Researchers Find Clue to SIDS Early Detection

SpaceAdmiral writes "The Globe and Mail is reporting that scientists have found babies who die from Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) tend to have an abnormality in their brain stem. By linking SIDS to a biological cause, it may now be possible to test for the abnormality and treat babies at risk of SIDS."

A promising theory

[Otter Escaping North]

Mrs. Otter gave birth to our first pup a little over a year ago, and I noticed even then that many of the strategies we were given to reduce the chances of SIDS (baby on their back, in their own bed, no blankets, no "crib-bumpers") really seemed to be about reducing the risk of suffocation.

I'm no scientist, but hearing a theory that some babies might be a little worse of when required to react to lack of oxygen tracks pretty well with what the prevention techniques.

Sounds promising - time for a bigger stu

Re:

[Belial6]

I have to agree with you on that. People keep telling me that "The doctors can tell if a baby has suffocated.", but since something is going on that 'The doctors' can't figure out, it is naive to think that it couldn't be that perhaps an infant can suffocate without causing the kind physical trauma that would show in an older person.

Re:

[ceoyoyo]

There's a difference between telling that a baby suffocated (which you can do) and telling WHY it suffocated. If it's got bits of blanket lint in it's lungs that's a pretty good sign. SIDS is mysterious because its victims don't have any obvious causes. This theory explains why -- their brains just forget to tell them to breathe.

Re:

[Belial6]

That's just it. Perhaps in infants, it is not easy to tell that they suffocated. Perhaps it is only obvious sometimes. Given that SIDS and suffocation have the same list of risk behaviors, it is a reasonable hypothesis that SIDS is suffocation.

Re:

[ceoyoyo]

SIDS is suffocation. When you stop breathing you suffocate. Do you mean, uh, suffocation with help?

Suffocation itself isn't hard to detect. It CAN be hard to tell why it happened... did baby get wrapped up in his blanket? Did Mom flip out? Did he stop breathing because of a brain disorder?

The second S in SIDS stands for syndrome... so technically any baby that dies suddenly for no apparent cause is a victim of SIDS. It is known though that some babies just seem to stop breathing. People have witnesse

Re:

[Belial6]

Ahh... Then we don't really disagree. Of course you and I are in the minority. SIDS is not generally accepted as suffocation. I happen to think that it is, and apparently you do too.

Re:

[jamesh]

All 4 of our kids had a lot of trouble sleeping as babies due to colicy(sp?) pains. They always slept best lying on their tummies with their legs curled up under them.

I guess my wife and I weighed up the risks associated with the babies sleeping on their tummies vs nobody (mum, dad, and kids) getting any sleep, and decided the former was the better option. (In fact, at 3am in the morning almost anything seems like a better option!)

I'm not sure how it compares to SIDS, but driving a car when you haven't slep

Re:

[IflyRC]

That kid's never going to wanna look at a club or baseball bat!

Re:

[DeadChobi]

Warranty void if seal broken!

Re:

[Otter Escaping North]

If you look at the statistics, the "in their own bed" recommendation only applies if the parent is drunk or drugged out.

...or is a heavy sleeper, has thick blankets, suffers from sleep apnea, or, or, or...

Look; I have no problems if mom and dad want to keep the little one in their bed. Different people, different cultures have different ideas and I'm all for that. I've never heard any credible suggestion about aural therapy to teach kids breathing techniques before - but maybe there's something to it.

Re:A promising theory

[Ironica]

Look; I have no problems if mom and dad want to keep the little one in their bed. Different people, different cultures have different ideas and I'm all for that. I've never heard any credible suggestion about aural therapy to teach kids breathing techniques before - but maybe there's something to it. (and seriously; as a parent, if you've got anything scientific to back that up I'd be genuinely interested.)

Dr. James McKenna is the leading researcher on this issue. Here's [naturalchild.org] an article that discusses his findings on the effects of parental proximity on infant sleep breathing. (For more info about him and his work in general, check out this [nd.edu] page.)

Also, I don't think it's mentioned in that article, but most of the recommendations against co-sleeping as SIDS prevention stem from one big New Zealand study (the kiwis have traditionally kept the best statistics on SIDS, so a lot of info comes from their data). That study initially found a statistically significant correlation between co-sleeping and SIDS deaths. However, later re-examination of the data found that, when controlling for maternal smoking (a factor that has been linked to SIDS by several studies), the correlation between co-sleeping and SIDS disappeared. New Zealand has a fairly large Maori population, which both is more likely to smoke and is more likely to co-sleep, and that caused the cross-correlation.

