Talk:Co-sleeping

A More Appropriate Photo

The picture at the top of this article is not a photograph intended to represent co-sleeping. It is a work by an artist/photographer whose works are typically intended to be striking and provocative. I like the artist and the photo, but it's clear that its intention is not to depict the practice of co-sleeping. The trans-man on the right is one of her models in make up. It would be fine to use queer or non-binary couple, but I can't help but wonder if someone picked this image as a joke--making fun of trans couples and/or co-sleepers.

Michael Jackson

I really don't think that including Michael Jackson in a discussion on cosleeping is appropriate. A male adult sleeping with children who are not related or who are not under his guardianship is no where near cosleeping.

It is anyway a related subject. If the word co-sleeping does not apply, we can rename the page to e.g. "Sharing a bed".--Patrick 03:50, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Cosleeping deserves its own description, given its prominence in AP circles and historical backgound. Perhaps we should have a new page (e.g. "Sharing a bed"), and then describe cosleeping briefly as a specialization of it. That might be an appropriate place to quote Jackson, but the focus on Californian law seems overly specific to me. Bovlb 12:26, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

I don't mind splitting the page. Info about Californian law happened to be available, info from other states and countries can be added.--Patrick 23:39, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A "Sharing a bed" article was split off, but it was listed on VFD. The debate concluded that it should be merged back with this article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:25, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No notice of the merge was placed on this page. I sure would have voted against the merge. Co-sleeping is a rather specific term, used to refer to the practice of a mother sleeping with her baby. AlbertCahalan 03:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

a mother sleeping with her baby and/or father. ☺ Bovlb 05:33, 2005 Jun 26 (UTC)

Now that the Michael Jackson trial is no longer hot news, this whole "sharing a bed" thing is looking even more out of place than before. Probably sharing a bed should redirect to sexual activity instead of here, and the co-sleeping page can be cleaned up again. AlbertCahalan 03:59, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sharing a bed does not automatically imply sexual activity. It is only in the western world, in modern times, that the practice implies something sexual. For example, the Great Bed of Ware normally slept 16 people, but it wasn't generally considered used for orgies. Such a redirect would be extremely POV, assuming a modern and western interpretation, which is not a neutral thing to do, and therefore something to be avoided. ~~~~ 09:45, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fine. Got a better place? I doubt very many people would associate "co-sleeping" with the Great Bed of Ware. Truth is, the VfD was botched. Merging into the co-sleeping page is just plain wrong, especially without even posting notice on the co-sleeping page so that people watching this page could vote on the matter. AlbertCahalan 11:40, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by the VfD was botched. VfD is a Wikipedia procedure to obtain the community consensus. Generally, it is considered that a VfD result must be complied with, regardless of your own opinion. ~~~~ 12:36, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I mean just that, the VfD was botched. Suppose we hold a VfD for "Fruit", posting notice on the Fruit talk page. At the VfD, we decide that Fruit should be merged into Chicken. People who regularly edit Chicken, totally unaware of the vote, are surprised to find the Fruit article getting merged in. (hey, they're both food, right?) It is then claimed that the VfD was proper and is binding, even though the editors of the Chicken page didn't get a chance to vote. AlbertCahalan 04:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Co-sleeping does mean sharing a bed, but sharing a bed does not mean co-sleeping. It seems clear to me that there is some confusion/ambivalence over co-sleeping. The Michael Jackson reference is wholly inappropriate as it does not relate to co-sleeping. Co-sleeping is an aspect of parenting.

The whole piece about Sharing a Bed seems misplaced and I would argue for its removal. Putting the sharing a bed piece on the same page as co-sleeping implies a sexual link, particularly when it is explicity mentioned.

I feel like the citations in this article are misleading; for instance, Paediatr Respir Rev. 2005 Jun;6(2):134-52. "Why babies should never sleep alone: a review of the co-sleeping controversy in relation to SIDS, bedsharing and breast feeding." does not give blanket approval for co-sleeping, or imply that all co-sleeping arrangements reduce risk of SIDS. I've been reading about co-sleeping, planning on co-sleeping... everything I read online seems to imply that co-sleeping reduces risk of SIDS unless parents are drunk/drugged/etc... then I did a literature search using a biomedical citation sorter (Pubmed) and it really, really, really seems that there is an increased risk of SIDS for parents that have baby in the same bed, regardless of drink (etc). These are not studies with a hypothesis, these are multiple, longitudinal studies simply assessing sleeping arrangements in SIDS cases. It does seem like having baby in the same room in a cosleeper or hammock (etc) reduces risk, but this and *many* other articles just make it seem like cosleeping of any kind reduces risk (especially with incomplete citations) and I'm afraid that is dangerous!onli —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.108.181 (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree - the article (like many emotional hot topics in medicine) tries to cast the issue as a lifestyle choice being debated, with roughly equal proponents on either side. At least in the USA, there is solid medical consensus that co-sleeping increases the risk of SIDS and is therefore recommended against by the AAP. Yes, there are ways to minimize the risk of SIDS while co-sleeping: no-one but baby and a non-smoking, non-medicated, non-obese mom (no dad!) on a firm mattress with NO sheets/blankets/pillows. Will the majority of co-sleeping infants be ok in the long run? Yes. This does NOT negate the increased risk of death and does NOT change the recommendation - an AAP guideline represents the consensus majority of American pediatricians; therefore, a pediatrician who recommends otherwise is in the medical minority, and needs to include a discussion of the risks of co-sleeping with parents. The article as a whole has a mild but distinct promotion of co-sleeping (e.g "Advantages" vs "Precautions", instead of something like "Reasons for" and "Reasons against"). As well, some of the cited references are not credible sources - the article on medicinenet (http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=51747&page=2) for example, talks about the AAP "discouraging" the practice (instead of the direct recommendation against), countered by "many pediatricians ... harshly criticized the results", though nowhere in the article or after does it cite any sources and there is no identifiable author. Rehashed internet opinion pages are NOT credible sources for Wikipedia. - a pediatrician — Preceding unsigned comment added by 164.167.34.67 (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

