...schade, was sich alles "Fachleute" ausdenken. Eigentlich müsste jeder, der offiziell Beratung verbreitet gleich mal einen Anhang veröffentlichen, auf welche Art von Quellen er sich stützt, welche Ausbildung, Erfahrung und Praxis er selbst hat. Mir fällt es in vielen Bereichen auf, dass einfach - unbewiesen - irgendwelche Dogmen aufgestellt werden "co-sleeping schädlich" und dann als objektive Tatsache verkauft werden.
Nebenbei habe ich auch schon die gegenteiligen Ratschläge gelesen, bei der Prävention des plötzlichen Kindstodes verändern sich die Parameter ja auch dauerend und ich habe in den Info-Blättern der Malteser schon anders lautende Instruktionen gesehen - Familienbett nein, co-sleeping ja.
LG Annalisa

Trauriges Lächeln...
Und wann werden cm-Angaben gemacht, wie weit ich vom Kind wegschlafen muss, damit es als Co-Sleeping und nicht als FB gilt??!!
ICH habe für mich uns meine Kinder das grösste Sicherheitsgefühl im FB gehabt.
Und so gesund-instinktiv variabel sollten doch auch die Empfehlungen sein.
Alles andere ist reine Panikmache!
LG; Mélanie

"ICH habe für mich uns meine Kinder das grösste Sicherheitsgefühl im FB gehabt. "
Und so geht es mir immer noch: Jeden Abend beim Einschlafen kann ich beruhigt sein, ein Kind liegt rechts, eins liegt links neben mir. Komme was wolle (Waldbrand, Überschwemmung, Säbelzahntiger *g*), ich kann uns alle retten!
Mal im Ernst: Das ist echt MEIN Instinkt, gerade vor dem EInschlafen. Als Nico mal ne Zeitlang im Kizi geschlafen hat, war das echt der Horro für mich. Ich war ganz froh, dass er sich dann irgendwann wieder umentschieden hat.
LG Janet mit Urinstinkten

...also für mich persönlich war die sicherste Variante für meine kleine Tochter ein Babybay, das passt ungefähr bis zum 6. Monat. Da ist der Säugling jederzeit erreichbar zum Streicheln und beruhigen, aber jedes kleinste Risiko von elterlichen Bettdecken ist eben nicht da. Inzwischen, mit 9 Monaten, kann sie auch gerne an mich gekuschelt schlafen, aber sie ist jetzt auch robuster. Vorher hätte ich da kein gutes Gefühl gehabt - mein zierliches Kind wiegt jetzt, mit 9 Monaten und 67 cm immer noch nur 6200 g!!!
In diesem zitierten Rundbrief ging es im übrigen ja darum, dass das Co-sleeping schlecht sein soll und das halte ich für völlig abstrus, beim richtigen FB kann ich mir zumindest im ungünstigsten Fall ein Restrisiko vorstellen.
LG Annalisa

nehme das maßband und achte darauf, dass du nie die 50 cm-marke unterschreitest *lolwech*
meine tochter wurde ja tatsächlich zickig, wenn meine hand auf ihrer babybalkon-matratze war. war halt schon immer etwas eigen *kicher*
bei QM beruhigt mich dann immer wieder, dass sie sich selbst auch mitunter in verschiedenen infos wiedersprechen, auch wenn ich das nicht für das aktuelle problem behaupten/nachweisen kann...
LG gonschi

Hallo Nadine,
ich hab das Ding mal wieder ungelesen in die Tonne getreten - steht denn auch drinnen, wer die hehre Autorität ist, die das festgestellt hat?
Ansonsten könnte man ja mal nachfragen ...
LG, Beate

hi beate
nicht mal google findet was über die schädlichkeit des co-sleepings...
das wissen nur die auserwählten;-)
lg,sylvi

Kommentar und Bibliographie zur
Bed-sharing-Empfehlung der WHO/UNICEF-Initiative
?Stillfreundliches Krankenhaus?
Die Diskussion um das Schlafen im Familienbett (co-sleeping/bed-sharing) wird
zurzeit in Deutschland intensiv geführt....
...Leider haben alle Bemühungen um ein Wiederbeleben der Stillkultur in Deutschland
bisher nur geringen Effekt gezeigt. Es stellt sich daher die Frage, wie das Stillen
wirksam gefördert werden kann und die erschreckend kurze Stilldauer von knapp
zehn Prozent ausschließlich gestillter Kinder nach sechs Monaten (9) deutlich zu
erhöhen ist.
Neben den Maßnahmen, die Entbindungskliniken ergreifen können und die wir mit
der internationalen Initiative ?Babyfreundliches? bzw. ?Stillfreundliches Krankenhaus?
verfolgen (10), gibt es diverse Berichte, die zeigen, dass das co-sleeping/bed-sharing
die Stillquoten erhöht und sich somit im oben genannten Sinne protektiv gegen den
plötzlichen Kindstod auswirkt (8, 11 ? 13)....
******************************************************
Ich sags ja: Das Stillen ist an allem schuld! ;-)
LG Uta

