Have Bolton Wanderers dipped into the transfer market? What plans does the club have next season? Click here »
2:30pm Thursday 24th January 2008
A LEADING pathologist has warned parents of the dangers of sleeping with babies or smoking in the same house as them after the death of a seven-day-old child.
Lily-Sue Doreena Crompton, died suddenly in July just a few days after being taken home to Longfield Road, Deane An inquest in Bolton yesterday heard how parents, Andrea Crompton and Christopher Grundy, had been sharing a bed with their daughter. They had not been able to buy a Moses basket because she was born almost four weeks early.
Both parents also smoked in the same house as the baby, although they made sure they never smoked in front of her.
Lily-Sue, who was born by emergency Caesarean at the Royal Bolton Hospital on July 22 last year, was pronounced dead at the same hospital just a week later.
Consultant paediatric pathologist Melanie Newbold, who is based at the Royal Manchester Children's Hospital in Pendlebury and carried out a post mortem examination of the baby, said: "I could not find a cause of death, but with babies who die suddenly and unexpectedly in the first year of life, that is not uncommon.
"The number of sudden, unexpected infant deaths is increased under certain circumstances, such as co-sleeping with a parent and parents smoking.
"This doesn't have to be in the presence of the baby. If someone in the household smokes then the risk of sudden infant death increases."
Miss Crompton and Mr Grundy brought their daughter home on July 25 and were visited by a community midwife every day, who told the inquest the baby was "well looked after".
Little Lily-Sue was feeding well and sleeping, with three-hourly feeds, until 8am.
On July 29 Miss Crompton fed her daughter at 2.30am and the couple and Lily-Sue fell asleep.
Her parents woke at 8am to discover their daughter was not breathing.
They called an ambulance and Lily-Sue was rushed to the Royal Bolton Hospital where she was pronounced dead.
Recording an open verdict, Bolton's deputy coroner Alan Walsh, said: "It is sometimes impossible to find the answers we need to bring some closure to the parents on the very sad death of a baby. It was simply a sudden and unexpected death.
"Miss Crompton and Mr Grundy looked after Lily-Sue to the best of their ability and I hope this gives them some peace of mind."
Gloria, Bolton says...
2:39pm Thu 24 Jan 08
chas, suffolk says...
2:48pm Thu 24 Jan 08
"I could not find a cause of death, but with babies who die suddenly and unexpectedly in the first year of life, that is not uncommonIs somebody trying to make the parents feel guilty for the death of the poor child?
Rocky, Bowton says...
2:56pm Thu 24 Jan 08
BoltonDave, Tonge Moor says...
3:14pm Thu 24 Jan 08
gabon, bury says...
3:29pm Thu 24 Jan 08
BoltonDave, Tonge Moor says...
3:44pm Thu 24 Jan 08
gabon wrote:Too right Gabon, the good old days were the best, only a matter of time before one of the PC tossers come on and disagree.
Your right Bolton Dave to much of dont do this dont do that, Hardly heard of any allergies 30 yrs ago you smelt it if it smelt ok you ate it, No friggin sell by dates either i mean how can you have a sell by date on crutons its stale bread, Bring back them days heh Dave
chas, suffolk says...
3:50pm Thu 24 Jan 08
Rocky, Bowton says...
4:36pm Thu 24 Jan 08
BoltonDave wrote:Same here Dave.
My Mum and Dad and Grandparents all smoked around us when we were kids and we all survived and have grown up with no ill-health.
Just another thing for the namby pamby PC state to latch on to.
It's no wonder people are so ill these days, with all this don't eat that and don't drink this etc. etc. people don't get a chance to build up a resistance to anything. Anybody ever hear of nut allergies 30 years ago?
Andrew, Bury says...
4:45pm Thu 24 Jan 08
gabon, bury says...
4:55pm Thu 24 Jan 08
chas, suffolk says...
5:00pm Thu 24 Jan 08
BoltonDave, Tonge Moor says...
5:07pm Thu 24 Jan 08
Andrew, Bury says...
5:50pm Thu 24 Jan 08
Rocky, Bowton says...
5:51pm Thu 24 Jan 08
Rocky, Bowton says...
5:51pm Thu 24 Jan 08
Andrew wrote:Why doesn't he publish it then?
