Skeptic Friends Network

Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?
Home | Forums | Active Topics | Active Polls | Register | FAQ | Contact Us  
  Connect: Chat | SFN Messenger | Buddy List | Members
Personalize: Profile | My Page | Forum Bookmarks  
 All Forums
 Our Skeptic Forums
 Health
 China: More Hospital Births Means Less Dead Babies
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 09/16/2011 :  15:26:01  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Another blow to homebirth advocates who think natural birth with less medical intervention is better for women and babies.

Researchers from Beijing and London found that babies born in hospital were two to three times less likely to die in their first month than those born at home.

The study analysed 1.5 million births between 1996 and 2008 in China.

...

"Although the investigators report strong associations between neonatal mortality and place of birth (home versus hospital) Many characteristics differentiate families that choose (or have access to) facility deliveries and those who deliver at home; such differences would be expected to exist within, and not just between, sociodemographic categories."



"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com


Edited by - marfknox on 09/16/2011 15:28:17

ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf

USA
1467 Posts

Posted - 09/23/2011 :  20:04:22   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit ThorGoLucky's Homepage Send ThorGoLucky a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I live in a town with many midwife/home-birth advocates. Their bumper sticker style fallacious argument is that child birth is not a disease.


(P.S. "fewer dead babies")
Edited by - ThorGoLucky on 09/23/2011 20:06:04
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 09/24/2011 :  08:39:15   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
ThorGoLucky wrote:
I live in a town with many midwife/home-birth advocates. Their bumper sticker style fallacious argument is that child birth is not a disease.
Yeah, it's sort of an irrelevant comment to make, and yet I hear it constantly. No shit that child birth is not a disease. Race-car driving isn't a disease either. But both are risky and so it makes sense to have lots of regulations and be prepared for life-threatening emergencies for when the bad things happen.

Nothing wrong with midwives, so long as they are certified nurse midwives. They help reduce medical costs and most of them these days work in hospitals alongside OBs, and take all the necessary precausions to ensure women have safe births. And working with CNM tends to reduce the number of interventions for women who don't need them, and they tend to have fabulous bedside manners, so they can help reduce the cost of medical care for pregnant women and give women a more comfortable experience during a process that generally sucks. Unfortunately we have other types of midwives in America, and in some states they don't need any qualifications at all. Frightening really.

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Go to Top of Page

justintime
BANNED

382 Posts

Posted - 10/04/2011 :  15:00:42   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send justintime a Private Message  Reply with Quote
There are no real advantages to natural births. Women are choosing to have babies long after their biological clocks have stopped ticking. The risk of complications is far greater and trauma to the new born almost certain. It has nothing to do with the mid-wives. This practice worked for generations.

It is the new reality that makes this less appropriate. There are more cesarean births as a result of these modern factors so lets recognize it for what it is worth.
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 10/05/2011 :  10:34:18   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
justintime's latest string of random, bullshit sentences that only barely touch on the topic at hand:
There are no real advantages to natural births.
What do you mean by "natural birth"? A good number of births that take place in hospitals are natural births in that there are no medical interventions, but only monitoring in case interventions become necessary. Lots of women who are capable of having a natural birth prefer unnecessary interventions like painkillers, but others are more comfortable having a natural birth. For those in the latter category, so long as they take reasonable precautions, attempting and succeeding at a natural birth has the measurable advantage of no risk of side effects or medical error, and the immeasurable advantage of being a more pleasant experience.

Women are choosing to have babies long after their biological clocks have stopped ticking.
Um, huh? The female biological clock stops ticking after menopause, which typically happens mid 40's-mid50's. Let's say 5 years constitutes "long after". So you are claiming that women are choosing to have babies after the age of 50. While modern reproductive technologies have definitely made that possible for some, affluent women, it is still incredibly rare. So rare, in fact, that the individual cases are listed in the Wikipedia article on Pregnancy over age 50! So how that factors into a discussion of the benefits of home birth verses hospital birth, or how it is relevant to this conversation at all, I don't know.

The risk of complications is far greater and trauma to the new born almost certain.
This sentence leads me to think that you actually meant to be remarking on how an increasing number of middle and upper class women in the developed world are having children later in life (although certainly not "long after their biological clocks have stopped ticking.) However, the average age of first time moms as of 2006 was still only 25, while being high risk for most complications of pregnancy and birth starts around 35. So once again you are full of bullshit.

It has nothing to do with the mid-wives.
Who said it was about midwives? The thread was about homebirth verses hospital birth. Some homebirths are unattended by anyone. Many hospital births are attended by certified nurse midwives.