So yes, unless parents have particular health issues which make it unsafe (such as alcohol or drug use, extreme obesity, or certain sleep disorders) co-sleeping is safer than crib-sleeping. Dr. McKenna has found that the beneficial effects of sleeping near Mom extend even to kids in a crib in the same room as their parents, too, so for those with problems that prevent bed-sharing, modified co-sleeping is another way to keep baby safe. The cultural notion that sleep is an intensely private activity that should only be shared with your spouse does interfere with the safety of young children (and not just with SIDS; I remember hearing a story about a two-year-old who woke up in the middle of the night, decided to climb up her dresser, and was found dead in the morning after it toppled onto her... I can't imagine that happening to my two-year-old, since he still sleeps next to us!).

Re:

[r00t]

Even if it's break-even on the SIDS issue, there is the issue of emotional behavior. For millions of years, babies have slept with their mothers. Changing this is not good.

There have been monkey experiments which back this up.

Or...

[Tenareth]

They will find out that there are a notable amount of SIDS deaths that are marked as SIDS because doctors didn't want to make the parents feel any worse for putting the kid in a water bed, or with inappropriate bedding... or not sleeping with their kid the first 3 months to help regulate their breathing, or being too far away to have heard the baby cough up some sour milk and drown themselves...

SIDS is a horrible thing... but quite a few deaths that were actually the fault of the parent for not researching

Re:

[the_humeister]

As far as I know, all infant deaths get an autopsy by a forensic pathologist. At least for the ones at the place I work, the forensic pathologist do not make a diagnosis of SIDS even in the absence of evidence to the contrary. SIDS is a diagnosis of exclusion, but enough people have been burned in making that diagnosis (whereupon later it was found out that the parents did indeed kill the child) that at least the pathologists don't make (or at least shouldn't) that diagnosis anymore.

Re:

[Belial6]

The problem with the 'liable' part is that all of the risks are not known. All of your examples seem to alway be grouped together. There are also the risks of putting a tiny baby in a bed with them, the risks of breastfeeding, risks of staying too close to the baby, risks of not feeding formula. And what foods are good, and what foods are bad is far from a certainty.

Re:

[cluke]

It's not as clear cut as you might imagine. Parents get bombarded with all sorts of information, not all of it pratical, and not all of it consistent. For example, you say "sleeping with their kid the first 3 months to help regulate their breathing", yet people like Gina Ford advocate putting your child in it's own room as soon as possible to sort out their sleep cycle. Current wisdom also says you shouldn't have a baby in bed with you (for fear of accidentally smothering them), you seem to be suggesting th

Re:

[Ironica]

It's not as clear cut as you might imagine. Parents get bombarded with all sorts of information, not all of it pratical, and not all of it consistent.

Which is why it's important to check your sources.

For example, you say "sleeping with their kid the first 3 months to help regulate their breathing", yet people like Gina Ford advocate putting your child in it's own room as soon as possible to sort out their sleep cycle.

I had to google Gina Ford to find out who she is. It appears she is a maternity nurse

Re:

[mibus]

"Current wisdom?" Who is that?

The American Academy of Pediatrics and researchers who study infant deaths say bed sharing leaves babies vulnerable to being crushed or suffocated and may increase their risk for sudden infant death syndrome, especially if the mother is a smoker. ...

In advising against bed sharing, the policy statement pointed to numerous studies supporting its case, including one showing that nearly half of 119 infants who died suddenly and unexpectedly during a four-year period in the St. Lou

Re:

[mortonda]

Insightful?!?! How about -5 Insensitive, -1 Clueless, -2 Moron

but quite a few deaths that were actually the fault of the parent

So far their is precious little evidence as to what causes sids. Since the research reports so little that we can actually say causes SIDS, how can you POSSIBLY say it's the parent's fault?

Raising a baby is difficult and tiring. As a light sleeper, it become absolutely necessary to move our son out to his own room. Granted, we do have a baby monitor set up, and I placed

SIDS and sleeping on the stomach

[Stickerboy]

"Our son prefers to sleep on his stomach or side; I know that some research indicates a slight correlation of SIDS with sleeping on the stomach, but there is no evidence of causation. It's the only way he would sleep; what's a parent to do?"