New categories

Hi, just thought I'd mention that I've added 5 new categories so folks who are looking through topics besides Category:Sleep will have a chance of coming across the article. Cgingold 11:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Request a link

The Tufts University Child and Family WebGuide is a good co-sleeping resource. http://www.cfw.tufts.edu/topic/2/176.htm

The WebGuide is a directory that evaluates, describes and provides links to hundreds of sites containing child development research and practical advice. The WebGuide, a not-for-profit resource, was based on parent and professional feedback, as well as support from such noted child development experts as David Elkind, Edward Zigler, and the late Fred Rogers. Topics cover all ages, from early child development through adolescence. The WebGuide selects sites that have the highest quality child development research and that are parent friendly.

The co-sleeping page of this site provides information on co-sleeping and sleep problems that can arise from such parenting techniques. Some of the sites also contain information on co-sleeping as it relates to breastfeeding, as well as SIDS. Articles offered provide easy to understand applied sleep research and information on sleep disorders. Teamme 15:37, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Standard practice

re. "It is standard practice in many parts of the world outside of North America, Europe and Australia, although sometimes children may crawl into bed with their parents."

I think it is also standard practise in parts of Europe. At least it is very common in Scandinavia. Rune X2 08:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Poorly Written

Why is this page so poorly written? The text needs to be cleaned up quite a bit. Also, the articles need to be better researched. Cosleeping is connected with an increase in SIDS, while sharing a room, but not a bed, has been shown to lower SIDS risks. If we are going to say that a majority of the world's populations cosleep, we need much more research than is given here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.47.86 (talk) 01:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Quote: In studies with animals, infants who stayed close to their mothers had higher levels of growth hormones and enzymes necessary for brain and heart growth.

Why is that on a page about human cosleeping? It's not relevant. No one is debating the effects of cosleeping on labrats or cocker spaniels. If this page is about human cosleeping, the pros and cons should only be about human cosleeping. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.16.47.86 (talk) 01:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Somewhere we need to have added in the AAP information about cosleeping: "no epidemiologic evidence exists that bed sharing is protective against SIDS. " http://aappolicy.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/pediatrics;105/3/650

Confusing terms

Why use different terms when talking about the proponents and opponents? "Proponents hold that bed-sharing..." "Opponents claim that co-sleeping..."

It would be easier to understand if both used the same term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.237.19.21 (talk) 03:44, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Risk of Prosecution

I have added a quick line to the overview regarding the possible prosecution of negligent co-sleeping. I have listed a few states for the sake of documenting this growing trend. I do not believe that adding multiple more states is necessary, but editing which states are listed might be valuable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.194.77.7 (talk) 17:25, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

In The Context Of Spouses?

Would it be appropriate to consider this subject in the context of spousal co-sleeping (or not co-sleeping, as the case may be)? Or would that perhaps be better as a separate article? [1] 67.161.69.249 (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Co-sleeping. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060618130458/http://www.cpsc.gov:80/CPSCPUB/PREREL/PRHTML99/99175.html to http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PREREL/PRHTML99/99175.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Co-sleeping. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060623171312/http://iparenting.com/sears/columns/co-sleep.htm to http://iparenting.com/sears/columns/co-sleep.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:20, 9 August 2017 (UTC)

Article contradicts one of its sources

The article presents one of its sources as: "the study concluded that the parental behaviors were a reaction to already-present sleep difficulties. Most relationships between parental behavior and sleeping trouble were not statistically significant when controlled for those preexisting conditions. Further, typical co-sleeping parental behavior, like maternal presence at onset of sleep, were found to be protective factors against sleep problems"

On the contrary that source reads: "Our findings clarify the long-debated relationship between parental behaviors and childhood sleep disturbances. They suggest that cosleeping and other uncommon parental behaviors have negative consequences for future sleep and are thus maladaptive".

I think the misunderstanding comes from:

• the summary at the beginning of the source, which does mention that "most relationships did not remain significant in adjusted models that controlled for early sleep problems". The key is that is only "most relationships" not all studied relationships.
• "maternal presence at onset of sleep" including mothers who "lull the child to sleep before putting him or her down", not specifically co-sleeping.

If noone objects, I propose to reconcile this section of the article with its source.

--un_brice (talk) 00:33, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Increased risk of "ictal sex" / sexsomnia?

I've read about it only once, in some non-technical magazine, but the risk seems pretty obvious, especially for older children. Any data? 89.64.25.140 (talk) 11:34, 16 March 2020 (UTC)