This practice worked for generations.
The practice of natural childbirth? Before the dawn of modern medicine it worked well enough to sustain and grow the human population. However, the death of the child and mother was extremely common. So, no, it didn't work well at all.


"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Edited by - marfknox on 10/05/2011 11:18:19
Go to Top of Page

Hal
Skeptic Friend

USA
302 Posts

Posted - 10/05/2011 :  10:49:59   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Hal a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by marfknox

Lots of women who are capable of having a natural birth prefer unnecessary interventions like painkillers, but others are more comfortable having a natural birth.


When our #3 was about to arrive, my wife, who has (by her own admission) next-to-zero tolerance for pain or discomfort, actually tried to get the hospital admissions clerk to order up her epidural.


Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King Jr.

Go to Top of Page

justintime
BANNED

382 Posts

Posted - 10/05/2011 :  11:12:01   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send justintime a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I said there are no real advantages to natural birth. I did not say women cannot or should not opt for them. The science is there to help deliver babies as safely as possible.

There are some who believe natural birth is absolutely the way to go. There are also people who do not believe in blood transfusion and other medically intrusive procedures.

If we rely on women intuition and instincts because they know their bodies better. Does that explain why many women believe oral and anal sex is contraceptively safe because there are no ovaries in their mouth or ass.
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 10/05/2011 :  11:24:30   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Hal wrote:
When our #3 was about to arrive, my wife, who has (by her own admission) next-to-zero tolerance for pain or discomfort, actually tried to get the hospital admissions clerk to order up her epidural.
I have a pretty decent tolerance for pain, and with my first I attempted a natural childbirth. Had the cord not been in the way, my labor probably would have progressed a little more quickly and I almost certainly would have been able to give birth without any interventions, and I would have preferred that. However, now that I'm no longer "low-risk" I have a lot more to worry about, not to mention the memory of a 28 hour labor that ended in an emergency c-section last time, so I'm looking forward to that epidural this time around.

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Edited by - marfknox on 10/05/2011 11:25:01
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 10/05/2011 :  11:35:11   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
justintime wrote:
I said there are no real advantages to natural birth.
Yes, I know, and I just pointed out that there are actually some advantages (no risk of side effects or medical error, more pleasant experience for some), so long as an attempted natural childbirth is done with interventions readily available if complications ensue.

I did not say women cannot or should not opt for them.
Agreed. And nobody accused you of saying that.

The science is there to help deliver babies as safely as possible.
Yup.

There are some who believe natural birth is absolutely the way to go. There are also people who do not believe in blood transfusion and other medically intrusive procedures.
Yes. They are foolish.

If we rely on women intuition and instincts because they know their bodies better.
This sentence doesn't make grammatical sense and I have no idea what you are trying to communicate. Can you rephrase?

Does that explain why many women believe oral and anal sex is contraceptively safe because there are no ovaries in their mouth or ass.
First, does WHAT explain why many women believe that oral and anal sex is contraception safe? Second, oral and anal sex are contraceptively safe, since contraceptives prevent pregnancy. Of course oral and anal sex do not protect one from STDs.

You really do have a remarkably consistent pattern of hijacking threads and taking them in an absurd direction, without regard to the intended topic of discussion.

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Go to Top of Page

Hal
Skeptic Friend

USA
302 Posts

Posted - 10/05/2011 :  12:18:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Hal a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by marfknox

Hal wrote:
When our #3 was about to arrive, my wife, who has (by her own admission) next-to-zero tolerance for pain or discomfort, actually tried to get the hospital admissions clerk to order up her epidural.
I have a pretty decent tolerance for pain, and with my first I attempted a natural childbirth. Had the cord not been in the way, my labor probably would have progressed a little more quickly and I almost certainly would have been able to give birth without any interventions, and I would have preferred that. However, now that I'm no longer "low-risk" I have a lot more to worry about, not to mention the memory of a 28 hour labor that ended in an emergency c-section last time, so I'm looking forward to that epidural this time around.


Oddly enough, despite the fact that I'm not squeamish about many things, I was ordered to leave the room when my wife had her last epidural. "Oh, sir, you think you can take it, but we lose a lot of dads at this point!" Despite my protests that I'd already witnessed two of these procedures without even a thought of trouble (for me), apparently the hospital attorneys had been very clear on the point.

I didn't argue, of course, because my wife didn't care one way or the other -- she just wanted to get on with it, without delay!

Really? Do people pass out just from observing things like this? I guess it is obvious to me now, but at the time I was genuinely surprised. Seems to me, if someone is begging to have a six-inch needle jabbed into their spine, then they damned well ought to get it!