Well, from one parent to another, let me say this... it's not a "SLIGHT CORRELATION", it's a statistical fact [nih.gov] that the rate of SIDS has dropped by 50% since the inception of the Back To Sleep campaign.

You can spin it however you want, but an awful lot of babies were smot

Re:

[ConceptJunkie]

Agreed. Attachment parenting has a lot going for it. It astounds me what some people think you should be doing to a newborn infant, who for all of her experience except the very present, has been in intimately close proximity with her parents.

I have 4 kids, each of whom slept with us until they were about 2. In fact, occasionally the littler ones still join us at night. Our kids are bright, independent and creative, and the idea that someone not impaired with drugs or alcohol or with a serious sleep con

Re:

[Xenna]

And then there's my brother who has a 13 year old son who *still* can't sleep on his own and sleeps in the bed with his parents. IMHO teaching your child to be able to get to sleep on his own is very important.

Then there's this other little problem. Three month old babies are supposed to sleep 16 or 17 hours a day. How did you solve that? Did you take turns sleeping with them or did you convince yourself that sleeping only 8 hours a day was fine for your baby? (note: it isn't)

X. (BTW I got a fat lip once wh

Re:

[ConceptJunkie]

During the day, the babies went in their cribs or Pack-n-plays. It usually worked out well, except for our first child who really didn't sleep like regular babies. Sometimes it seemed like he really did only sleep 8 hours a day. Of course, he's 12 now, and he seldom stays up late, even given the chance, and _always_ sleeps in until dragged out of bed. :-)

It's a bother that my daughter will come in our room, but it only happens maybe once a week or less, and she usually just curls up at the bottom of the

As a new parent, I think this is interesting

[blueZ3]

but this is more like the beginning of the beginning of a "solution" to SIDS. If there are brain stem and chemical abnormailites that cause SIDS, perhaps eventually we could check for those things in new babies before sending them home. Since the abnormailities were found in autopsies though, I'm wondering how long it will be before these abnormailities can be detected through some non-invasive procedure. But once there's a way, we could figure out which babies were prone to this and provided targeted warni

Re:

[bytesex]

I'm on my third child now - I know how you must feel. Let me tell you this: it's time to relax, man; being relaxed as a parent is everything with kids. Babies feel most comfortable (protected) lying on their stomachs (except for when they're really full sometimes), and besides, what happens if your baby, lying on its back, throws up in her sleep ? She might suffocate. What happens if your baby, lying on its side, rolls to her front ? Both her arms are on one side all of a sudden; she'll have no control

Re:

[bytesex]

My father, who is a doctor, had something to add to this as well, when I spoke about it with him. He said that the 'surge' (because it's not really that big a surge, but an upswing nonetheless) in asthma in very young children might be related to this as well; you see, most stomach reflux doesn't really make it all the way to the mouth, but might make it to the back of the throat. When you lie your child on its back, little bits of stomach acid might then trickle into its lungs. The etching causes damage

Awesome! More tests for Babies!!!

[AugstWest]

While this will possibly one day be good news, the number of tests for pregnant mothers and babies is just astounding. It turns into a situation where pregnant women are told "you have a 1 in 4000 chance that your child has X," which creates a lot of worry and concern for what in 3,999 out of 4,000 cases is nothing.

Frequently, these tests are for things that can't be cured, or that have experimental cures that are sanctioned by the American Societies of Obstetrics/Pediatricians, but the treatment success rate isn't known, nor are the potential harms of a lot of the "cures."

I'm not belittling the science here, nor am I saying that this isn't a good thing, I'm just pointing out a human cost here -- the stress levels for tests and procedures during these stages of development are very high, and it is an extremely rare doctor who will/can admit that their procedures are experimental.

If you're pregnant or have a small child, do some research on the tests you'll be given. You'll be amazed at what you discover.

Be carefull

[geekoid]

Mos parents research will take them to the internet, where the sites that know jack, ignore science, base 'fact' on nothing, or coincidence at best far outweigh the site that actual provide factual information.
I did an astounding amount of research after my first child was born. Someone without an knowledge of science can easily be lied to.

Re:

[Vitriol+Angst]

Great point parent.