Let's not forget that a baby died here and the consultant paediatrican pathologist, who surely knows more than any odf us and our anecdotal evidence said:
"The number of sudden, unexpected infant deaths is increased under certain circumstances, such as co-sleeping with a parent and parents smoking.
"This doesn't have to be in the presence of the baby. If someone in the household smokes then the risk of sudden infant death increases."
Rocky, Bowton says...
5:53pm Thu 24 Jan 08
Andrew, Bolton says...
6:12pm Thu 24 Jan 08
steve, bolton says...
6:16pm Thu 24 Jan 08
Gloria wrote:I must hang my head in shame and say "no" Gloria,however I would like to bring to your attention a far more dangerous practise, which I believe has been going on for some time.Parents have been putting their children in motor vehicles (in some cases child seats - which I can only assume is to make them feel less guilty when their child dies)and in many cases the children have been killed.I understand,from a reliable source,that of the two the car journey is far more likely to kill the child and apparently in many instances is immediate.
Does that mean you think its good for them?
Rocky, Bowton says...
6:23pm Thu 24 Jan 08
Andrew wrote:That wasn't the question AND you still haven't answered on the other thread.
I see my eponymic friend is being attacked once again...
Anyway, I don't think anyone here can dispute the fact that smoking kills. Passive smoking is much less of a killer than actually smoking yourself, but we must all agree that it can be a contributing factor in some cases.
This could quite possibly have been one of those cases.
Andrew, Bolton says...
6:27pm Thu 24 Jan 08
Master of ignorance.
gabon, bury says...
6:42pm Thu 24 Jan 08
Rocky, Bowton says...
6:51pm Thu 24 Jan 08
Andrew wrote:Yeah Sorry Andrew (From Bolton not Bury)
I think your comment was directed at my "eponymic friend" from Bury, rather than me, Rocky!
Master of ignorance.
Well, you said it!
chas, suffolk says...
7:06pm Thu 24 Jan 08
spiceman, Bolton says...
7:15pm Thu 24 Jan 08
chas, suffolk says...
7:16pm Thu 24 Jan 08
chas, suffolk says...
7:19pm Thu 24 Jan 08
gabon, bury says...
7:21pm Thu 24 Jan 08
chas, suffolk says...
7:26pm Thu 24 Jan 08
Rocky, Bowton says...
7:27pm Thu 24 Jan 08
spiceman wrote:And it is fact that passive smoking doesn't kill anyone.
if anything can help the health and progress of a child, we should stop giving it the "if's" and "buts"..and take on board the facts.
Andrew, Bolton says...
7:50pm Thu 24 Jan 08
gabon, bury says...
7:56pm Thu 24 Jan 08
Andrew, Bury says...
8:08pm Thu 24 Jan 08
gabon wrote:I HAVE answered it. Now b*gger off you boring, stupid racist git. You are thick otherwise you would understand. Or you choose not to understand in order to wallow in prejudice.
He as still not answered my question to him from last night, Why can we not comment on asians who commit crime, We can comment on white people who commit crime, So is this classed as racist towards the white people. If he can give me a resonable answer i will stop asking but all he says is it relevant. I think its relevant because its all one sided, Like the guy on the other thread calling councillors thieves bolton people thick and other remarks and then gets shirty because we have a go back, Doubple standards i say.By the way he called himself ahmed could this be one of erics tricks to get another thread closed.
chas, suffolk says...
8:32pm Thu 24 Jan 08
Lollipop, Muddy Duct says...
8:36pm Thu 24 Jan 08
chas, suffolk says...
8:50pm Thu 24 Jan 08
blue, Lancs says...
8:52pm Thu 24 Jan 08
Rocky wrote:Im sick of this argument but here we go. According to the World Health Organisation, and indeed many tobacco companies, the evidence between ETS (Environmental Tobacco smoke) and dangers to public health is clear.
Andrew wrote: Let's not forget that a baby died here and the consultant paediatrican pathologist, who surely knows more than any odf us and our anecdotal evidence said: "The number of sudden, unexpected infant deaths is increased under certain circumstances, such as co-sleeping with a parent and parents smoking. "This doesn't have to be in the presence of the baby. If someone in the household smokes then the risk of sudden infant death increases."Why doesn't he publish it then? BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROOF.
