Expert Warns That High-Tech Baby Monitors Cause More Harm Than Good

Experts warns that high-tech baby monitors - devices that track infants' pulse and breathing rate as they sleep could be doing more harm than good. The trendy gadget sends alerts to parents' smartphone if a child's pulse or breathing rate changes. Expert believes these devices simply generate unwarranted fear and self-doubt among the parents of healthy babies.

The demand for the wearable devices has dramatically increased with a growing supply onto the market in recent years. Some of the devices are pinned to a baby's clothes, worn as a wristband or even come as a smart sock with sensors sewn into the material.

The devices, which cost between £80 and £240, are designed to replace traditional baby monitors, which transmit the sound of a child's cries to a radio receiver. Developing companies argue that the products takes out the stress of listening to babies' distress, as parent only have to wait for the beep of their smartphone.

But Child Health Practitioners at the University of Pennsylvania disagrees with this submission and argue that the device can trigger panic if they give wrong signs. Experts warned last year that the monitors can also be accessed by internet hackers who could spy on children through baby monitors. Other cybercriminals could also have access to them through household networks. There are also reported cases of transmitting noise through the device to scare children, according to Daily Mail.

Popular high-tech baby monitors include MonBaby Smart Monitor (£99), which can be pinned to the clothes to track breathing, movement and give warning to parents if the baby has rolled onto its stomach. Owlet (£200) and Baby Vida smart socks (£120) tracks babies' heart rate and oxygen levels. Sproutling leg band (£240) is a devices can is even able to inform parents when their baby is about to wake up and Snuza HeroMD baby monitor (£80), a devised that is pinned to babies' nappy, alarms parent if the infant stops breathing for 20 seconds.

"These devices are marketed aggressively to parents of healthy babies, promising peace of mind about their child's cardio-respiratory health," Pediatrician Dr Christopher Bonafide said. But there is no evidence that these consumer infant physiological monitors are life-saving or even accurate.

Experts say there is no medical evidence behind these devices as they have not been medically tested because they are not subject to the same standards as medical devices. Even though they look harmless, they may cause undue alarm to parents as an abnormal reading could spark panic, including admission into hospital and unnecessary tests and scans.

Dr Martin Ward-Platt, consultant pediatrician at the Royal Victoria Infirmary in Newcastle and spokesperson for the Royal College of Pediatrics and Child Health, last night said the US authors have addressed the issue as it should be. He said the devices turn healthy babies into the object of anxiety and concern. It leads parents to end up treating their kids as if they are going to get ill, according to Longroom.

However, director of services at The Lullaby Trust, Jenny Ward said the monitors could give some parents peace of mind, especially if they have encountered some issues in the past.

A spokesman for Owlet noted that it is believed that parents have a right to know their baby's heart rate, if they choose. Giving parents the right information at the right time empowers them to make informed choices.

MonBaby said nothing replaces parental care, and MonBaby adds another layer of monitoring that is not captured by existing audio and video monitors. A spokesman for Snuza stated that they are the world's first medically certified portable baby breathing monitor for Europe and has sold hundreds of thousands of unit worldwide, thus, providing vital reassurance for disturbed parents. Baby Vida and Sproutling did not respond to a request for comment. The Experts published their arguments in the JAMA medical journal.