When I had my first son, the test results came back "Positive" for Downs Syndrome. When I asked; "what are the chances?" The answer was; 1 in 300. How could we verify this? Amniosentisis (sorry about spelling) -- which is to sample the amniotic fluid in the spine of the baby. The risks were 1 in 244 (about) for killing the fetus.

We went with a detailed ultrasound, and the chances dropped to 1 in 150.

With about 300 different diseases tested in babies, I could see that to guarantee NO disea

Re:

[monkeydo]

An amniocentesis samples the fluid around the baby, and the needle does not (is not supposed to) touch the baby, let alone go into his spine.

If the risk went from 1 in 300 to 1 in 150, the risk went up, not down.

Re:

[Vitriol+Angst]

If the risk went from 1 in 300 to 1 in 150, the risk went up, not down.

Of course-- your right. I meant to say it the other way. The ultrasound showing the baby's form being within norms reduced the chance of Downs Syndrome by half, from 1 in 150 to 1 in 300.

My point is that the amniocentesis test has about a 1 in 250 chance of causing severe damage to the baby.

So, we have tests that go to nervous mothers, and the results are less accurate than the chance of damage by further testing. Amniocentesis is the ma

Re:

[Vitriol+Angst]

Thanks Slashdot Parent, you've done a better job making my point for me.

Would we accept a routine game that put a gun to our head and gave us a 1 in 200 chance of putting a bullet in our brain? No. But we ask that of pregnant mothers. The tests are NOT accurate -- there are false positives and then you get risk factors like "1 in 244" -- how useful is that? To me, it seems that there are some very useful tests, and then others that may be driven by labs wanting to charge for tests.

My wife had a miscarriage

Re:

[superflippy]

That's why when I was pregnant last year I told my doctor not to tell me the details of my test results. I said I only wanted to know if it passed the threshold to be considered a risk for any condition. Otherwise, don't tell me the number, just tell me I was below the risk threshold and won't need additional tests.

I knew that if I had exact numbers, I would worry unnecessarily and look up diseases online. It turned out that I had gestational diabetes, so the testing there was worthwhile, and I did get exa

Re:

[mutterc]

This is a standard statistical thing, when testing for anything rare. Doctors ought to hand out pamphlets on this when discussing any of these kinds oftest results. Consider this contrived example:

You have a condition whose incidence in the population in 1 in 1 million (i.e. if you pick a person at random, there's a 1 in 1 million chance they have this condition). You test for it with a test that's 99.9% accurate. This means that 1 out of every 1000 tests gives a wrong indication.

Suppose you run this t

Not a lot of parents on slashdot

[shrubsky]

After scanning the posts on this topic, I crave a -1 Inhumanly Tasteless moderation option.

Re:

[IflyRC]

Well, science is king here. I'm surprised I haven't seen a post stating that any fetus that tests positive should be used to harvest stem cells.

Treatment?

[jvance]

You mean, like not putting the baby in a cage in another room, where it can't queue its own breathing off of its mother's? They don't call it "crib death" for no reason.

Re:

[aug24]

You really think evolution has resulted in infants that need to 'queue' their own breathing from their mothers? (I'm ruling our that you think such a crap system would be intelligently designed.)

Crikey.

I think mechanical asphyxia (face down death) or some kind of error in the nerve structures controlling breathing are far, far, far, far, far more likely.

Justin.

Re:

[hondo77]

There's plenty of evidence to support this.

Where?

What /. Really Needs

[TheStonepedo]

is a "Preview" button. I should register for a patent for that little snippet of code.

Evolution and modern medicine

[Kope]

Sometimes stories like this get me thinking in odd, heartless ways.

If this condition has a genetic cause (not saying it does or doesn't, mind you) . . . then don't we make our species weaker by treating it and allowing those kids who would have died to grow up and reproduce?

Sure, in this one case it might only be a few thousand kids a year, but add up all the diseases and conditions that have genetic links that we are treating successfully with modern medicine . . . while the short-term gain of having a lar

Re:

[fuzz6y]

what is the long term implication for our species' ability to survive?

Natural selection favors traits that allow a species to survive in its environment, not in some other environment, such as the one its forbears inhabited.

So, for example, our forefathers were genetically predisposed to not be allergic to peanuts. That was simply not a trait a specimen could express and survive. Nowadays, with effective diagnosis and cortizone shots and "May contain nuts" labels all over the place, it's something you c

History?

