Hansard

I, too, congratulate Gil Paterson on securing this important debate and I welcome the opportunity to discuss the 25th anniversary of the Scottish Cot Death Trust. As members said, the trust has supported many parents who have gone through the sudden and unexpected loss of a child.

In its 25th year, the trust has a great deal to be proud of. We should celebrate the massive reduction in cot deaths, which Mary Scanlon and other members reported. The research that demonstrated that it was safer for infants to sleep on their backs, which I think originated in New Zealand, has been the main contributory factor to the massive reduction. That success should be celebrated.

However, there are still some 40 deaths annually. We need to consider the residual factors, understand what is happening and see what can be done in a policy context. Issues have been raised by a number of members. One factor is that deaths are much more common in the babies of teenage mothers. It is regrettable that the policy of reducing the incidence of teenage pregnancy, which the Labour Party and the SNP have tried to follow, cannot be said to have been a great success for either party. We need to redouble our efforts to ensure that the number of teenage pregnancies is reduced.

A second factor is smoking. It is regrettable that smoking during pregnancy is still significant. I commend the initiative in NHS Tayside, which saw that it had some of the worst statistics in that regard. The board set up a scheme whereby mothers who made and succeeded in the significant attempt to give up smoking were rewarded. The scheme was criticised in parts of the media, but Tayside’s smoking cessation statistics have moved considerably. We need to redouble our efforts to ensure that people stop smoking during pregnancy and continue not to smoke afterwards.

The smoking issue is related to the third factor, which is that there are more sudden unexplained infant deaths in poorer socioeconomic groups. We must continue to consider health inequalities and look at the balance between the universal provision of health visitors, which I think that everyone wants, and a focus on people from poorer socioeconomic backgrounds. Such matters need to be addressed.

An issue that concerns me in relation to the subject that we are considering and other areas in health is that the information that is available on the web is not always the best. Much of the information on the internet is discursive and not evidence based. We need, for example, to consider—I will use the biblical term, as Mary Scanlon did—overlying: that is, sharing a bed with the child. I do not think that it would be correct to give universal advice that that is not appropriate. However, it is probably appropriate to say that people who smoke, drink or use drugs or sedative medicines should avoid the practice. I am not an expert in the field, but we need to give clear information to parents.

Members referred to what happens after the death. Many deaths remain unexplained after a post-mortem. A post-mortem is important, but it is a cold and frankly unpleasant thing to have to go through. A very close member of my family experienced a sudden infant death, and—although I was on the periphery—to go through a post-mortem with my own family was very different from doing so with parents as a doctor. Part of the reason for that was that the post-mortem was not handled in a particularly sensitive way—this was some 30 or 35 years ago. Sensitive handling by paediatricians, the police, pathologists and other professionals is important.

I commend the Scottish Cot Death Trust for its work during the past 25 years and for continuing to try to meet the challenge of further reducing the number of infant deaths.

17:34