Talk:Swaddling/Archive 1

Swaddling-Popular or unpopular in the Western World?
I'm curious to know the basis for the statement that swaddling has "fallen out of favor in the Western world". Perhaps it is true that Americans do not swaddle there young like tribal peoples, but when it comes to bedtime, I've found that a new infant swaddled is much easier to get to sleep than otherwise. The hospital here (in Texas) swaddled the babies in the nursery. It is a technique also taught in the book What to Expect the First Year on pages 86-87.Gregory Y 03:05, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Other experts disagree with your claims. Today I have added the paragraph:


 * "Others have been shocked that the medieval practice continues today . According to Arthur Janov, the effects of swaddling on all adult’s emotional lives is profound. There is a lifelong deficit on oxytocin and oversupply of cortisol, the stress hormone, resulting in a lifetime of rage and anxieties (Arthur Janov, The Biology of Love, pp. 35, 303). Even rats lose hormones in the hippocampus and orbital frontal lobes when tied up like swaddled human infants, developing depletions in serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine, exacerbated aggressive behavior and a severe decrease of social capabilities (reference cited in article today)."


 * —Cesar Tort 16:50, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Cesar,

Not so many thanks for your unhelpful, unsubstantiated claims about swaddling as a form of child abuse. While I respect your right to voice your opinions, you are at bottom a charlatan: on the one hand, your personal page inveighs against the scientifically-minded folks who you (rightly) identify as the main constituency of the Wikipedia, yet you insist on e-publishing your views here. I don't think you're interested in this community's spirit of verifiable information. No, I think you want a soapbox.

Let me put it this way: as a soon-to-be dad who wanted to find out about whether swaddling was a good or bad idea, I found your contra-swaddling views frankly pathetic. Let me make it really clear: I would readily accept your claims that swaddling is indeed a horrific insult on the body and psyche of an infant if you gave me reason to think so. But you need to supply an argument, you need to supply the paper trail to the evidence. If you don't Cesar, you'll never be taken seriously. Let's be clear again: it's nothing about the proposal per se (what your asking us to endorse is the classic form of bunkish conspiracy argument that goes "a truth so fundamentally destabilizing to the powers that be that it's suppressed at every turn". It's a crock of shit -- it asks us to suspend disbelief in the specifics of your claim because of, say, generalized distrust of said powers).

And I particularly love your take on the bibliographic apparatus: you offer up Arthur Janov. Fair enough, but as a controversial (and no stranger to the unsubstantiated himself), he can't really be seen as adding much to the paper trail. I for one would hesitate to attribute him as a reliable source (e.g., as a psychotherapist, just what does he know about brain physiology?)

-- Anon

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.132.90 (talk • contribs)


 * Hi Anon. Most of your post is pretty ad hominem. Isn’t it? And, BTW my second reference is not Janov's.


 * Also, take a close-up look at this photo about “modern” swaddling.




 * The baby doesn't have a happy face. He seems to have suffered.


 * —Cesar Tort 13:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Cesar,

You know, an ad hominem attack is one which depends for its effect on attacking the person who delivered up an opinion, rather than its substance. Point taken: but suppose we take out the inflammatory "crock of shit" or "charlatan". How does the rest count as an ad hominem? You're right too about the second reference you supplied, to one Michel Odent: I misread that to refer to Janov. But this is a personal impression of a visits to China and what can only be described as speculation about the connection between swaddling and suicide. And no, that baby doesn't look happy or unhappy: (s)he looks a recently born infant who has a skin rash. But let's suppose that (s)he is indeed unhappy: what I want to know are the mechanics that let us attribute it to the swaddling. But I can find none in what you wrote, nor in what you've cited.

Good luck, Anon

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.132.90 (talk • contribs)


 * By the "second reference" I placed in the article I didn't mean the China visit, but this one:

Even rats lose hormones in the hippocampus and orbital frontal lobes when tied up like swaddled human infants, developing depletions in serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine, exacerbated aggressive behavior and a severe decrease of social capabilities (see e.g., Bruce D. Perry, "Neurobiological sequelae of childhood trauma: PSTD in children" in Michele Murburg: Catechloamine Function in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Emerging Concepts, American Psychiatric Press).


 * —Cesar Tort 07:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Dear guys, you're reading way too much into the picture. The kid (my daughter) was neither unhappy nor had she a skin rash. She was just freshly (approx 5 minutes) born into the world, and was deranged by the lights of the delivery room. Dunemaire 15:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I just read : Perry, Bruce D. (1994). “Neurobiological sequelae of childhood trauma: PTSD in children” in Michele Murburg: Catechloamine Function in Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: Emerging Concepts. American Psychiatric Press, 223-254. and I can not find anything supports the claim that he would have found negative effects from swaddling on rats. The only reference to rats in the article is: 'In rats exposed to perinatal handling stress major alterations in the ability of the rat to 'learn' and to respond appropriately to stressors are seen later in life (Weinstock et al. 1988).' and I could find no mentioning of swaddling whatsoever. I therefore suggest to remove this reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toddler3 (talk • contribs) 09:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I support (and second) Toddler3's claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.22.13.11 (talk) 05:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Origins?
The article should say something about why swaddling was thought to be beneficial (i.e. why was it thought to assist posture), why it was so widespread (did it develop in different cultures independently??), and why the belief persisted so long.Ben Finn (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

China
Description of the practice in China should be added. Badagnani (talk) 05:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Barbaric?
It is all too convenient that an infant is unable to communicate his discomfort at the hands of this practice. So I challenge a mother to spend a single night in such a state of bondage before subjecting her baby to this. It would not be considered humane to do this to our prisoners. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.208.61.221 (talk) 02:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Babies are very good at communicating their discomfort. In my personal, unscientific example, my baby sleeps 1-2 hours, and then proceeds to wake himself up with his wildly waving hands while unswaddled.  While swaddled, he will sleep 8 hours though the night.  The same is true for daytime naps, though the time periods are shorter.  He'll sleep 15 minutes without swaddling, and 1 hour with swaddling. I have to believe that he likes it, or he'd scream more.  Azoreg (talk) 21:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)