to just rely on the design of the product. I was recently holding a month old baby and maintaining a good breathing position is important. You can even hear how labored the breathing is and make adjustments by changing inclination and supporting the head better. Putting a 7 day old in a sling and assuming all will be fine is reckless.

[fleabert]

82. SIDS used to be called Crib Death for a reason...

with that logic, cribs should all be recalled. anything of poor design - like this particular crappy sling that I would NEVER use or suggest even without the recall- can be used poorly and cause harm, up to and including death.

Buckets, toilets, baby beds, strollers, etc... all have been attributed to infant deaths.

[LiberalFighter]

8. Without seeing the sling I don't believe there was a proper way to use them.

It would require frame support that allowed space to be maintained within the sling. Gravity plays a factor and unless made right it would force the product with the baby to be pressed tightly against the mother.

[Dappleganger]

10. Slings look difficult to position...

every baby is shaped differently (as well as the parent's body) and w/no set position from a frame or something like a front pack it would be easy for a baby to sink into folds of cloth. Just an observation, I never used one.

[EFerrari]

18. Baby slings are used in many cultures -- some of them only

long pieces of cloth that women tie and untie.

[mainer]

29. Do we have statistics on how many babies die in native slings?

It may be that infant deaths occur regularly in cultures that use slings, only we don't hear about them. We think they're better because they're "natural" and tribal mothers use them. But then, infant mortality is horrible in these native cultures as well.

[EFerrari]

38. Those deaths seem to occur mostly in the first month (as opposed to

the first 6 mos.) and my understanding is, mostly from infection, pneumonia and congenital problems. I don't know where to even look for a stat like that. Do we know any medical anthropologists? :)

One thing that does come to mind is that the operation of the sling and not the sling itself could be a problem. Iow, if you live in a society that has used them for hundreds of years, the technology is known to you and someone probably taught you how to use it. Here, it's more likely that you pulled it off of a shelf and read the directions on your own, etc.

[fleabert]

83. yes, those are actually the kind that allow the baby to be best positioned,

rather than the type with rigid backs and padding for parents comfort. there are safe ways to carry a baby of any age in a (proper) sling, it's up to parents and caregivers to make certain they are using them properly.

I've been in the baby industry for 10 years, and would have never rec'd this awful crap of a design for a sling. it's often the cheapest available and the one most often available at places like the mega stores... they type you reference are often harder to find and more expensive.

[LeftyMom]

21. They're actually much more versatile than constructed carriers.

You can wear then different ways, carry kids from newborn to toddlerhood in developmentally appropriate carries, etc. Most constructed carriers only do one carry well and most only comfortably accommodate either small babies.

The Infantino thing mentioned in the OP sort of looks like a sling in that it goes over the shoulder and down toward the opposite hip, but it's actually a very padded constructed carrier. I can see how it would be a suffocation risk.

[musical_soul]

13. I agree....

Still, I feel horribly bad for the parents of these children. I can't imagine what that type of pain feels like.

[JDPriestly]

14. I made one and used it with my youngest baby -- but not when she was so tiny.

I put my babies in an old fashioned baby buggy when they were less than three to four months old. I don't like to see babies in strollers when they are less than four months either. They belong in old-fashioned buggies but you never see those things any more.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

17. Some of the newfangled strollers convert into something like a buggy.

The backrest folds flat, so it can work well with very young children.

[KittyWampus]

27. I've seen strollers that seem to convert into multiple things: carry-cradle, high chair, stroller

They are expensive. A friend got one once from a charity that collects used baby stuff and distributes.

[Dappleganger]

9. I used a front pack with all four of our babies.

When they were newborns and couldn't support their head, we'd roll up a diaper to support it and I had eye contact with their face the entire time. As they grew older and stronger we could turn them around, but still upright and supported. That position just made sense to me. By the time the last baby came around there were maybe 2 slings on the market and a lot of DIY slings that I noticed, too.

[defendandprotect]

95. Watched one day as a mother with a carrier in the rear was shopping in

crowded ailes in a department store --

Those racks kind of hang out and the mother couldn't see how close she was

coming to the baby's face/head hitting those outcropping dress racks.

She moved away too quickly for me to tell her and she left the store.