[wonkavader]

I'm going to bring up an unpleasant topic because I'm hoping someone here has real information and can talk about the history of SIDS.

When I was growing up, the thinking about SIDS was that while the phenomenon existed, a good number of SIDS cases were actually murders of children by parents (if I recall, mothers were primarily blamed) using SIDS as the alibi.

Was that crap? Do we know? What's the thinking now? (Not what causes it, but whether the number of cases of SIDS is actually the number of ACTUAL c

"treat", yes that's it.

[Trogre]

...test for the abnormality and treat babies at risk of SIDS

I think we know where this will probably lead.

Anyone have the stomach to research the Down Syndrome test?

will it help?

[v1]

It's been awhile since I saw any shows that focused at all on SIDS, but I thought they already knew there was a problem with the brain stem? I mean, people don't just keel over for no reason, these babies are dying of what amounts to respiratory or cardiac shutdown, they just stop doing the things necessary for basic biological survival. These things are controlled by the brain stem. It should be no surprise that SIDS is linked to the brain stem.

And how do they intend to 'treat' these babies? pacemaker

look to other countries for "treatment"

[UnanimousCoward]

SIDS is virtually unheard of in countries where the parents sleep with their infants. I hope that the treatment consists of telling the parents to put the child in their bed as opposed to some kind of drug therapy...

Ryan's mom

[Schraegstrichpunkt]

The truth [timecube.com] is that these kids are just too lazy and undisciplined to do what's best for them (that is, to continue breathing). That's what happens when you don't beat your kids [thebestpag...iverse.net].

Re:

[soft_guy]

Why do scientists have to ruin everything, can't they just relax and laugh at SIDS like everybody else?

Yeah, if the parents of the babies that die from SIDS can laugh about it, why can't the scientists?

Re:

[crabpeople]

How is this funny? I mean that 18 inch joke a few comments above me actually was funny, so I do have a sick sense of humor - but I cannont see wtf was the point of your comment... its just weird. Is SIDS an acronym for something technical as well?

Re:

[porkface]

Lesson #205
Tribute.wmv was funny, 9/11 wasn't, see the critical difference?

Lesson #206
Tribute.wmv was not funny to those who lost a loved one in 9/11.

Lesson #207
Tribute.wmv is still funny.

Insert SIDS as necessary.

Re:

[dr_dank]

Sids can be funny. Sid Caesar entertained millions with his funny voices and variety shows. Sid Kroff and his brother Marty made an indelible mark on the pop culture landscape with such programs as Lidsville and Land of the Lost.

Re:

[geekoid]

Mod down -5 lidsville reference.
Bastard.

also, I never found Sid Ceaser to be funny.

Re:

[Alphager]

There still is natural selection: the rich can afford it, the poor can't.

Re:

[ultranova]

Poor people with genetic defects may not have the resources to stay alive long enough to reproduce, which could paradoxically lead to the appearance of a stronger subspecies due to natural selection among poor people (assuming that poor people's descendants tend to be poor).

What's paradoxical about it ? A wolf is a lot tougher than a poodle.

That said, rich and poor are not separate breeding populations, so they aren't going to speciate even partially.

Re:

[ampathee]

So if you were diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, you'd just shrug and refuse treatment?

Re:

[Xzzy]

The question shouldn't be about staying alive, it should be about people with genetic defects procreating. I think it's pretty obvious we're diluting our gene pool with a bunch of shit (the rise of nearsightedness seems like an obvious one to me), a huge number of diseases have their symptoms treated without the problem being fixed. When these people have kids.. they're just perpetuating the decline.

I don't think we can deny these people having children, it's more of a personal responsibility thing. It's wh

Not getting the point...

[Junta]

If you understood natural selection, 'diluting' the population is never bad. Genetic diversity to the extent that a species can pull it off always means more flexibility. See my other post around here.

For example, picture the population genetic diversity represented as a bell curve, with the 'optimum' being the modal value. This curve comes about from a whole set of selection pressures, which in an abstract way in this example maps in the aggregate toward that modal value being allowed to survive.

If your

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Amouth]

well one has to wonder.. if Hawkng was to live with cave men.. and survive.. what would a cave man need with a black hole???

Re:

[Fred_A]

Well, when cavemen found black holes, they would usually...

Wait, are there children reading this ?

