wrote: >...Consequently there is no evidence in the > scientific literature (since no one was able to replicate the original > researcher's findings) to relate SIDS to some failure to resume breathing > after a pause or to abnormalities of the sleep cycle. A death due to prone > sleeping is asphyxiation, not SIDS. SIDS by definition has no discernable > cause. Am I right or wrong? > Stephanie Walker, RN, FNP How about this: You own a country where there is a SIDS (consistent definition, whatever you want it to be) rate of 4/1000 live births. You question the parents as to the position the baby's body was in when found dead. You discover 60% of the parents report the baby was found prone. You survey your kingdom and find that only 20% of your loyal subjects place their babies to sleep on their stomachs (for the sake of argument, lets say we are discussing babies less than 4 mths). So you do the math and you figure there are more prone babies in the dead group than there should be. You order all of your subjects top place their babies to sleep on their backs. No other change. Next year you find out there are only 1,7 babies dying from SIDS. Do you know what caused the SIDS? No Do you know how to decrease the incidence? Yes. Do you know that a dead baby found prone died of asphyxiation? No. Just because "SIDS by definition has no discernable cause" doesn't mean we can't decrease the incidence. As long as it is defined as having no discernable cause, it is not a mystery we have no cause. Sorta like the definition of Colic.... -g barden