[Tumbulu]

12. This is tragic, but why is a 7 day old baby

out in public anyway? Why are people so crazy? 7 days?

I was given a sling for my daughter, but her neck was all crimped in it, so I never used it. The Baby Bjorns are designed to support the baby's properly and I also used a back carrier modeled after the system that African women use. It also had head and neck support built in.

Newborns should not be taken out into public places unless absolutely necessary, IMO.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

16. Because some people are fucking idiots.

Shit, just putting the kid in the car to drive to Costco at that point is risky enough. But hey, mama needed a goddamn hot dog.

[Kali]

20. huh?

"Newborns should not be taken out into public places unless absolutely necessary, IMO."

:wtf: why the hell not?

[snooper2]

35. jeez...

:eyes:

[Tumbulu]

43. well let's see...MRSA...how many new bugs will they be exposed to when so fragile...

In my mother's day before modern medicine (antibiotics, vaccines for many diseases) babies were not to be taken out of the house into public places until 6 months of age at least.

My mother was always so upset when she saw modern people needlessly exposing their infants to goodness-knows-what and then say with great exasperation: "they expect the doctors and nurses to make it all right if the baby gets sick! What do they think- that these poor people devoting themselves to saving peoples lives- staying up all night studying and working so hard for so many years did this so they can do idiotic things like take a newborn out in public?!!!" I can hear her voice she said this so many times.

And that is really it. People expect the medical community to bail them out of situations that they have created themselves by needlessly exposing their children to things that could have been prevented by caution.

Nowadays with vaccines perhaps it is after the first round of them at 3 or 4 months, I am not sure what they recommend, but it is tragic that common sense has disappeared on this matter.

[Kali]

45. yes because MRSA is such a risk from walking around in public

more likely to acquire it birthing in the fracking hospital

flu would be the only serious worry I would have

keeping women and their womanly functions confined and not upsetting other peoples' prudish sensibilities was the real reason your mother's generation may have stayed in for 6 months. jeebus!

[Tumbulu]

48. I don't think so- colds, whooping cough....let's see what else

it is simply nuts to bring an infant to a public place, even nowadays and especially back then. Go look at the old cemetery's to see how many babies died.

[Kali]

53. we have one of the highest infant mortality rates in the developed world

all the current practices here in the US don't seem to be helping that much.

Is there some evidence that all those dead babies from the past died from going out in public?

I suppose if you let somebody hack and sneeze all over your baby there is some risk, yes.

[snooper2]

52. Jesus H Christ...

Now you bring sexism into the conversation...

You don't take newborns out in public jacking around doing stupid shit period! It's not like the woman has to be strapped to the kid for the first 3 months of its life. Most of us men are pretty capable of taking care of a baby thank you very much...

[Kali]

54. you brought up the subject of your mother's generation,

it WAS a sexist time and that was a sexist practice.

I was not saying your doctor's strange 3 month confinement requirement was sexist - only that it was extreme.

[Tumbulu]

65. I brought up the subject and I wonder why it is so important to you

to suggest that it is good parenting to needlessly subject newborns to unknown exposure ? Why are you questioning the advice of medical professionals as well as the good sense of a previous generation of mothers?

[Kali]

70. sorry - got the wrong poster for that reply

why am I questioning? uh, because the advice is far from uniform and frankly the advice from the most recent generations is often suspect - I mean the generation previous to mine was all about feeding formula from bottle - think that is still the best choice? I tend to question lots of assertions - especially if they contain little logic.

yes I question the advice to confine a baby to home for 3 to 6 months - fine if that is what you WANT to do - far different story than actually needing to.

[MattBaggins]

68. Actually is sounds like your Mom may have had some mental issues

Taking a baby out in public is fine.

[Tumbulu]

74. why? Because she did not see health professionals as the servants of idiots?

Well paid servants perhaps. But it is risky to bring an infant out into public places. Go ask a pediatrician and then post the answer before you say such a thing about my mother and the wisdom of mother's of the 30's before antibiotics and vaccines.

Try to think about what things were like without those tools to help out in illnesses.