Rocky, Bowton says...
8:58pm Thu 24 Jan 08
blue wrote:Okay .. Suppose I accept what you are saying.
Rocky wrote:Im sick of this argument but here we go. According to the World Health Organisation, and indeed many tobacco companies, the evidence between ETS (Environmental Tobacco smoke) and dangers to public health is clear.
Andrew wrote: Let's not forget that a baby died here and the consultant paediatrican pathologist, who surely knows more than any odf us and our anecdotal evidence said: "The number of sudden, unexpected infant deaths is increased under certain circumstances, such as co-sleeping with a parent and parents smoking. "This doesn't have to be in the presence of the baby. If someone in the household smokes then the risk of sudden infant death increases."Why doesn't he publish it then? BECAUSE THERE IS NO PROOF.
Now what I do accept is that it has not been demostrated exactky by which biological pathways that cigarette smoke causes harm. Now part of the problem is we are not allowed to stick cigarettes in babies mouths and cut their lungs open too see what the result is. I would draw a comparison to say, Ibuporfen. A drug released in 1969, it was the late 90's before we knew exactly HOW it reduced pain. The exact physiological pathways by which the drug has its pain relieving effect. To get the licence on drug tarrif it is only necessary to show proof of efficacy (its safe and works)
Now the statistical evidence IS proof enough alone to show that smoking is harmful. And while Animal models may be used to show how this happens it has never been demostrated in Humans. Take another drug Ritalin, no one knows how it works, its thought to prevent reuptake of dopamine but it actually may work like antidepressants. Seaweed is known to have haemostatic porperties, sailors have used it for years on rope burned hands, again no one knows why.
Don't be fooled, cigarette smoke is detrimental to health, and the pro smoking lobby uses every opportunity to spread falsehoods and doubts, but there can be no argument, the overwhelming amount of evidence is there and clear to see.
Rocky, Bowton says...
8:59pm Thu 24 Jan 08
Andrew, Bolton says...
9:06pm Thu 24 Jan 08
blue, Lancs says...
9:13pm Thu 24 Jan 08
Andrew, Bolton says...
9:18pm Thu 24 Jan 08
blue wrote:Hear, hear! I'm all for that!
well lets agree that its not conducive to good health and move on. lifes short enough eh?
gabon, bury says...
9:18pm Thu 24 Jan 08
Andrew, Bolton says...
9:21pm Thu 24 Jan 08
gabon wrote:I feel I should change my name...
You have still not answerd it you just keep ranting about racist, If you had answered it i would not be back asking would i, why can we not post on anything about asians i cant see in your last post where you gave me an answer only rants again, Perhaps i should have named the bloke Andrew and not frank in that last post,
Rocky, Bowton says...
9:26pm Thu 24 Jan 08
Andrew wrote:Indeed.
I can't remember anyone claiming that they knew that smoking is the *cause* of SIDS.
If you accept that it may increase the risk of it occurring, then surely that is good enough - why take the chance of increasing the risk of SIDS?
Andrew, Bolton says...
9:29pm Thu 24 Jan 08
Rocky wrote:Oh good, so we all agree then?!
Andrew wrote: I can't remember anyone claiming that they knew that smoking is the *cause* of SIDS. If you accept that it may increase the risk of it occurring, then surely that is good enough - why take the chance of increasing the risk of SIDS?Indeed.
gabon, bury says...
9:31pm Thu 24 Jan 08
Andrew, Bolton says...
9:38pm Thu 24 Jan 08
gabon wrote:Hopefully Andrew from Bury has eventually had the sense not to reply to everyone's attack on him... it only seems to fuel the fire.
No i dont agree i am still waiting, I think i will ask the BN tomorrow see if they can tell me, See mustaf got the message two faced sod calling others then gets the hump when we fight back,
King Eric, says...
9:38pm Thu 24 Jan 08
gabon, bury says...
9:43pm Thu 24 Jan 08
gabon, bury says...
9:47pm Thu 24 Jan 08
Andrew, Bolton says...
9:49pm Thu 24 Jan 08
Andrew, Bury says...
11:06pm Thu 24 Jan 08
derby0543, bury says...