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King Jr.

Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 10/05/2011 :  20:50:41   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Hal, weird. My hubby and my mom were in the room when I got my epidural. They will both attest to feeling incredibly relieved by the procedure considering that at that point I was in uncontrollable, screaming, writhing agony, having been in labor for 24 hours and having not slept or eaten in over 30 hours.

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Go to Top of Page

sailingsoul
SFN Addict

2830 Posts

Posted - 10/06/2011 :  00:48:47   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send sailingsoul a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Obviously having a baby in a hospital brings the rapid availability of many tools and talents that might be urgently needed as compared to deliveries elsewhere. The biggest single concern I would have is their infection rates. If more than one facility is available or in a given area, I would choose the one with the lowest infection rates. Which can be known by asking before hand. The simple act of washing hands by staff and doctors in between patients has been proven to have a dramatic affect on lowering infections to patients. Not long ago NPR interviewed a doctor who spoke a bit on this point. There can be dramatic differences in infection rates from one facility to another. That being, patients needing elective services would be well advised, he said, to inquire with an institution about their infection rates prior to selection of one. Just saying. SS

There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS
Go to Top of Page

Hal
Skeptic Friend

USA
302 Posts

Posted - 10/06/2011 :  05:19:52   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send Hal a Private Message  Reply with Quote
Originally posted by marfknox

Hal, weird. My hubby and my mom were in the room when I got my epidural. They will both attest to feeling incredibly relieved by the procedure considering that at that point I was in uncontrollable, screaming, writhing agony, having been in labor for 24 hours and having not slept or eaten in over 30 hours.


If they'd just said, Sorry, New Policy, I wouldn't have minded. It was the cloying condescension that irritated me. (This is the South. No one does cloying condescension better.)

Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King Jr.

Go to Top of Page

justintime
BANNED

382 Posts

Posted - 10/08/2011 :  17:22:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile Send justintime a Private Message  Reply with Quote
I have two boys both cesarean and believe me it is a nervous situation to have to hear an epidural is necessary and the disclaimer it could cause xxxxxxxx. There was no condescension just science at work and relief for my wife. I trusted the system and I ended with two healthy boys.

I was a believer of natural birth. But in the busy and rushed world we live in. This worked out fine. It still took 14 hours before the decision. But I was confident to make it.
Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 10/08/2011 :  21:45:49   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
ss, regarding infections acquired at hospitals, Dr. Amy the Skeptical OB wrote a post about birth and infections.
While hospital acquired infections are a serious problem for the elderly and the immuno-compromised, they are far less common in obstetric care. During childbirth, the bacteria and viruses that pose the greatest threat to babies and mothers are those carried by the mother herself. Homebirth does not offer protection against serious neonatal and maternal infections, because the most dangerous "germs" are "your own germs at home."


Read the whole post here.

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Go to Top of Page

marfknox
SFN Die Hard

USA
3739 Posts

Posted - 10/08/2011 :  22:01:09   [Permalink]  Show Profile  Visit marfknox's Homepage  Send marfknox an AOL message Send marfknox a Private Message  Reply with Quote
justintime wrote:
it is a nervous situation to have to hear an epidural is necessary and the disclaimer it could cause xxxxxxxx.
It's sort of odd that the epidural would cause so much nervousness since, while there are complications that can ensue, they are rare (the most extreme, death, is the most rare: 1 in 100,000) while the possible disasters for the woman's health and especially the child's health due to natural complications are much more common.

I was a believer of natural birth.
What do you mean by believer?

But in the busy and rushed world we live in. This worked out fine.
I am confused as to what this means. It sounds like you opted for medical interventions because you were on a tight schedule. Hospital births are safer because a minority of attempted natural births will inevitably have complications, many of which are threatening to the life and health of the mother and child. What does that have to do with the world we live in being "busy and rushed"?

It still took 14 hours before the decision. But I was confident to make it.
The decision for what? The epidural? The c-section?

Your posts are so damn confusing.

"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong

Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com

Go to Top of Page
  Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly Bookmark this Topic BookMark Topic
Jump To:

The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise.


Home | Skeptic Forums | Skeptic Summary | The Kil Report | Creation/Evolution | Rationally Speaking | Skeptillaneous | About Skepticism | Fan Mail | Claims List | Calendar & Events | Skeptic Links | Book Reviews | Gift Shop | SFN on Facebook | Staff | Contact Us

Skeptic Friends Network
© 2008 Skeptic Friends Network Go To Top Of Page
This page was generated in 0.16 seconds.
Powered by @tomic Studio
Snitz Forums 2000