Earlier this evening, I read a pretty traditional account of American parenting in the first six months of a baby’s life. Now, hours later, I’m unable to sleep and am still feeling unsettled by it.
Let’s say that the parents in question are educated, wonderful people — urban professionals with creative tendencies. They enjoy food, shop at the co-op, live in a small New York apartment, and are pretty similar to us. After the baby was born, though, they went down a more traditional path than we have, and their account of it was full of suffering and misery. Standard practice in this country with newborns involves putting them in a crib in a separate room, putting them to sleep on their backs (which can cause reflux), feeding on a schedule (somewhat less common), and leaving them to cry until they fall asleep, starting at four months (“sleep training”).
I kept wanting to intervene on behalf of the baby to say to the parents, “Hey, trust your instincts! Go to the crying baby, bring him into your room, let him sleep in different positions, and nurse him when he asks for it. Babies and mothers know what to do. Keeping your baby close to you means you don’t need to physically get out of bed to nurse him, so you’ll be less exhausted. Babies aren’t meant to sleep in their own rooms! They’re programmed to want to be with you, and if they are, you can respond to their needs quickly and quietly.
With Remi, we experienced the same awful reflux these parents described, but were able to cure it by putting him on his tummy to sleep — something that was totally accepted 30 years ago, but that isn’t now because of the SIDS risk. We read up on risk factors and felt Remi had good head control before we did it. We also were in the same room with him, so were very aware of how he was sleeping.
The description of letting the baby cry it out to get to sleep over a period of months made me so aggravated I had to stop reading. More crying & fewer feedings = less brain development and growth. I don’t feel it’s fair to any child to deprive them of that essential early development and I assume there are lasting effects. Also, early sleep-training = more parental angst and less trust and fewer feelings of security on the part of the baby. Many books argue that using CIO means a baby can put herself to sleep and stay that way for longer periods. It’s certainly something you can teach your baby to do, but I don’t believe it’s in the baby’s best interest. Longer, deeper sleep without the milk the baby needs to grown during that sleep doesn’t seem healthy. I also think responding to your baby strengthens your bond and results in fewer crying fits and less separation anxiety down the road. Sleep training later, when it feels right to the parent, seems okay. (When exactly it should happen is up for debate — every baby is different. In the interest of full disclosure, I’m no expert because we never did this and I still nurse Remi at night after 2+ years. I started to feel better about some CIO as Remi grew older. I know friends who advocate 7 months. As long as the baby is still nursing in the middle of the night, that seems okay — again, there are a million ways to approach this, but expecting a baby to sleep for 8-10 hours at 4 or 5 months, or letting a baby that age cry for long periods, seems worrisome.)
Why do people persist in these habits? Is it the medical community’s one-size-fits all approach that we revere? Even if we feel that it’s wrong to listen to your crying baby and not pick her up? It does seem typically American to apply so much science to the very ancient process of raising a child.
After consulting Google just now, it seems that we have proven that IQ, behavior, and health are all improved by attachment-parenting practices (some details here). Why aren’t they more promoted, then?
I seem to have a physical reaction to these issues — I feel sick when I hear stories of babies crying for long periods at night without comfort. This didn’t happen before I had Remi, so I suppose hormones are at work. I know I come across as rigid and judgmental, and I know I need to acknowledge that different things work for different babies and their families, but I’m dealing with some deep-seated protect-the-species instinct.
I know some of the things we’ve done — extended cosleeping and elimination communication (going diaper-free sometimes, which my son loved) — will seem wrong to others and may produce the same feelings. But I’ll stand by the basic rule of staying with your baby in the early months and responding to her needs. I feel like babies should have certain rights — it sucks that they’re whisked away even when they’re born and this cycle of letting the baby cry instead of meeting the baby’s needs begins. Babies are people too! Most non-western cultures use attachment parenting basic for the early months — breastfeeding on demand, cosleeping, baby-wearing. Why can’t we make this more mainstream?
Update: I’m feeling a little sheepish about being so dogmatic here, especially after mom and Amber pointed out a few things… I just regularly struggle with this utter conviction that it’s my way or the highway. I wonder if it’s hard-wired into my brain because, as mom says, having the strong conviction that I’m doing the right thing is what ends up making me a better parent. That would explain the women on the bus/street endlessly, urgently offering advice to all the new parents they see. We just can’t help ourselves.
And another update — some good discussion about tummy-sleeping here.