|
Preventing and protecting babies from SIDS has received a great deal of attention over the
past forty years. The most important recommendation has been the back
position for sleep. The reason why this position has helped reduce the
number of deaths has gone without a satisfactory explanation. No one can explain
why it has worked for some babies and not others. Since the original 1968 identification of a syndrome of sudden death in infants between the ages of
four weeks and twelve months, multi-factors have been exhaustively
researched in centers of medical excellence throughout the world.
No factor has provided a definitive answer or successfully explained the mechanism of death
associated with infants who succumb in their cribs without apparent reason.
In February 2001 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued
a new policy on SIDS. The consensus among the experts who have been able
to provide a diagnosis of SIDS in the past has dramatically changed. The
experts have now admitted that they are no longer able to distinguish between
SIDS and Suffocation with a soft object. The AAP, while stating that less
than 5% of unexplained infant deaths are likely due to murder, is now
encouraging a closer look at the circumstances. Parents or other
caregivers must be considered as suspects especially if the infant is over six
months. The AAP is also pointing a finger at daycare centers where there is a
death and there was only one worker present. In other words the presumption of
guilt until innocence is proven has become the standard.
The possibility that an accidental gas poisoning may
be taking place has been totally ignored in spite of the scientific and
historical evidence that mildewed mattresses may be responsible. Proponents of
the accidental poisoning explanation point to the chemical
compounds which have been added to mattresses in general and baby mattresses in
particular. These compounds were added to a baby's environment beginning
in the early 1950's when polyvinyl chloride (PVC) was introduced as an
inexpensive alternative for manufacturing mattresses. Proponents of a
relationship between PVC and unexplained infant deaths point out that the number of
these cases began to rise sharply shortly after PVC replaced other mattress
components. The opponents of of this explanation simply deny any relationship
between baby mattress chemicals and deaths. Manufacturers have also successfully defended themselves from challenges that
mattress gases represent a danger. Unfortunately and somewhat ironically,
prior to the introduction of PVC into a baby's environment there were no controlled baby studies that showed
PVC was safe. The issue at the time
was protecting babies from fire, because PVC was extremely flammable. Chemical compounds containing antimony
and phosphorus were effective effective fire retardants, so without further consideration they
were also added to the PVC.
As the numbers of babies dying
for unexplained reasons grew in the years that followed the use of PVC, in 1989
a breakthrough occurred, in all
likelihood, by
accident. A New Zealand pediatrician, in a questionnaire to parents, who had
lost a baby, added a
last minute question to his list. What position was your baby sleeping in at
the time of death? The vast majority of responses, similar to a Netherlands
report from 1987, indicated that over 70% of deaths occurred in a prone or
face-down, tummy position. Of course, it needs to be pointed out, that at that time,
the tummy position was the medical recommendation of the AAP. It should also be pointed out
that since that questionnaire it is now known that by age 5 months the majority of babies are able to roll onto their tummies.
The subsequent somewhat simplistic recommendation to parents was
to place all babies on their
backs, rather than on their tummies has caused the death rate to dramatically
fall. By 1991, this Back to Sleep protocol had reduced unexplained deaths by
33%.
The same protocol caught on relatively rapidly in Great Britain with a similar reduction in deaths, whereas, in the United States,
there was resistance. The
American Academy of Pediatrics called for scientific studies to prove
that the back position was better than the prone position. It was even
suggested, that due to an increased likelihood of esophageal reflux in the
back position, the incidence of might even increase. However, no scientific study took
place and the back to sleep protocol was adopted in 1994.. . What factor favoring death could
reduce the risk by 38% by simply
moving a baby's face 180 degrees away from the crib mattress? The answer
according to the proponents of the fungal generation of poisonous gases, is
quite simple,
the back position is safer, because a baby's face is not in contact with the
mattress. Proponents go on to explain that babies continue to die, because
even the back position is only partially protective. The reduction in the
number of deaths has leveled off. The AAP points out that parents and
caregivers must still be using the stomach position or that murder is
reason. History has sadly been marred by Inquisitions
and witch hunts. The evidence of innocence may require a return to the
past.
More History: GOSIO THE CHEMIST
|
