Natural Family Planning International

The Alaska Division of Public Health (ADPH) has stated since 2000 “that infants may safely share a bed for sleeping if this occurs with a nonsmoking, unimpaired caregiver on a standard, adult, non-water mattress.”  Because the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) stated in 2005 that infants should not share a sleep surface with adults or other children, the ADPH decided to research the issue once again in case their 2000 statement needed modifications.  The ADPH also expressed some concerns with the studies supporting the AAP findings. 
     Bedsharing with an infant is common in Alaska.  Those infants who always or almost always shared a bed increased from 33% in 1996 to 43% in 2005.  After researching all Alaskan infant deaths from 1996-2003,  the ADPH concluded that “almost all bedsharing deaths occurred in association with other risk factors despite the finding that most women reporting frequent bedsharing had no risk factors; this suggests that bedsharing alone does not increase the risk of infant death.”  Risk factors were “maternal cigarette smoking habits currently and during the last three months of pregnancy, prenatal smokeless tobacco or chew use, prenatal marijuana use, number of alcoholic drinks in an average week during the first three months before pregnancy and currently, and the position in which the infant was most often laid down to sleep.” 
     The ADPH reaffirms three policies:  1) that infants sleep on their backs unless told differently by a medical provider, 2) that infants never sleep on a couch or water bed, and 3) that infants sleep in an infant crib or with a nonsmoking, unimpaired caregiver on a standard, adult, non-water mattress.
     This study was published in Public Health Reports , July-August 2009. 
For 21 advantages of bedsharing, see Chapter 4 of The Seven Standards of Ecological Breastfeeding.
For safety guidelines on bedsharing and free brochures on this topic, go to “links” at left column on the Home Page of www.NFPandmore.org.  Scroll down to “Safe Bedsharing for Mother and Baby” and “Reactions to the AAP’s Policy Statement on SIDS.”

Sheila Kippley

Eco-breastfeeding
    Recently we read that some in the Church don’t like eco-breastfeeding, or at least don’t see any need for it in marriage preparation.  I wrote the following to a person who was experiencing this opposition. 

   I would like to sit down with such persons and say something like this.   I am sure you are interested in the health and well-being of children, especially the children of the poor.  How much would you be willing to invest in a baby food that is the most excellent food that can be invented, a food that actually changes in composition according to the needs of the child, a food whose quantity actually increases as the child wants more of it, and so health-protecting that its universal use would save the lives of 1,500,000 babies each year?  Further, the natural process of transmitting this food to the child benefits the mother as well as the child, giving both mother and baby long-term as well as short-term benefits.  Moreover, these benefits are dose-related; the longer they are received the better.  Not only that but if the natural process of transmission is done at a natural, baby-led frequency, it postpones the return of the mother’s fertility.  And the cost of this wonder?  Nada.  How can anyone who is genuinely interested in child welfare not be in favor of breastfeeding?  And how can anyone who comes to recognize, after appropriate education, that only the frequent suckling of ecological breastfeeding provides extended breastfeeding as well as extended infertility, be opposed to the teaching of ecological breastfeeding? It truly is God’s own plan for baby spacing and baby care.  Think about it!

John F. Kippley
Sex and the Marriage Covenant