Firstly, the need to prevent infant deaths takes precedent. Co sharing of beds with infants is seen as a prime reason for infant death, and hence is a necessary driver for change. Parents in many nations are aware of the issues. For example, Anderson (2013) reports that in NSW as many as six babies had died because of accidental suffocation. The mother was seen to have suffocated them when the mother and the baby were sleeping in the same bed. Unsafe sleeping environments cause different socio-economic segments. Co-sleeping is hence observed to be an unhealthy situation, and yet not all parents are willing to or have the capability of placing their baby in separate cribs.
The loss of a baby has a very profound toll on the health of the family. The losses of a baby can seriously detriment the health of the individual and also the family. Many physical and psychological happenings are observed when someone loses a baby. Also, many socio-economic reasons can be associated with the death of a baby. Not all baby’s death can be rejected as SIDS. It cannot be said that health conditions are cause of mortality at all times. In fact, it has been observed that the better the cares of the infant are met in the first one year, the better the health of the child. A strong motivation for the government of Finland to meet the needs of infants and standardise a form of health care package irrespective of the parent situation hence exists.
Socio-economic indicator of the country is another big driver. The socio-economic nature of the country is significant for the country. Where the infant death mortality is high it will have a significant impact on the health and representation of the country. What affects the health of its citizens is a strong representation of its health and wealth. Namely, it can be stated that infant mortality has a negative effect on the citizens too. So, it is twice as much a problem to be controlled.