Essay On Co-Sleeping

Researchers today have found themselves dangling in the gray area between science and culture. Through numerous studies and data collection, scientists are able to confirm the possible consequences of co-sleeping. Parents, young and old, have found themselves on opposing ends of the benefits and dangers of allowing their child to share their bed. The article highlights parental decisions are often points of major contention that evoke the defensive maternal nature of today’s parents; however, the issue is rooted deeper than opposing viewing points. While parental choices will forever be debated on personal blogs and talk shows, once scientists place the unintentional death of children on the hands of the parents, people’s true defensive nature

comes out.
Throughout the article there is a common theme of approaching the topic of co-sleeping from an angle broad enough to not cause controversy. The enlarged scope placed on the dangers and benefits of varied sleeping arrangements isn’t carefully articulated. Scientific research shows an increase in the probability of death once the infant has aged one month. In their first month of life, death while co-sleeping is only the third leading cause. The public would be able to draw a confusing conclusion that co-sleeping is only safe in the first month, but then it jumps to the leading cause of death. The correlation between the two conclusions remains absent through the entirety of the article. While parents may be more attentive to the presence of their child that first month, that logical reasoning is not sound enough to draw a conclusion of safety on.
The article addresses some of the key factors in the researcher’s data collection.

The baby deaths researched centralized on solely 24 of the 50 states leading to a narrow pool of results. Further research should have been expanded to all fifty of the states in order to get a more accurate grasp on the current trends in co-sleeping. Questions of whether outside voluntary carcinogens and substances were involved were not researched which should lead the general public to be wary of the information presented to them. One of the dangers of a popular press article are the editor and author’s need to simplify material into a form that is engaging and simple enough for a larger audience. With mass publication comes oversimplification. A new mother may read this article and assume quite quickly that the dangers of co-sleeping are minimal. The article concludes by praising mothers who co-sleep as parents who love their children so much that they don’t understand why their child shouldn’t sleep with them. Mothers or expecting mothers who read this article might feel a sense of shame for not providing their child with constant proximity to them. I personally would question the credibility of the article if I were an expecting mother who had no intention of co-sleeping. The manner in which the material is presented never gives a direct answer to the best method to chose for your sleeping baby. Both sides argue they have the right opinion, yet fail to back those opinions with irrefutable evidence and logical

reasoning.
As a pensive reader of popular press articles, I find their ability to simplify the science and logistics of the article both a blessing and a curse. Reading through the article I am left indecisive, simply stuck in the middle of two choices. The article fully develops the dangers of co-sleeping, yet sneaks in a ‘never mind it is ok’ right at the end of the article. If I were to make a well-informed decision, I would want more information regarding the long-term effects of co-sleeping. Knowing whether putting my child in an environment with a slight increase of risk would place them at a greater advantage later in life, then I would change my mind on the topic. However, the article centralizes on the immediate problems associated with co-sleeping and the lack there of.