12:30am Fri 25 Jan 08
Andrew wrote:Andrew where you said their would not be a housing fall is not their belonging to as opposed as there in which place.
gabon wrote: He as still not answered my question to him from last night, Why can we not comment on asians who commit crime, We can comment on white people who commit crime, So is this classed as racist towards the white people. If he can give me a resonable answer i will stop asking but all he says is it relevant. I think its relevant because its all one sided, Like the guy on the other thread calling councillors thieves bolton people thick and other remarks and then gets shirty because we have a go back, Doubple standards i say.By the way he called himself ahmed could this be one of erics tricks to get another thread closed.I HAVE answered it. Now b*gger off you boring, stupid racist git. You are thick otherwise you would understand. Or you choose not to understand in order to wallow in prejudice. Rocky, I never said their would not be a housing fall. frankly I'm expecting it. I just get perplxed by Sun's apparent economic mastery and dismissal of economists - and that he seems to be willing a recession which will hit the working classes hardest, the very people he claims to support. As for infant mortality, hmm, let's see now. Who has more credibilty - a gobby get with no medical training or a consultant paediatrician pathologist? I wonder. There is evidence out there - why not use the power of google rather than whatever right wing rag you appear to be using as a source.
spiceman, Bolton says...
8:06am Fri 25 Jan 08
Rocky wrote:we should give you a lab 2 work in..you can share a fag with on of the beagles..Expertease is priceless.
spiceman wrote: if anything can help the health and progress of a child, we should stop giving it the "if's" and "buts"..and take on board the facts.And it is fact that passive smoking doesn't kill anyone.
chas, suffolk says...
9:45am Fri 25 Jan 08
kieanders, bolton says...
10:31am Fri 25 Jan 08
Andrew wrote:i agree,
If people understood the difference between cause and risk factor it might help.
Andrew, Bury says...
11:54am Fri 25 Jan 08
chas wrote:So all scientific evidence should be discounted because of one rogue "expert" with a very poor understanding of statistics?
A few years ago Sally Clark and other women were sent to jail for killing their children. Sally was accused of killing two sons. They were convicted because of evidence gien by an 'expert' witness, paediatrian Prof. Sir Roy Meadows. On appeal Sally was released because it was shown that Sir Roy's evidence was not based on fact but on his opinion which was flawed. The other women were all released because Sir Roy's evidence could not be trusted. Unfortunately last year Sally died, some say she died of a broken heart and some say because of that wrongful imprisonment. Sir Roy has been banned form ever giving 'expert' evidence again.
chas, suffolk says...
12:12pm Fri 25 Jan 08
Andrew wrote:I agree also. Traffic fumes are cause all kinds of health problems, so have told my son not take my grandchildren anywhere near roads. In fact I've told him to wrap them in cotton wool.
If people understood the difference between cause and risk factor it might help.
i agree
chas, suffolk says...
12:22pm Fri 25 Jan 08
So all scientific evidence should be discounted because of one rogue "expertAnd one rogue judge?
Andrew, Bury says...
1:29pm Fri 25 Jan 08
chas, suffolk says...
1:50pm Fri 25 Jan 08
My understanding is it was the presentation of the evidenceExactly, FACT not opinion. Most SIDS is due to genes. I'm not an 'expert' and neither are you. You obviously will believe expert until every one has been discredited. If you think that cars are a necessity, then how did people survive before the 20th century?
Andrew, Bolton says...
3:10pm Fri 25 Jan 08
chas wrote:
If you think that cars are a necessity, then how did people survive before the 20th century?
chas, suffolk says...
3:38pm Fri 25 Jan 08
Andrew, Bury says...
3:48pm Fri 25 Jan 08
chas wrote:No, I'll go with the weight of evidence.
Andrew wrote.My understanding is it was the presentation of the evidenceExactly, FACT not opinion. Most SIDS is due to genes. I'm not an 'expert' and neither are you. You obviously will believe expert until every one has been discredited. If you think that cars are a necessity, then how did people survive before the 20th century?
Andrew, Bury says...
3:50pm Fri 25 Jan 08
chas wrote:I said needs and wants, as bnalanced by risk. I'd be interested to know though how you think people can afford to eat, cook, drink, pay water rates,be housed, kept warm and so on without working which necessitates using, crossing or walking besides roads.
Now try the 19th century. The only necessities in life are eating, drinking (not alcohol) and breathing and even those carry some form of risk.
chas, suffolk says...