Hallo Uta!
UNICEF ist noch viel gefährlicher *fg*
Die haben nämlich tatsächlich ein Infoblatt rausgegeben, indem FETT drinnesteht, dass Co-Sleeping ne ganz tolle Sache ist. *kicher*
Ganz dreist behaupten sie dann auch noch, das Todesfallrisiko im Familienbett sei nur dann höher als im Kinderbett, wenn die Eltern rauchten, alkoholisiert wären oder bewusstseinsbeeinträchtigen Medikamente nehmen würden.
Rauchende Eltern stehen aber sowieso auf der Ssmpathieliste von UNICEF nicht sooo weit oben. (Da arbeiten anscheinend nur echt Radikale *gg*)
Und was die Frage Rauchen contra Familienbett/Kind im Schlafzimmer angeht, erlaube ich mir als leidgeprüftes Kind rauchender Eltern die Feststellung, dass das ja auch ne Aussage macht, wenn man sich für die Kippen entscheidet. (Zumindest wird es für das betroffene Kind 20 Jahre später eine machen...)
LG,
Darla

bei wikipedia findet man einen einzigen Artikel und der ist weder PRO noch KONTRA...
Naja, wir haben so oder so einen gesunden Schlaf zusammen... (Wenn bloss nicht immer die Katzen auf uns liegen würden...)
LG, Nadine

