Not only have mothers rolled over on babies since time immemorial, but also this was so common a cause of death among infants that medieval writers had a specific term to describe it (to "overlay"). See 1 Kings 3:19 in the KJV -- "And this woman's child died in the night; because she overlaid it."
Your disbelief is contrary to centuries of actual historical events. The affluence that made it possible to place a child in a bed of its own had a significant positive effect on infant mortality. To argue otherwise is almost the equivalent of suggesting bleeding as a treatment for a fever: archaic, ignorant, and contrary to common sense. Regardless of whether you believe "real mothers" could smother a child while in bed with it, many have done so all throughout poor nations and history. Just because some mothers might be lucky enough or light enough sleepers to get away with it does not mean that universal adoption of this method would not have many tragic consequences...
Look, the article says there is a HUGE problem, or implies same, on infant death in the ghetto and also implies it’s because of mothers sleeping with their infants.
I believe there’s more to it than that and your eloquent but snooty answer doesn’t address that assertion.
Your response does prove that you slept at a Holiday Inn Express last night.
I am quite sure that there have been babies smothered by their sleeping mothers. But right here on this little visited thread several ladies, none of whom are bad or evil people, but several ladies have stated that they slept with their babies. Plenty of babies sleep with their parents and I’d almost argue that sleeping with one’s mother is more normal than otherwise. ALL animals sleep with their mother, at least when first born.
You state that the affluence that made it possible to put a child in its own bed has had a positive effect on infant mortality. How? I mean I can write words too that sound important, sober and serious. Where’s your statistics?
However, go to hell, if sleeping with one’s parents is dangerous than by all means it is stupid to do so. Understand my assertion is that sleeping with one’s mother is not as dangerous as made out to be. Sleeping with TWO parents...well I dunno.
The point being that I simply do not believe that large numbers of newborn infants are suddenly dying, only in certain zip codes mind you...give me some scientific snootiness about that...is because they are simply sleeping with their mothers.
You may believe this if you want. I have a bridge in Brookly to sell you, cheap.
Those mothers with suddenly dead babies are:
-sleeping DRUNK or SERIOUSLY DRUGGED with their baby
-telling authorities that all they did was lay down to sleep with the child and it woke up dead....but something else, neglect?...killed the child.
Like another poster said, they keep changeing our minds. First it was put baby on stomach...than on back. Now mothers are killing their babies in droves in certain zip codes only.
I daresay, and I’m only guessing here, but I daresay that very, very few babies are killed by the simple act of sleeping with their mother.
Common sense....it’s all we have sometimes.
Mother in pre-20th century society finds baby dead in the morning. Mother knows nothing about SIDS, heart problems, overwhelming infection, or any of the other things that killed little babies suddenly and silently - and inexplicably - before medicine got itself organized.
"Well, I must have rolled over on the baby while I slept."
Then of course you have to exclude those Hogarthian moms who were stoned on gin (and even in those days 'overlaying' was found far more commonly in the London slums) and evil people who abused children and then claimed they "found the baby dead."
Since cribs and bassinets are relatively recent innovations, and even now are found only among the more affluent in Western nations, if 'overlaying' were a serious problem you would be seeing a lot more of it.