4:12pm Fri 25 Jan 08
Andrew, Bolton says...
4:18pm Fri 25 Jan 08
chaswrote:
Now try the 19th century.
Most SIDS is due to genes.
BoltonDave, Tonge Moor says...
4:20pm Fri 25 Jan 08
Andrew wrote:There's plenty parasitic scum on benefits who manage it Andrew. Many of them appear to be better off than those of us who do work.
chas wrote: Now try the 19th century. The only necessities in life are eating, drinking (not alcohol) and breathing and even those carry some form of risk.I said needs and wants, as bnalanced by risk. I'd be interested to know though how you think people can afford to eat, cook, drink, pay water rates,be housed, kept warm and so on without working which necessitates using, crossing or walking besides roads.
chas, suffolk says...
4:21pm Fri 25 Jan 08
As absurd as using one case of a discredited paediatrician to dismiss scientific research per se.He was discredited because his scientific research was flawed.
Andrew, Bury says...
5:27pm Fri 25 Jan 08
chas wrote:The report brought up risks.
I like to believe FACTS not opinions and so do judges. I was not the one to bring risks into the debate. You brought up one risk, so I brought up other risks. Let's stick to FACTS. How many children have been proven to have been killed by passive smoking? Answer, NONE.
Andrew, Bury says...
5:29pm Fri 25 Jan 08
BoltonDave wrote:How predictabble. Most of us work. Most people on benefits are entitled to them. Some people abuse the benefits system, some people abuse the tax system.
Andrew wrote:There's plenty parasitic scum on benefits who manage it Andrew. Many of them appear to be better off than those of us who do work.chas wrote: Now try the 19th century. The only necessities in life are eating, drinking (not alcohol) and breathing and even those carry some form of risk.I said needs and wants, as bnalanced by risk. I'd be interested to know though how you think people can afford to eat, cook, drink, pay water rates,be housed, kept warm and so on without working which necessitates using, crossing or walking besides roads.
chas, suffolk says...
5:58pm Fri 25 Jan 08
Andrew, Bury says...
6:07pm Fri 25 Jan 08
Andrew, Bolton says...
6:12pm Fri 25 Jan 08
He gave scientific evidence which proved false. He was given all the evidence available, but that evidence was and is flawed.
chas, suffolk says...
6:12pm Fri 25 Jan 08
chas, suffolk says...
6:46pm Fri 25 Jan 08
Andrew, Bury says...
6:55pm Fri 25 Jan 08
Andrew wrote:My recollection too.
chas said:He gave scientific evidence which proved false. He was given all the evidence available, but that evidence was and is flawed.I seem to remember the professional statisticians were equally alarmed by Meadow's duff data as the rest of us. He appeared to come up with his own evidence, basing it loosely on true scientists' findings.
chas, suffolk says...
7:06pm Fri 25 Jan 08
Andrew, Bolton says...
8:16pm Fri 25 Jan 08
chas, suffolk says...
9:56am Sat 26 Jan 08
Andrew, Bolton says...
1:05pm Sat 26 Jan 08
chas wrote:
The parents said that they did not smoke in front of the baby.
Sleeping in the same bed as a child could be harmful in that the parents could roll over and suffocate a baby, but this did not happen in this case.
chas, suffolk says...
7:28am Sun 27 Jan 08
Andrew, Bolton says...
12:12pm Sun 27 Jan 08
chas, suffolk says...
1:01pm Sun 27 Jan 08
Andrew, Bolton says...
3:28pm Sun 27 Jan 08
chas, suffolk says...
4:17pm Sun 27 Jan 08
Andrew, Bolton says...
4:29pm Sun 27 Jan 08
chas, suffolk says...
6:02pm Sun 27 Jan 08
Andrew, Bolton says...
6:22pm Sun 27 Jan 08
chas, suffolk says...
6:44pm Sun 27 Jan 08
Andrew, Bolton says...
7:58pm Sun 27 Jan 08
chas scripsit Thank god that there are only a few idiots like you that believe it.
Enter your postcode, town or place name
Search for Jobs
Search Now »
Find the right person for you
Search Now »
Search for Homes
Search Now »
Search for Cars
Search Now »
steve, bolton says...
2:37pm Thu 24 Jan 08