Responses to 'Rethinking Swaddling'
/My December 3 post, “Rethinking Swaddling,” attracted more than 7,000 hits—a new record—and triggered many strong reactions. For some, this post met a need; for others, it struck a nerve. After reviewing the research, its central question was: Does swaddling really calm babies, or does it stress
them to the point of shutting down?
Readers responded with more than 50 comments here and on Facebook. One wrote: “My paradigms are shifting at an alarming rate!” Many understood the concern: “As a hospital lactation consultant, about 50% of my time is spent unswaddling and derobing babies and placing them on their mothers’ bare chests…Parents marvel at how I supposedly got a baby to latch who wouldn’t before.” “I would like to see the readouts of blood pressure, brain patterns, heart rate, temperature, etc.” And: “I remember a professor telling me she used a certain DVD to teach what ‘shut down’ looked like in a newborn.”
Many disagreed strongly. Some believed—despite the research findings—that because swaddling appears to calm babies that babies “like” or “prefer” it. “It’s not me who insists on the swaddle, but it is really my baby who wants it.” “Some [babies] prefer swaddling, others prefer to be free to move.” Many referred to swaddling as a way to “make babies happy.” But returning to the question: Are swaddled babies really “happy” or are they shut down? One thoughtful writer suggested: “it might be a great experiment to swaddle newborn puppies and kittens and see what happens, but probably animal rights activists would have my hide!”
Although avoiding swaddling right after birth made sense to most, some discounted the findings that swaddled newborns lost more weight and had lower temperatures. They believed that because their swaddled newborns breastfed without problems or because the baby they didn’t swaddle lost more weight initially than the one they did swaddle, the research must be “wrong.” Of course, there are many factors at work, and swaddling is just one of them. It takes many more than one or two babies to accurately measure the effects of any practice.
Some were concerned about “the consequences of not swaddling.” Without it, one wrote, “we would be seeing infants who are fussier, sleep less, and wear parents out more in the weeks following birth. Temptation will be to put them onto their tummies to sleep, increasing their risk for SIDS significantly.” Another wrote: “My guess is that swaddling has saved many infants from shaken baby syndrome (after extended crying bouts) and also allowed babies who have never been willing to sleep on their backs before to accept this practice (if they are not co-sleeping and bedsharing families).”
Swaddling and sleep was the subject of many comments. Several who were not bedsharing said their babies “needed to be swaddled to go to sleep.” One wrote that the biggest benefit of swaddling was “to encourage a baby to sleep on their back as per the AAP’s recommendation. It is unfair to me to give parents a recommendation for safety, and then not offer them tools to help them follow those instructions.” Another wrote: “If parents didn’t have unreal expectations or believe infants are meant to sleep all night in their own space at a few weeks old…they would cope much better.”
One wrote: “Swaddling helped immensely with putting him down to sleep after his needs had been met.” Biologically speaking, though, body contact is not just an optional “nice to have.” Like milk, it is one of a baby’s needs. Breastfeeding Made Simple explains that of the four categories of mammals, humans are considered “carry mammals.” Like the other carry mammals—such as the great apes and marsupials—constant holding and feeding during the early months are the biological expectations of our young. Has swaddling become a culturally acceptable substitute for the body contact our babies expect? One writer suggested that swaddling can be okay if parents are alert to their baby’s cues, but another responded: “Swaddling suppresses the baby’s cues...so no amount of responsive monitoring can see cues that aren’t there.” Or as one so succinctly put it: “Humans are meant to be close to mum, not at arms length being shushed at.”
One considered the article a “blanket statement against swaddling” and an “all or nothing” approach “based on opinion and not actual facts.” Another thought the post attempted to “take away a tool that many parents find so helpful and needed.” She contended that most parents only use swaddling as last resort after trying many other things first. However, more than a few popular books and DVDs suggest swaddling as a first strategy to calm a fussy baby.
Most would agree with the comment “We need to empower parents to read the research second and to read their babies and their own intuition first.” However, if parents are told repeatedly that swaddling makes their baby “happy,” this colors their interpretation of their baby’s response. Shouldn’t parents know that swaddling may be stressful for their baby? Anything less than full disclosure is patronizing. Only by hearing both sides can they make informed choices about this practice.
Another writer defended the post, noting “I don’t think the purpose of the article was to say swaddling should be thrown out altogether….It reads, ‘when babies get fussy, it may be best to limit swaddling and suggest instead parents consider alternatives, such as skin-to-skin contact and baby carriers.’” This seems like a logical approach until we learn more about swaddling’s effects on babies.
Finally, a writer cautioned against limiting swaddling because it is an “age-old practice” that has been “used for centuries.” However, the same could be said of discarding colostrum as “dirty,” an age-old practice in many cultures. We have since learned better. And if we discover with further research that rather than calming babies, swaddling actually does stress them, we may need to rethink this practice as well as many of our own assumptions about it.