How the Stats Really Stack Up: Cosleeping Is Twice As Safe
By Tina Kimmel
Issue 114 September/October 2002
The Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) and the Juvenile Product Manufacturers Association (JPMA, the crib manufacturers' lobby) recently launched a campaign to discourage parents from placing infants in adult beds or sleeping with them, based on data showing that infants have a very small risk of dying in adult beds.1,2 The CPSC implies that infants in adult beds are at greater risk than infants in cribs, but as we know, and as they know, babies also die in cribs.
What we need to do is calculate the relative riskiness of an infant sleeping in an adult bed versus a crib. We can do that by dividing a measure of danger for each situation by the prevalence, or frequency, of that situation, and then comparing them. (Oddly, the CPSC never presents relative risks.) Using government figures, we can perform a rough calculation to show that infants are more than twice as safe in adult beds as in cribs. This is aside from the many other advantages of cosleeping or bedsharing, such as increased breastfeeding and physiological regulation, the experience of having slept well, parents' feeling of assurance that their child is well and happy, the enhanced security of psychological attachment and family togetherness, and family enjoyment.3
Let's begin by looking closely at the CPSC data. The anti-cosleeping campaign is based on a dataset that contains the 2,178 cases of unintentional mechanical suffocation of US infants under 13 months old for the period 1980 to 1997. CPSC-authored articles about these data reflect only the small portion of deaths that occurred in adult beds.4 However, these data also have been published with summaries of the cause-of-death codes on all 2,178 cases.5 This complete dataset is further summarized in Table 1.
Of these 2,178 infant suffocation deaths, we are certain of only 139 occurring in an adult bed. For 102 of these, we know that a larger person (presumably a sleeping adult) was present, because the cause-of-death code is "overlain in a bed." That does not tell us exactly what caused the death-that is, whether the baby died and then was lain on, or died as a result of being lain on. We can assume that the 37 deaths involving waterbeds occurred in adult beds, since few child waterbeds exist. That gives us a total of 139 infant suffocation deaths known to have occurred in adult beds in these 18 years.
The same data show that 428 infants died due to being in a crib. It is likely that there were preventable risk factors (such as using a crib in need of repair) involved in these crib-related deaths. But that doesn't change our calculations, because the deaths did occur. Similarly, our calculations do not change due to the preventable risk factors (such as intoxication) involved in adult-bed deaths (and other overlying). Note that advocates are raising public awareness to increase the safety of both these sleeping arrangements, with the hope that all these deaths will decrease.
We can't use the other 739 bed- or bedding-related cases in our analysis, because the place of death is not specific enough; these deaths may have occurred in a large adult bed, a single-size adult bed, a child's bed, or a misused crib. Nor can we include the remaining 760 deaths, as we have no idea whether they took place in a sleep situation at all. We also know nothing about the presence or absence of an adult, although a nearby, aware caretaker could have prevented many of these deaths.
So for only 567 (139 plus 428) of the deaths do we know whether they took place in an adult or infant bed. Thus, from 1980 to 1997, 75 percent of the mechanical suffocation deaths of US infants with a known place of occurrence took place in cribs, while 25 percent took place in adult beds.
While it is tempting to make the observation that three times as many babies died in cribs as in adult beds, if three times as many babies were actually sleeping in cribs as in adult beds, the risk would be the same in either place. Based only on this crude death-certificate data, we do not know which is safer. We still need to know how many babies were actually in adult beds or cribs-that is, an estimate of how common cosleeping was.
To estimate cosleeping prevalence, we can turn to the CDC's Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System (PRAMS).6 PRAMS has been surveying mothers of infants, usually between two and six months of age (but occasionally up to nine months), since 1988. Approximately 1,800 new mothers are sampled each year in each participating state. The sample is rigorously selected to represent essentially every birth in the state, and the response rates are high (70 to 80 percent). Most of the 100 or so PRAMS questions involve prenatal and well-baby care and stressors.
States have the option of adding their own questions and have asked about cosleeping. The basic question asked is, "How often does your new baby sleep in the same bed with you? Always; Sometimes; Never." (Some states add "Almost always.") PRAMS data, therefore, can be used to ascertain cosleeping prevalence in participating states and may be the only data of this kind.
Table 2 shows the results of this question on the PRAMS survey from 1991 through 1999, the most recent data available.
We see from these data that roughly 68 percent (100 percent minus the 23 to 43 percent who "never" coslept) of babies in these states enjoyed cosleeping at least some of the time. Data from the United Kingdom are similar: Helen Ball's Sleep Lab found that around 7 percent always coslept, 40 percent did so for part of the night, and 33 percent never coslept.6
Now let's try to estimate a single cosleeping prevalence rate from these data. Let's say that babies who "sometimes" cosleep do so about half the time. Over all the years of this sample, around 42 percent of babies coslept "sometimes." Let's also say that "always" or "almost always" means 90 percent of the time. Roughly 26 percent of infants coslept "always" or "almost always." Adding "always/almost always" (90 percent of the time x 26 percent of babies) to "sometimes" (50 percent of the time x 42 percent of babies), we get 44 percent of babies ages two to nine months who were cosleeping at any given time, presumably in an adult bed.
Now we can use these figures based on CPSC and PRAMS data to calculate the riskiness of these two sleep arrangements, although it's important to understand the limitations of doing so. For example, these PRAMS data are from only five states (although more will be available in the future), while the CPSC data are from the entire US. The years in which the PRAMS cosleeping data were collected are not the same as those covered by the CPSC dataset, although they overlap. The CPSC covers infants zero to thirteen months, while PRAMS asks about infants two to nine months. The CPSC collects demographic details such as state, income, race, and age of mother (as does PRAMS), as well as time of the death, but they are not easily available to do a more detailed analysis. One or both of these data sources lacks information on impairment of caretaker and other known sleep risk factors, exact sleeping and furniture arrangements during different times in the night, overcrowding and other motivation for cosleeping or crib sleeping, clinical pathology findings, previous health of the infant, etc. Plus, a complete risk analysis should include all causes of infant deaths, including SIDS.
Nonetheless, these data are important population-based sources of information on sleep risks that we would not have otherwise. So let's go ahead and use them to estimate a risk ratio for cosleeping. We take the 25 percent of the suffocation risk in the CPSC data linked to being in an adult bed and divide it by the 44 percent of babies who were actually in adult beds. Then we divide that fraction by a similar fraction for cribs, i.e., 75 percent divided by 56 percent. (If we multiplied each of these fractions by an overall infant death rate, we would have the actual risk for each group.)
This result shows that it was actually less than half (42 percent) as risky, or more than twice as safe, for an infant to be in an adult bed than in a crib. Based upon these calculations using the CPSC's own data, we can say that crib sleeping had a relative risk of 2.37 compared with sleeping in an adult bed.
Therefore, cosleep with impunity-but, of course, be sure to follow the safe cosleeping guidelines described in this issue of "Mothering".
NOTES
1. "CPSC, JPMA Launch Campaign about the Hidden Hazards of Placing Babies in Adult Beds," Consumer Product Safety Commission press release no. 02-153, May 3, 2002.
2. S. Nakamura et al., "Review of Hazards Associated with Children Placed in Adult Beds," Arch. Pediatr. Adolesc. Med. 153, no. 10 (1999): 1019- 1023.
3. Summarized in M. O'Hara et al., "Sleep Location and Suffocation: How Good Is the Evidence?" Pediatrics 105, no. 4 (2000): 915-920.
4. See Note 2.
5. Dorothy A. Drago and Andrew L. Dannenberg, "Infant Mechanical Suffocation Deaths in the United States, 1980-1997," Pediatrics 103, no. 5 (1999): e59.
6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, "Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System," www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/drh/srv_PRAMS.htm.
7. "The Sleep Lab Awakening," University of Durham (UK) press release, April 6, 2000.
Tina Kimmel, MSW, MPH, is a PhD student in social welfare at the University of California-Berkeley and is writing her dissertation on "The Effect of Welfare Reform on Breastfeeding Rates: Findings from the Pregnancy Risk Assessment Monitoring System." Previously she worked as a research scientist for California's state health department. She would like to acknowledge the state PRAMS epidemiologists who shared their analyzed data for this article: Rhonda Stephens, MPH (Alabama), Chris Wells, MS (Colorado), Ken Rosenberg, MD, MPH (Oregon), Melissa Baker, MA (West Virginia), and especially Kathy Perham-Hester, MS, MPH (Alaska) for her valuable insights. Tina has two children, Rosie (27) and Jesse (21), and one grandchild, Eli (4)-all born at home and all cosleepers.