[Kali]

79. "health professionals as the servants of idiots"

feel this way about addiction and obesity too? those are often considered "choice" or "lifestyle" diseases. How arrogant.

before antibiotics babies and women were dying in large numbers BECAUSE of filthy dirty DOCTOR'S hands, it was the concept and implementation of modern sanitary practices, along with antibiotics and vaccines that reduced mortalities - not 6 month confinements.

The Twentieth-Century Decline of Infant Mortality in the Developed World

As the twentieth century opened, infant mortality throughout much of the industrialized world had begun to drop. Nevertheless infant survival was still precarious, especially in eastern Europe. As table 1 shows, the probability of dying in infancy ranged from less than 10 percent in Scandinavia to over 22 percent in Austria, Czechoslovakia, and European Russia. In the United States the rate was approximately 12 percent. By the middle of the twentieth century it had declined significantly. In North America, northern Europe, and Australia it was less than 3 percent. In western Europe it was less than 5 percent and in eastern and southern Europe less than 9 percent. Much of that decline came among post-neonates, initially from a reduction in gastroenteric and diarrheal disorders and then from control of respiratory diseases.

Behind this reduction lay several developments. Prior to the 1930s, declining fertility and better nutrition and housing, accompanied by a rising standard of living, played important roles in reducing infant mortality. So too did environmental improvements brought about by the publicly funded construction of sanitary water supply and sewage systems and the implementation of effective refuse removal, particularly in urban areas. Also crucial was the work of public health officials and their allies in medicine and social work in controlling milk-borne diseases and educating the public in the basics of preventive and infant HYGIENE. Indeed, in the first three decades of the twentieth century, all the industrial nations of the world were the sites of major public health campaigns aimed at dramatically reducing infant mortality.

For many of the same reasons that it declined during the first third of the century, infant mortality continued to fall during the second. However, beginning in the 1930s the development and application of medical interventions and technologies played an increasingly large role in driving down infant death rates. Particularly important were the development, production, and dissemination of effective immunizations and drug therapies to combat the incidence and deadliness of infectious and parasitic diseases. Also important were significant improvements in both the techniques and technologies available to manage or correct life-threatening diseases or health problems. Among the most important of these were the perfection and widespread us of electrolyte and fluid therapy to counter the acidosis and dehydration that is often a consequence of serious bouts of diarrhea and enteritis; the increasingly sophisticated preventive and therapeutic use of vitamins to aid metabolism and combat nutritional diseases; and the development of increasingly safe and effective obstetric and surgical techniques to facilitate problem births and correct the consequences of congenital malformations.

In the last third of the twentieth century, the decline of mortality among older infants slowed to a snail's pace. Among neonates, however, it quickened precipitously, falling over 50 percent in some developed nations. Driving neonatal mortality down was an intense international effort to develop and make widely available various sociomedical programs and specific techniques and technologies to increase the survival rate of neonates, who deaths had come to constitute the bulk of infant mortality in the developed nations. That effort resulted in the perfection of diagnostic techniques and drugs that have proven effective in regulating pregnancy and preventing premature labor, and in the development of sophisticated surgical, therapeutic, and intensive care techniques and technologies to correct congenital deformities and to counter the risks faced by low birth-weight and premature babies. It also resulted in significant improvements in both the quality and availability of nutritional, prenatal, and natal care. As a consequence of a century of profound decline in infant mortality, babies born in the late twentieth century in developed nations enjoyed a probability of surviving their first year unimaginable through most of human history.

http://www.faqs.org/childhood/In-Ke/Infant-Mortality.html

don't really see anything in there about confinement, although I suppose it could be included in the term "improvements in natal care" - doesn't seem too significant or worth specifying.

[Maru Kitteh]

98. NEWSFLASH: It is not the 1930's anymore. Newborns are people too.

We no longer live in the medical dark ages, and our society is no longer dominated by male agrarians with a 7th grade education or less.


ERGO: It is no longer considered some kind of unreasonable "abuse" to allow your newborn to be seen in the public square.

[fleabert]

84. what is tragic is your lack of understanding and research...

breastfeeding is the best way to prevent illnesses in babies, not staying locked up in a house until the kid is 3-4-6 months old (or some other non-medical-study-influenced-arbitrary age) not to mention the strain that puts on families and the mother!

and the poster before me is right, most infant infections come from exposure at the hospital, not at your local grocery store or coffee shop. jeez louise.