Re:

[Amouth]

this is slashdot.. that depends on what you mean by children..

if it is a question of age then no.. if it is a question of level of bain funcion then well, you might wnat to keep it to your self :)

Re:

[megaditto]

Poverty and education have very little to do with inhereted intelligence. Until very recently (last century or so), the majority of people could not read or write, and not because they were too dumb, but because they weren't given a chance.

Moreover, intelligence is unpredictable and can show up in a child from a very unfortunate background. I know a "trailor-trash" kid who did not know the alphabet until he was 15 (not a typo!), yet he got his PhD+MD by 29.

This is precisely why every trailor-trash/ghetto we

Look at it from the gene's point of view

[Colin Smith]

The question shouldn't be about staying alive, it should be about people with genetic defects procreating. I think it's pretty obvious we're diluting our gene pool with a bunch of shit (the rise of nearsightedness seems like an obvious one to me), a huge number of diseases have their symptoms treated without the problem being fixed. When these people have kids.. they're just perpetuating the decline.

You're looking at it the wrong way round. You're seeing the species as important. It isn't. What's important

Re:

[Colin Smith]

What planet do you live on? Happy fuzzy bunny world? It's exactly why we're racist, go around raping, killing, invading foreign countries. FFS, it happens the instant that the threat of force is dropped.

 

Re:

[danpsmith]

So if you were diagnosed with cancer tomorrow, you'd just shrug and refuse treatment?

Cancer is hardly 100% faulty genes. Not that I necessarily agree with the original point, but...bad analogy.

Re:

[ampathee]

Well, neither is cot death. Apparently, faulty genes make it much more likely to happen - but there's no reason a baby with those genes can't survive and lead a happy life. In either case, there's absolutely no reason to just sit back and do nothing when you have the ability to do something about it.

Basically, I don't like the notion that "nature" somehow knows what's best for us, and that we shouldn't try to "mess with the balance". It's a complete non sequitur anyway: babies will die if we don't help them

Nope...

[Junta]

Natural selection is, in the most basic form, eliminating those traits that do not survive in whatever the current environment is. In this case, assuming that a defect transforms from near certain fatality to usually treatable, even if through human advancement of the 'environment', the environment simply has changed to not weed out that attribute, one way or another.

Really, if you want to have the heartiest gene pool with respect to the whole natural selection scheme of things, you keep everyone alive you can within reason, even if no apparent benefit can be objectively realized for their apparent defect. The whole deal is that when the environment changes, bizarre things can happen and the more genetic diversity your population has, the more able it is to survive radical changes.

An example is sickle-cell anemia, most common people with an incomplete grasp of natural selection would think 'that sucks, let nature eliminate that gene from the pool!'. However in the incomplete dominance model it happens to behave, a person heterozygous for sickle cell anemia happens to be much more resistant to malaria.

In the case of this article, let's assume some neurological pathogen suddenly becomes ubiquitous to the human environment, and somehow the brain stem 'defect' shields those with the trait. Assume this preliminary research is correct and leads to a cure for SIDS, for the sake of discussion. You have a hearty population with a now harmless defect that would be the only survivors. If SIDS wipes out that 'defect' and such a weird pathogen came, the species goes extinct.

To be trekkie for a moment, a good demonstration is when the TNG crew came upon a planet that eliminated all defective conceptions to not deal with the associated problems. However, their planet was saved from obliteration based on technology in Geordi's visor, which never would have come about in a society where they avoided having to make such a device. The principle is interesting fodder for science fiction, and that I think illustrates well the pitfall of 'let only the best go on'. Best is always relative to the current status quo, which is never unchangeable.

Re:

[ceoyoyo]

There is some advantage to not having the environment you're adapted to be one that requires extensive and delicate artificial means to support. I think there are better options than eugenics though.

Not necessarily...

[Junta]

In most probable circumstances, yes, a particular individual who would require delicate artificial to survive will likely not be the better adapted to a realistic environment. However, if your environment is sufficiently resource rich/technologically advanced to enable you to be more productive than you cost to keep alive, it's almost certainly worth it to keep you around rather than to let you die off. Let's say you are a bed-ridden person who needs food brought to you, but you are so damn brilliant you

Re:

[ceoyoyo]

I agree with you about genetic diversity being a good thing, and in cases like this that's certainly what would seem to be happening. A good example is sickle cell anemia. One copy of the defective gene gives you resistance to malaria (certainly a good thing to have in most parts of the world). Unfortunately two copies makes you really sick. Still, it's definitely (and immediately) useful to have that mutation in the gene pool.

