1. Sleep training violates the evolved developmental niche (EDN) for early life, which includes naturalistic birth, breastfeeding on demand, nearly constant touch, responsiveness to the cues of the child, extensive positive social support including multiple adult caregivers, and free play with multi-aged mates.
2. Violations of ethical principles occur when medical professionals do not follow the EDN and advocate for separation of caregiver and baby, sleep in isolation, crying it out.
3. Healthcare providers have an ethical responsibility to facilitate children's optimal development by providing parents with alternatives to sleep training that don't isolate babies from adult presence and touch.
The article "What are the effects of sleep training on infants?" argues against sleep training for infants, claiming that it violates the evolved developmental niche (EDN) and ethical principles of healthcare providers. The author suggests that sleep training leads to long-term biopsychosocial-health effects, misdeveloped stress response, and misdeveloped brain systems. However, the article lacks evidence to support these claims and ignores potential benefits of sleep training.
The article presents a biased view by only focusing on the negative effects of sleep training and ignoring potential benefits such as improved sleep patterns for both infants and parents. The author also makes unsupported claims about the EDN without providing evidence to support them. Additionally, the article does not explore counterarguments or present both sides equally.
The article's promotional content is evident in its suggestion for alternative practices such as constant close contact with adults in early life and exposure to light early in the day. While these practices may have benefits, they are presented without acknowledging potential drawbacks or limitations.
The article's partiality is also evident in its criticism of a study published by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) without providing a balanced analysis of the study's findings or methodology. The author accuses the AAP of intentionally misleading parents but does not provide evidence to support this claim.
Overall, while the article raises valid concerns about potential risks associated with sleep training, it presents a one-sided view that lacks evidence to support its claims and ignores potential benefits. A more balanced analysis would consider both sides of the debate and acknowledge limitations and potential drawbacks of alternative practices.