[cali]

76. well, that's how I felt about it for the first 3 or 4 weeks

I just wanted as tranquil an environment as possible for both my newborn and me.

[Kali]

80. no problem with that

but what if you had felt (or had to) like going out? Would you have been paranoid of taking baby out in public?

[Jennicut]

31. I was told by my doctor that 1 week was sufficient. This is perfectly normal. Just dress them warm

enough and don't let people touch and hold the baby (because of germs). I had both my daughters in the middle of summer and it was not prime flu season. I took them for a walk in the stroller. They were fine.

[snooper2]

34. our doctor said no reason to go anywhere for first 2-3 months..

not worth taking the risk period...

[Jennicut]

37. Wow. That is quite a long time to keep them in.

I think I would have gone a bit...stir crazy. It was summer so I took them out in the backyard mostly. They were born a year apart so I had an active 1 year old too. This was 4 and 5 years ago. Now, I can't keep them inside. :)

[Kali]

44. let me guess...immaculate, sterile house?

not going out for 2 or 3 months? :wtf: premie? other illness maybe, but a normal healthy baby? :wtf:

[Tumbulu]

46. there is a huge difference between one's home/farm etc and public places

at least where I live there is and my farm is not sterile. But it is one set of stuff to get used to. Going out in public does not mean going outside. it just means to stay away from public places...subways, shopping centers, etc. My own doctor had us e-mail my daughter's weight every week instead of driving the hour into the clinic (another public place). The stress of driving isn't especially good for a newborn either.

[Kali]

49. a car wreck might be stressful, but driving?

sure for the first week or so but hell, that was about the only way my firstborn would freaking sleep!:rofl:

[MattBaggins]

69. Your doctor may be an idiot

Not saying he is, just that he might be.

[Tumbulu]

73. She is a wonderful doctor and my drive into town involves many miles of very bumpy roads

which in a truck without shock absorbers is rather jarring for even adults.

People who live in rural areas have a different life that town people. Very wonderful in many ways, but also challenging in others.

We stayed at the birthing center a day longer primarily because of the bumpy road issue, I had stitches that needed to be better healed up for that road and of course a little infant in a car seat.

Why do you feel the need to insult my doctor?

[MattBaggins]

77. Why do you feel the need to insult people

who don't think they need to stay bedridden for 6 months after giving birth?

[Tumbulu]

96. I am sorry if I am writing in a way that is insulting

But, where did I say bedridden for 6 months? I tried to write about what people used to think and how with modern medicine people have become more relaxed about taking infants out into public. My own doctor did not recommend bringing my baby out into public until about 3 months- that does not mean not out at all, it meant out in public places where many strangers and crowds congregate.

And I exclusively breastfed. All the midwives around here recommended the same thing, as a matter of fact this was one of the big plusses about the midwives is that they came to your farm so that you did not have to drag your infant all the way to town. This idea of keeping the infant close to home or in friends or families homes hardly seems radical.

[Maru Kitteh]

99. Oh bull. I can take a swab from any of your fingers and culture some E. coli right now.

unless you intend that entire families should be totally quarantined from public life for this bizarre "hide the infant" ritual, it's pretty much meaningless.

[snooper2]

55. Yes, we have a normal healthy baby...

But there's no need to even take the risk. It's just fucking stupid....


Here, read...


"A newborn does not yet have a mature immune system and is often unable to mount an effective immune response. Newborns are generally protected by the antibodies they receive through the placenta before birth and through their mother's breastmilk after birth. These antibodies will be the same ones that are circulating in the mother's system, which will include antibodies to the microorganisms in the mother's home environment and other places she frequents. Therefore, babies generally have antibodies to the germs in their own homes. "

Immune System
All newborns and especially preterm newborns are at high risk for infection during the first several months of life. During this period, infection represents one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality. The newborn is unable to limit the invading pathogen to the portal of entry because of a generalized hypofunction of the inflammatory and immune mechanisms (Medici, 1983).
Resistance to infection (immunity) includes both non-specific and specific protective mechanisms. Medici (1983) summarizes the newborn's defense mechanisms as follows:

