December 14, 2012

Sounds Like These Nap Nanny Infant Recliners Are Killin' Babies

nap_nanny_cpsc.jpg

Even after one death that led to a 2010 recall and a redesign to strengthen the 3-point harness, the Nap Nanny and related Chill infant recliners are apparently killin' babies.

Now the CPSC is suing Baby Matters, the manufacturer, because their voluntary recall plan was deemed unsatisfactory. Since the first recall, the CPSC learned of four more infant deaths involving the recliners, and dozens of incidents of kids falling or hanging out of them.

Around 155,000 Nap Nannies and Chills have been sold in the US since 2009. I'm going to vote NO on these for a good baby shower gift suggestion.

What kinds of contoured foam baby sleep devices have threatened your kid's health or safety? Tell us in the comments!

Five Infant Deaths Prompt CPSC to Sue Manufacturer of Nap Nanny and Chill Infant Recliners [cpsc]

5 Comments

So the fact that parents misues these (and Bumbos) means they should be taken off the shelves?
The Nap Nanny was a godsend for my baby, who needed to fed and given medication while asleep. It did more for her reflux than any med ever did. The rules are simple: use it only on the floor, don't leave baby unattended, stop using when baby can sit up unassisted. I've yet to see one injury, much less death, that occurred while following all three clearly stated rules.

I guess you don't have the same data the CPSC does. Even in this announcement, there's not sufficient detail on the injuries and deaths to figure out what the circumstances were.

But your indignation and your conscientious following of the usage instructions exists alongside stupid careless parents and caregivers, whose kids face unnecessary risks all over the place, but also along well-meaning parents who buy products and use them with [misplaced] confidence that if something is being marketed all over the place, it's probably been safety-tested, and at the very least, it's certainly not dangerous. You don't have to be a derelict, irresponsible parent to expect that the market and the corporations involved are not going to let an unsafe product stay on the market. ERGO, it must be safe. And then they don't think much about it ever again.

So yeah, sucks for you, except that you still have yours, so if you want to keep using it according to the "clearly stated rules," that's your choice. But for the kids of people who have too-high or false expectations of safety, publicizing the risks and removing it from the market is probably the best solution. For the idiots and their kids, I have no idea.

I wasn't indignant, just disappointed that you didn't seem to give any weight to adult responsibility.

Is it just my browser, or are your captchas *way* more difficult to decipher than most sites?

I wouldn't see it that way. If a Nap Nanny gets a new buckle and a big ol' redesigned label saying to never leave the kid alone, leave the thing on the floor, and use the buckle, and kids are STILL falling out and dying, then what should happen? Nothing?

The Bumbo case is a good one, because there, the issue was the same as you identified here: irresponsible parents using the seat on a countertop or table. In that case, too, the first recalll was only to fix the label. That failed to stop kids falling, and because it was apparently impossible to make the design safe, the thing was pulled.

Are the lives and safety of the kids of such irresponsible or ignorant parents not the concern of the government? Are they more important than the benefits the chair gives to kids with reflux?

In this particular case, the company is apparently balking at issuing a recall. Why isn't that the adult responsibility we're talking about?

Frankly, I am a bit on edge right now, today, talking about needless, inconvenient safety regulation and the responsibility/error excuse. Fair or not, it feels to me like "Nap Nannies don't kill people; people kill people," and, that is not gonna fly anymore.

Sorry about the captchas. Not sure what's up with that.

Thanks for publicizing the risks of the Nap Nanny. Any product that is marketed to help babies sleep can't also say: never leave baby unattended. Sleep deprived parents of fussy babies latch onto these products for a possible solution for sleepless nights -- as you say, they assume they must be safe or they wouldn't be for sale. The testimonials on the product website talk about babies sleeping for 6-8-10 hours at a time in the product -- no way the parent wasn't sleeping for some of those hours -- leaving the baby unattended. Cribs and play yards (pack n plays) are designed and tested to meet strict standards -- so your baby can be left safely sleeping while you sleep. Any product that states you can't leave a baby unattended is not safe for sleep.

As for the Bumbo -- while the company may complain now that parents use them on raised surfaces against their warnings, they fail to note that they originally marketed the product for just that purpose. Original packaging showed a baby being fed on a table. And a few of the skull fractures have been when the product was used as intended on the floor.

Visit KidsInDanger.org to see which products are tested to tough standards and which -- like the Bumbo, Nap Nanny and Peapod Travel Bed recently recalled -- were put on store shelves even though they weren't tested to be safe.

Leave a comment


Type the characters you see in the picture above.

Google DT


Contact DT

Daddy Types is published by Greg Allen with the help of readers like you.
Got tips, advice, questions, and suggestions? Send them to:
greg [at] daddytypes [dot] com

Join the [eventual] Daddy Types mailing list!


Archives

copyright

copyright 2014 daddy types, llc.
no unauthorized commercial reuse.
privacy and terms of use
published using movable type

advertisements