War hier im Forum ja auch schon mal zu lesen:
The Sunday Times - Britain
May 14, 2006
Children 'should sleep with parents until they're five'
Sian Griffiths
ONE of Britain?s leading experts on children?s mental health has advised
parents to reject years of convention and allow children to sleep in bed
with them until the age of five.
Margot Sunderland, director of education at the Centre for Child Mental
Health in London, says the practice, known as ?co-sleeping?, makes
children more likely to grow up as calm, healthy adults.
Sunderland, author of 20 books, outlines her advice in "The Science of
Parenting", to be published later this month.
She is so sure of the findings in the new book, based on 800 scientific
studies, that she is calling for health visitors to be issued with fact
sheets to educate parents about co-sleeping.
?These studies should be widely disseminated to parents,? said
Sunderland. ?I am sympathetic to parenting gurus ? why should they
know the science? Ninety per cent of it is so new they bloody well need
to know it now. There is absolutely no study saying it is good to let your
child cry.?
She argues that the practice common in Britain of training children to
sleep alone from a few weeks old is harmful because any separation
from parents increases the flow of stress hormones such as cortisol.
Her findings are based on advances in scientific understanding over the
past 20 years of how children?s brains develop, and on studies using
scans to analyse how they react in particular circumstances.
For example, a neurological study three years ago showed that a child
separated from a parent experienced similar brain activity to one in
physical pain.
Sunderland also believes current practice is based on social attitudes
that should be abandoned. ?There is a taboo in this country about
children sleeping with their parents,? she said.
?What I have done in this book is present the science. Studies from
around the world show that co-sleeping until the age of five is an
investment for the child. They can have separation anxiety up to the age
of five and beyond, which can affect them in later life. This is calmed by
co-sleeping.?
Symptoms can also be physical. Sunderland quotes one study that found
some 70% of women who had not been comforted when they cried as
children developed digestive difficulties as adults.
Sunderland?s book puts her at odds with widely read parenting gurus
such as Gina Ford, whose advice is followed by thousands.
Ford advocates establishing sleep routines for babies from a very early
age in cots ?away from the rest of the house? and teaching babies to
sleep ?without the assistance of adults?.
In her book "The Complete Sleep Guide for Contented Babies and
Toddlers" she writes that parents need time by themselves: ?Bed sharing
. . . more often than not ends up with parents sleeping in separate
rooms? and exhausted mothers, a situation that ?puts enormous
pressure on the family as a whole?.
Annette Mountford, chief executive of the parenting organisation Family
Links, confirmed that the norm for children in Britain was to be
encouraged to sleep in cots and beds, often in separate bedrooms, from
an early age. ?Parents need their space,? she said. ?There are definite
benefits from encouraging children into their own sleep routine in their
own space.?
Sunderland says moving children to their own beds from a few weeks
old, even if they cry in the night, has been shown to increase the flow of
cortisol.
Studies of children under five have shown that for more than 90%,
cortisol rises when they go to nursery. For 75%, it falls whenever they go
home.
Professor Jaak Panksepp, a neuroscientist at Washington State University,
who has written a foreword to the book, said Sunderland?s arguments
were ?a coherent story that is consistent with neuroscience. A wise
society will take it to heart?.
Sunderland argues that putting children to sleep alone is a peculiarly
western phenomenon that may increase the chance of cot death, also
known as sudden infant death syndrome (Sids). This may be because the
child misses the calming effect on breathing and heart function of lying
next to its mother.
?In the UK, 500 children a year die of Sids,? Sunderland writes. ?In China,
where it [co-sleeping] is taken for granted, Sids is so rare it does not
have a name.?