The term and preterm neonate has an increased incidence of infection for the first 4 to 6 weeks of life. This reflects the immaturity of a number of protective systems which significantly increases the risk of infection in this patient population. Natural barriers such as the acidity of the stomach or the production of pepsin and trypsin which maintain sterility of the small intestine are not fully developed until 3 to 4 weeks. The membrane protective IgA is missing from the respiratory and urinary tracts, and unless the newborn is breast-fed, it is absent from the gastrointestinal tract as well. The immune system is in great part suppressed; possibly this is a mechanism for preventing maternal recognition of paternal antigens with subsequent reject of the fetus. Finally, the qualitative and quantitative response of the inflammatory factors and sluggish responses of the phagocytic cells .

http://www.gentlebirth.org/vre/newimmun.html


http://www.naturalstandard.com/index-abstract.asp?create-abstract=/monographs/allergies/allergy-immunedevelopment.asp

A baby's immune system is not fully developed until he/she is about six months-old. In the meantime, pregnant mothers pass immunoglobulin antibodies from their bloodstream, through the placenta, and to the fetus. These antibodies are an essential part of the fetus's immune system. They identify and bind to harmful substances, such as bacteria, viruses, and fungi that enter the body. This triggers other immune cells to destroy the foreign substance.
Immunoglobulin G (IgG) is the only antibody that crosses the placenta to the fetus during pregnancy. IgG antibodies are the smallest, but most abundant antibodies, making up 75-80% of all the antibodies in the body. They are present in all body fluids and they are considered to be the most important antibodies for fighting against bacterial and viral infections. These antibodies help protect the fetus from developing an infection inside the womb.
Immediately after birth, the newborn has high levels of the mother's antibodies in the bloodstream. Babies who are breastfed continue to receive antibodies via breast milk. Breast milk contains all five types of antibodies, including immunoglobulin A (IgA), immunoglobulin D (IgD), immunoglobulin E (IgE), IgG, and immunoglobulin M (IgM). This is called passive immunity because the mother is "passing" her antibodies to her child. This helps prevent the baby from developing diseases and infections.
During the next several months, the antibodies passed from the mother to the infant steadily decrease. When healthy babies are about two to three months old, the immune system will start producing its own antibodies. During this time, the baby will experience the body's natural low point of antibodies in the bloodstream. This is because the maternal antibodies have decreased, and young children, who are making antibodies for the first time, produce them at a much slower rate than adults.

[Kali]

58. from that is would seem the 3 month point would be the worst time for exposure

"When healthy babies are about two to three months old, the immune system will start producing its own antibodies. During this time, the baby will experience the body's natural low point of antibodies in the bloodstream."

Breastfeeding and common sense provide ample protection. I would not have any fear of taking a week old infant out in public. If somebody is going to rub the baby on a public restroom door knob or let Aqualung drool and cough on the kid, yeah maybe they should stay home.

[Tumbulu]

66. I guess you can't read or did not read the first part about what sort

of antibodies the mother produced for the infant?

[Kali]

72. ... yes and here is what is says:

"A newborn does not yet have a mature immune system and is often unable to mount an effective immune response.Newborns are generally protected by the antibodies they receive through the placenta before birth and through their mother's breastmilk after birth. These antibodies will be the same ones that are circulating in the mother's system, which will include antibodies to the microorganisms in the mother's home environment and other places she frequents. Therefore, babies generally have antibodies to the germs in their own homes. "

interesting that the link is to a midwife's page that seems to be arguing for breastfeeding and against hospital births because of types of organisms found there and NOT a word against taking a baby out in public.

googling the subject seems to get the same variety as this thread, but this one adds a variable we haven't mentioned, although in the back of my mind was all the goddamn people that wanted to come see us when mine were born - I was less concerned about germs than getting some sleep.

"Going out
Contrary to popular myth, it is OK to take your newborn out in public. Newborns do well going home to a house full of older kids who expose them to a lot more germs than any public area such as a mall."
http://www.healthcaresouth.com/pages/askthedoctor/parentsguide.htm

bottom line - do what you want - they are resilient - if you want to be cautious it won't hurt anything. If you want to take them out there isn't any serious reason not too, especially if you are able to use common sense.