The situation changes a bit if a given mutation somehow spreads preferentiall

Eeeew.

[r00t]

Imagine a world where everyone constantly needs invasive medical procedures and is horribly handicapped. People have bones that can't hold their weight, so they must be strapped into robots to go anywhere. Nobody gets to have sex, because their bodies can't handle the stress. (babies come from machines) Most humans are heartless, literally, with machines hooked up to move the blood. Breathing is done via mechanical device. Dyalysis is universal. Diabeties is universal. Human powered motion is impossible for

Again missing the point...

[Junta]

That is a future *assuming* that people who *don't* need invasive procedures somehow have selective pressures against them. The increased incidence of people living with disabilities or with defects correlates only to population growth above and beyond what would have happened otherwise if they all just died. Why in the world would the people who do not require excessive medical assistance die out? The tendency for a population that has reduced selection pressures is to grow a lot more including 'disable

Re:

[jafac]

Why was Geordi's visor more technologically-advanced than Data's vision-system?

Aw crap. I'm still bitter about being turned down as a writer for TNG. . .

Re:

[thePig]

I was of your view until I read one another way of looking at it
Human beings have a very small gene base.
We all were created from the small base of around 10,000 people (i guess), who survived the Toba volcano eruption.
Such being the case, it is very important for us to have the biggest gene variation as possible, lest some really bad happens to us (say a really bad virus or something).

In my view, it is very important to keep all the gene variations alive rather than killing off the the unsavory ones.
I woul

Re:

[rohan972]

We tend (even if we don't think too deeply about it) to reject natural selection as a basis for evaluating our behaviour and forming our values. Most of us find supremely insulting the idea that our genes should be eliminated from the gene pool to improve humanity.

A bit like the people who think the earth is overpopulated, but haven't arranged a mass suicide for themselves.

Re:

[Sounder40]

So you're saying that SIDS is really just abusive parents?

Re:

[Otter Escaping North]

I think that "abnormality in the brain stem" is itself due to the parentus getting maddus at the kiddus and giving him a slappus for which they don't want to take the responsibilitus.

Man, a direct-from-the-ass theory that even manages to magle the Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur approach.

I suppose it'll get modified insightful - a much stronger indication that someone was beaten on the head while a child.

Re:

[arivanov]

More likely shaking.

Slap or any other single impacts tend to injure the cortex on the slap side and the opposite (countershock) side. They do not damage the stem.

On the other hand shaking definitely damages the stem. So the picture is more along the lines of "parentus getting maddus at the kiddus and shaking him for which they don't want to take the responsibilitus"

Re:

[UbuntuDupe]

Okay, but I think you mean "parentus getting maddus at the kiddus and performing the shakus operation for which they don't want to take the responsibilitus".

Let's try to stick to proper terminology here.

Re:

[doit3d]

I work in emergency medicine (have for many years), and am currently working on my Phd in pharmacy. I have seen first hand infants who have died, and the death attributed to SIDS. I am going to dispel the misconceptions here & now about your comment on "shaking" and other similar accusations.

Shaking or slapping a child causing injury to the brain leaves signs & is easily recognizable. Battle's signs (bruising behind the ears) are prevalent in such a case of abuse, even post mortem. Abuse is easy

Re:

[SpaceAdmiral]

I think you read a summary from a different article, since this one doesn't imply surprise on the part of the scientists at all. But I'll still try to answer your question: The biological cause (e.g. an abnormality in the brain stem) is being contrasted here with a statistical correlation (e.g. lying babies on their back seems to reduce SIDS, but we don't really know why) as opposed to being contrasted with a mystical cause (e.g. magical unicorns that, despite being pretty cute, are incredibly vicious and

Re:

[mordors9]

Your mixing them up some. When our kids were babies, we were told to lay them on their stomach so that they wouldn't aspirate their own vomit if they spit up during their sleep. Then suddenly they decided that doing that caused SIDS. It would be nice if they actually came up with a cause rather than just pulling theories out of their ass.

Re:

[geekoid]

"They" are looking for a cause, but it is damn difficult. In the mean time it's hell for parents.
Just removing the hearsay would be a good thing.

