Parenting: Is the Cry-it-out Method Good for Babies?

Cry-it-out is a controversial topic that raises heated debate amongst parents, psychologists and pediatricians. There are two sides that is for and against the Cry-It-out. The Method involves comforting a baby at predetermined time intervals to allow them to get sleep on their own. Parents approach this method with the view that a short term crying results into a long term sleep (Hiscock & Fisher, 2015). The controversy that surrounds this method argue that allowing a baby to cry especially for some extended intervals could be harmful for the baby. Some place it that the process is psychologically harmful to a baby in that, it counters their secure attachment.  To counter the two differing opinions I will respond that Cry-It-Out is a good method in that it gives a parent the opportunity of responding to the infant which promotes the overtime of the infant and a parent is always there for the infant. Secondly those who are against it wants the baby to have a full attendance to have a self-regulated sleep (Hiscock & Fisher, 2015). The problem is the nature of the response and the development period of a child.  Critics would say that that the method allows a baby to get distressed which often can cause digestive issues and to some extents it can damage synapses in a child’s brains. However, I think that a child cannot get brain damage since it is the nature to cry all the time. However. It should be noted that all parents are not thrilled with allowing their babies to cry. Sometimes a parents might want to sleep train their babies but they might be uncomfortable with it.  Nevertheless, understanding the concept from both pro and opposed directions cannot make it any better since there is yet established evidences of the long term effects of Cry-it-out for infants non both emotional and social effects.

References

Hiscock, H., & Fisher, J. (2015). Sleeping like a baby? Infant sleep: Impact on caregivers and current controversies. Journal of paediatrics and child health, 51(4), 361-364.