[Tumbulu]

64. excellent post and exactly what I thought

nice to see the science behind the instinct.

[fleabert]

85. wow. babies NEED sunlight.

and I have never heard of a dr. suggesting that to any of my past clients, friends, or family. (doula btw)

[AngryAmish]

101. Craaaaazy

lil AA was out and about within a few weeks. How in the heck do you go grocery shopping? And I lived in Uptown of all places.

[mainer]

50. Babies are supplied with mom's immunity.

Even at that young age, they do have antibodies, thanks to mom.

[Brickbat]

42. WTF? What's wrong with being out and about with a baby?

Why would that be a bad idea?

[mainer]

51. Passive immunity from mom lasts for a month

The half-life of antibodies (passed from mom to baby through bloodstream and breast milk) is about 30 days, I believe.

So it shouldn't be a problem taking a week-old baby out and about. And moms do have to get out of the house.

[alcibiades_mystery]

88. I was going to write the exact same post

This is heartbreaking, but who in their right mind places a 7 day old baby in one of those things and walks around. It's a goddamn stupid thing to do.

People want to show off their new baby. I get that. And they want to look hip while doing it. I get that. But this is just dumb. A baby sling? Come on. Common sense, people.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

15. I'm sorry, but how fucking stupid do you have to be...

...to put a WEEK OLD CHILD in one of these things. I mean really, c'mon.

[LeftyMom]

22. That's what they're for.

:eyes:

[alcibiades_mystery]

89. I have

a four year old and a one year old, and I never saw one of those things that gave enough support for a newborn. Come on. A sling? They're barely acceptable for a three month old. A seven DAY old in a baby sling? That's fucking stupid. And who isn't checking on a seven DAY old's breathing pretty regularly (as in, CONSTANTLY)? This is heartbreaking, and I don't want to judge, but damned if I'm not astounded by practices like this.

[Kali]

19. you'd think the fucking mother would have some awareness

the whole point of slings and close body contact

[Dappleganger]

25. That's a bit harsh.

Not every woman gets the common sense manual auto-download when she gives birth.

[Kali]

47. I'd have some sympathy for killing your own kid sleeping with it

but carrying it around during the day in close contact with her own body - and that young? Most new mothers are kind of on hyper-alert all the time for the first month or two anyway. Less than common sense - maybe some other impairment.

[tinrobot]

71. Newborns tend to sleep a lot.

Maybe she just assumed the child was sleeping. Plus, she'd only been a mother for a week. It's not like she was an expert.

Cut the woman some slack.

[Kali]

75. because babies don't breathe when they sleep?

:wtf:
sure - in a crib or car seat you might not notice but it was in direct contact with her body

[tinrobot]

78. A sling is not "direct contact"

[Kali]

81. say what?

one measure away from carrying in the arms is pretty damn direct - not skin to skin but about as direct as you can get

:wtf:

[tinrobot]

86. Whatever... the woman lost her baby, have some compassion...

...rather than trying to point fingers at her for being some sort of imaginary "bad parent"

[Kali]

93. maybe it's not "imaginary"

[tinrobot]

94. Like your total lack of compassion?

[Kali]

97. look

whether I am compassionate or not really has no bearing on the facts that a sling is a close contact device and this woman didn't notice her baby not breathing.

[sandyj999]

26. Wasn't it many years ago that parents were told to keep the infant's crib uncluttered?

Then why would they come out with this thing in the first place. I have thought since I saw the first one it was a bad idea. Putting an infant in there would make the mom too comfortable and she would forget to check the position of the baby. It's a convenient invention but a stupid one.

[cbdo2007]

32. Consumer Reports warned about these specific slings 3 years ago.

Unfortunately, most people don't listen to the warnings on stuff like this.

Take crib bumpers too, you know that soft pillowy thing that goes around the inside of the crib. Consumer Reports specifically says to never use a crib bumper because babies can suffocate if their mouth gets pressed against it and they can strangle themselves on the straps. There have actually been deaths caused by this but still millions of new parents out there have to buy the cutest crib bumper they can find and in the baby stores most of the cribs have them in the displays as the "normal" thing to use.