Re:

[Ironica]

Your mixing them up some. When our kids were babies, we were told to lay them on their stomach so that they wouldn't aspirate their own vomit if they spit up during their sleep. Then suddenly they decided that doing that caused SIDS. It would be nice if they actually came up with a cause rather than just pulling theories out of their ass.

Actually, parents were told to lay kids on their stomachs because they sleep more soundly that way. The vomiting/aspiration thing sounds all doctorly, though, so they pi

Re:

[jimktrains]

Not if there are ways to prevent it once the child is born. Then the test coudl help make the parents more aware of anything they need to pay closer attention to.

Re:

[yeremein]

Another thing that a test would allow for is for mothers to terminate such a pregnancy. It'd be a lot better to know for sure than to wonder if your baby is going to die randomly.

Well, the kid might wander out into the street and get hit by a bus when he's 5. Might as well snuff him before then so that can't happen.

Re:

[Belial6]

I would have to agree. Right now, people keep trying to push me to have my two year old vaccinated for Chicken Pox. Now, I am all for vaccinating for polio, hepatitis, and all sorts of other diseases. The problem with the Chicken Pox vaccine is that instead of it being a vaccine that prevents a disease that is crippling, and has the same risks as a child and adult; it is a vaccine that it prevents a disease that is a major hassle as a child, but exposes you to a real risk of death as an adult.

The two

Re:

[Watson Ladd]

What do the words not a cause [aappublications.org] mean to you?

Re:

[gwyrdd benyw]

If you do all the tests, and one comes up negative, they ask you if you want to terminate it.

I'm not getting your point. Wouldn't you want to know as soon as possible if there was a problem? You seem to be implying that being asked about termination is a horrible thing, but I can't tell.

(For the record, I would terminate a pregnancy if a test revealed a serious problem. Life sucks enough already without being given an unfair deal from day one, and every child deserves to be a healthy child.)

Re:

[Rik Sweeney]

let alone children

None that they know of anyway...

Re:

[Kymermosst]

At least half of that 99% are children.

Re:

[__aaclcg7560]

Yeah, college midterms can do that to do you.

Re:

[__aaclcg7560]

I guess I need to add gay references to my Slashdot F.A.Q. [creimer.ws].

Re:

[__aaclcg7560]

Old enough to play Pong when it first came out. That's before the TV version and the arcades. Old enough that my parents kicked me out of the house during the summer.

Oblig Dr Katz

[porkThreeWays]

I think I may have SIDS

You think you may have Sudden Infant Death Syndrome? I don't think you can have that

Well I think mine may be going more gradually. I think I may have GRIDS.

Re:

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

what difference would knowing this beforehand make, other than a stressed-out pregnant woman?

Well it's useful if you could abort a baby with Down's Syndrome. I know I certainly would.

A large proportion of people put their babies to sleep on their backs. If skull deformity were assured there'd a large proportion of the population with skull deformity.

Re:

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

When we explained our opinion to the MedIndustry drones, they were incredulous and kept trying to pressure us into the tests.

Well I agree with you that it's bizarre for people to insist on such testing in a situation where it could serve you no possible benefit and I'm glad you stuck to your guns. But obviously some people do have their interests served by such testing.

Both girls have hairless flat spots on the backs of their heads.

Haven't the parents heard of "tummy time"? I have a flat area on my h

Re:

[chialea]

The same medical industry drones who wanted us to do prenatal testing for Down's Syndrome (what difference would knowing this beforehand make, other than a stressed-out pregnant woman?)

There are three reasons (off the top of my head) that one might want to know beforehand:

1. Termination. You might not terminate a Down's-positive fetus, but some people do, especially if it looks like they're going to die anyway.

2. Treatment. I have heard that some heart defects (which is one of the largest death-related dang

Re:

[Rayban]

Not sure what the real results are - they seem to have shown results:

http://www.cotlife2000.co.nz/wrap.htm [cotlife2000.co.nz]

But there seems to be a press release that Wikipedia mentions that disputes it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudden_infant_death_s yndrome#Speculated_associations [wikipedia.org]

Re:

[Rayban]

The discussion page on the Wikipedia SIDS page makes it sound like the mattress wrapping thing is a crock:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sudden_infant_de ath_syndrome [wikipedia.org]