A scientifically-minded person should not prefer random internet commentators to doctors' when the sole argument proferred by the former is that things used to be a certain way, therefore it's ok.
If you actually look into the research instead of offloading your opinions to the experts, you'll see that the SIDS research is not well done. As I recall, the work on which this AAP decision was based included sleeping in a couch and sleeping while intoxicated - not exactly best practices. SIDS is basically just a catch-all term for "we don't know what killed the baby".
That would also be a terrible argument. To name just one example, shaken baby syndrome still exists.
> If you actually look into the research instead of offloading your opinions to the experts
I've briefly looked into the research, and it seems to mesh pretty well with what the experts are saying. Now you are saying that it "isn't well done". That may be true. But I'm not seeing anything that shows co-sleeping to be equally safe with a crib in the same room. So I have a few possibilities: all the experts are wrong and all the studies that are being done on the issue are defective. Or, SIDS is probably somewhat related to co-sleeping. Unless there is some more evidence that I'm not seeing, I'm going to have to assign the latter a higher probability of being true.
Also, let's face it, part of the reason people offload opinions to experts is that experts are trained in analyzing and processing data in their domain to a greater degree than non-experts. There needs to be some pretty compelling evidence to override their views.
http://www.bmj.com/content/339/bmj.b3666
TLDR: In this study, SIDS was more likely if the co-sleeper had ingested drugs/alcohol, if the sleeping occurred on a couch, or both. Sober co-sleeping on a bed was as safe or safer than not co-sleeping.
(Just to play devil's advocate) Yes, but one can surmise an evolutionary reason for that - a colicky child is more likely to be the victim in that scenario; likewise, a colicky child is less likely to be healthy.
A better argument may be that prior to 'modern' medicine, bassinets (or an analog) were spontaneously popularized in various cultures -- (if that's true).
> all the experts are wrong and all the studies that are being done on the issue are defective.
Many doctor's groups positions, when confronted with inconclusive evidence, tend to (rightfully) stand on the side of caution. A great example is caffeiene (as well as many other foods) in pregnancy. Little evidence for harm, but its possible. So its a little less harsh than all experts being dead wrong and studies defective; more likely all experts playing it safe and studies inconclusive (if that is the case).
(/devils advocate)
Certainly the default position should be that medical professionals know what they are talking about for folks who are not inclined to do the actual research.
In general I agree with you. When you're faced with a large amount of literature from many doctors and specialists in the field you should be able to assume that someone has done the research, and that most of the medical profession agree.
It'd be great if more people could read and understand research. But we're stuck with sub-optimal reporting, and people struggling to understand what is really meant by "50% reduction in risk" or "20 times less likely to die".
Having said all that: Here's an off topic rant.
There are very many examples of doctors not using scientific method but relying on their "expertise".[1]
This has caused significant harm to many people.
Doctors tend not to talk about stuff that is obvious nonsense, and a lot of their interventions sound plausible. But that's the sneaky danger! We know woo is woo, and if people want to fund research into it good luck to them. But for things that sound plausible? That's exactly when we need good research, because common sense and expertise is fallible.
This isn't from doctors trying to deceive people. It's from good clinicians who are not aware of their limits.
[1] A great example is "Arthroscopic Knee Surgery No Better Than Placebo Surgery", from about 2000.
Hell, if you do the research there are plenty instances of people punching their sleeping partner in the face during sleep, because they were having a dream (I almost did it once, with my fist landing right next to my girlfriend's head in her pillow. I thought I was having a fist fight, but I was dreaming)
So, could a human kill a baby by sleeping with it? I don't know. Could a swallow carry a coconut?
Weight/mass has very little to do with it. The baby is never 'crushed' it is 'smothered'.
Also when you smother a baby (accidentally or intentional) it squirms. So common sense would indicate the key factor is how heavily you sleep, and how easily could you role onto the baby.
If the babies head is the same level as your head, the chances of rolling on top, would require some pretty intense dreaming.
Knocking a baby off the bed is very unlikely to kill a baby (they are in a relaxed state, and have flexible bone structure/skull).
Research indicates co-sleeping is dangerous when the adult has consumed alcohol or drugs (i.e is sleeping very heavily).
I can set 5 alarms and hear none. I only wake up at the end of a sleep cycle, no matter what's happening around me.
I just bought a new mattress and I can say for sure, after having slept on a $100 target futon for the past 2 years, that I'd not know if a baby was underneath me on this one...
But the fact is, being a doctor doesn't make you an expert in nutrition or diet, and it certainly doesn't make you an expert in things like co-sleeping.
I'm pretty sure the only deaths you'll have these days as a result of co-sleeping is when one of the parents smoked, took drugs or was obese (and usually a combination).
I know this looks odd but I know first-hand people working inside the hospital and I got internal acknowledges about the fact that hospitals received pressurs in the context of breastfeeding once they started to encourage it too broadly. Artificial milk is a 50$/week tax they are able to get from most newborns for months.
It would be hard to study causality in this instance because of medical ethics. You cannot assign a treatment that you believe to be more likely to cause an infant to die, so RCTs are impossible in this domain.
http://www.medpagetoday.com/Pediatrics/GeneralPediatrics/164... -- co-sleeping babies are 21.7 times more likely to die from SIDS than non-co-sleeping babies, according to this study. That definitely doesn't prove causality. But the correlation is certainly waggling its eyebrows suggestively in causality's direction.
There are parents that co-sleep because they are disorganized, drunk, and so forth, not even able to put the children in their bed. That's the reason why probably there is no causality.
It's not a great argument necessarily, but people accept additional risk of injury to their kids all the time if the benefits outweigh the risks.