It's all about the trade off - would you rather your baby get a little bruise on his head from bumping it into the crib or woudl you rather they die from suffocation?

[snooper2]

33. Why the fuck is she walking around in public with a 1 week old

can't fix stupid...

I guess she thinks babies just pop out with a fully functional immune system. Just throw baby in a sling and trot around like you have a toy dog :eyes:

[Name removed]

57. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[snooper2]

60. because people walk around with their babies like they are ornaments

not helpless beings...7 days old dude 7 days...

[mainer]

61. people walk around with them because they need food and supplies

If a mom has no childcare and other kids in the house, she HAS to leave the house for diapers, food, etc. Not everyone has the luxury of staying locked in one's home for three months.

[snooper2]

62. come on...

not saying stay locked in the house for three months...Don't go to the mall in the middle of the day for a hot dog.

We went to the grocery store with our daughter when she was three weeks old. But we went at 8:00 AM on a Sunday morning...

[Tumbulu]

63. Parents need help for the first few weeks at least

from family, neighbors, friends, anyone. Society exists because people need help during these vulnerable times.

[tammywammy]

67. The lady in the OP was out shopping with her grandmother

Presumably she could have left the baby at home with grandmother while she did her shopping. :shrug:

[LeftyMom]

100. Presumably a one week old baby is breastfeeding (at least, I certainly fucking hope so)

so being with mom is pretty much a necessity.

[tinrobot]

87. Women have walked around with newborns for 100,000 years...

...or however long Homo Sapiens have been around.

We used to be hunter/gatherers, remember? The babies survived back then, and they survived in places a lot scarier than a Costco.

Get a clue.

[JerseygirlCT]

91. Why not?

That's a little silly.

So they ought to be sure to keep baby locked in the house to avoid nasty germs? Surprise! Those are in the house, too.

If mom is feeling up to it, and barring any particular health issues with baby, there's nothing wrong with this.

[AngryAmish]

102. What we need is to construct a special room, under the basement, for mother/infant confinement

Just leave enough canned goods, water and diapers for the full six month safety confinement. Then the room can be sealed, amontillado-style, for the safety of all concerned.

This guy



agrees.

[mainer]

103. You do know who carries the most germs? Baby's siblings.

The most infectious critters in the world are kids. And baby's brothers and sisters are probably running around the house, spreading germs everywhere. If you want the infant to be totally protected, wrap him in a bubble and keep him away from his siblings.

[JerseygirlCT]

105. But be careful he doesn't suffocate in that bubble! nt

[Berry Cool]

41. Wow, goes to show how much I know.

I never even heard of a baby sling before. When my nieces were very young babies, they got carried around in car seats that you can either strap into a car or flip out legs and set on a surface. Those kinds of seats provide plenty of support for the head and neck. Yeah, people sometimes carried babies in Snuglis, but not until they were old enough to hold up their heads on their own, because Snuglis have no head support. I never even heard of this concept called a "baby sling" that's soft and that you strap over a shoulder.

[alcibiades_mystery]

90. I think there are plenty of parents on this thread

That would never, ever, put their seven day old baby in a sling and stroll around. Car seat, fine. Yes, they're heavy and unwieldy, but the baby is supported. By the way, my youngest turns ONE in two weeks, so I'm not talking about thirty years ago.

Just sayin'

[LeftyMom]

104. They're not unsupported.

There are plenty of carries that are specific to newborns that work just fine. Some carriers are also better suited to very small babies than others, wrap-style carriers, ring slings and pouches tend to work best with newborns.

Carrying a baby around in a car seat isn't a great idea for outside the car, because it doesn't promote bonding or facilitate breastfeeding. Also, those things are freakin' murder on the back, and I know mine was already in fantastic shape after pregnancy. ;)

[JerseygirlCT]

92. The packs I used - one a baby bjorn, and the other similar

had a head support built in. Besides that, the baby is resting right on you, literally under your eyes. I was aware of every breath they took.

The close contact from the packs was also wonderful for the kids, especially my oldest, who really loved being held. I started taking him to work with me one day a week when he was just a few days old. He was one happy little camper so long as he was in the pack, resting on my chest.