Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

patents.google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 230 posts

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#81

Post by lovasoa »

drekipus wrote: post #53
croo wrote: post #39

Everybody is joking half sarcastically here but childbirth as a process in hospitals do have serious problems and modern day labour leaves deep mental scars in most women while being one of the most important thing in their life. This is definitely a step in the wrong direction however laughable the idea is. Do you know what is the most uncomfortable position for labour is? Yeah, layin on your back. It's just the mos…

Thanks for sharing this. It's so crucial to know that we have actually lost this information and we're getting worse. > Do you know what is the most uncomfortable position for labour is? Yeah, layin on your back. My wife and I were shocked when we had our first. We were recommended a "natural birth" course that taught us this, and everyone gave us crap about being "woo-woo" and "denying science". Everyone. We also ha…

> [...] although planned home birth is associated with fewer maternal interventions than planned hospital birth, it also is associated with a more than twofold increased risk of perinatal death (1–2 in 1,000) and a threefold increased risk of neonatal seizures or serious neurologic dysfunction (0.4–0.6 in 1,000).

https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-op...

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#82

Post by resolutebat »

PartiallyTyped wrote: post #62
NoZebra120vClip wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doctors' discomfort is also why they are so eager to slice women open like a fish, because baby needs to come on their schedule or they'll be late for tee time.

[[citation needed]] To my knowledge Caesarean Section is a last resort.

Depends very much on the country. In eg Brazil, 55% (!) of all births are by C-section.

https://www.bellybelly.com.au/birth/highest-c-section-rates-...

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#83

Post by wsdookadr »

> In the case of a woman who has a fully developed muscular system and has had ample physical exertion all through the preg nancy, as is common with all more primitive peoples, nature provides all the necessary equipment and power to have a normal and quick delivery. This is not the case, however, with more civilized women who often do not have the opportunity to develop the muscles needed in confinement.

that's an interesting observation. goes to show how office work has altered natural mechanisms and the functions of the human body the way it was designed to work.

also, does the patent mean centripetal force instead of centrifugal? it's centripetal that pulls to the center of the rotating disk.

on the bottom of page 7 it's suggested that the disk be rotated until the force reaches a full 7g, that's almost the same as the acceleration a fighter pilot gets subjected to in tests. it's possible that the mother would be passed out at that point. the effects on the child are probably not the best.

i wonder if the patent office considers the potential harm done to human life when a patent is approved.

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#84

Post by forgetfreeman »

drekipus wrote: post #53
croo wrote: post #39

Everybody is joking half sarcastically here but childbirth as a process in hospitals do have serious problems and modern day labour leaves deep mental scars in most women while being one of the most important thing in their life. This is definitely a step in the wrong direction however laughable the idea is. Do you know what is the most uncomfortable position for labour is? Yeah, layin on your back. It's just the mos…

Thanks for sharing this. It's so crucial to know that we have actually lost this information and we're getting worse. > Do you know what is the most uncomfortable position for labour is? Yeah, layin on your back. My wife and I were shocked when we had our first. We were recommended a "natural birth" course that taught us this, and everyone gave us crap about being "woo-woo" and "denying science". Everyone. We also ha…

The term "run interference" is so much more accurate than I think folks who've never done this realize. My wife submitted a birth plan that explicitly stated no drugs except in the case of emergency. After the fourth time one of the floor nurses asked my wife if she was ready for her epidural I ended up gently insisting she not step foot in our room again. On three occasions I physically barred entry to the room to a lab tech that thought 3am was an appropriate time to do routine blood draws. Twice I caught and stopped a group of 10 (!!) med students about to enter the room for no medically obvious purpose. To the extent that there was any peace during or after my wife giving birth it was because I was belligerenly guarding the door.

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#85

Post by bqmjjx0kac »

fatbaby wrote: post #56
throwaway290 wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say what you mean. If you mean with some weak or atrophied muscles, say that. Don't use "civilized" to hide that fact because it means someone in good shape would be "primitive". Which means not only the choice of words is in fact classist/colonialist, it is also not a very logical statement (sorta fine on HN but sorta bad for a scientific paper). But yeah, times were different (as a statement of fact, no sarcasm).

[flagged]

[flagged]

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#86

Post by rjmunro »

DoingIsLearning wrote: post #70
croo wrote: post #39

Everybody is joking half sarcastically here but childbirth as a process in hospitals do have serious problems and modern day labour leaves deep mental scars in most women while being one of the most important thing in their life. This is definitely a step in the wrong direction however laughable the idea is. Do you know what is the most uncomfortable position for labour is? Yeah, layin on your back. It's just the mos…

> modern day labour leaves deep mental scars in most women while being one of the most important thing in their life. > Do you know what is the most uncomfortable position for labour is? Yeah, layin on your back. It's just the most comfortable position for the _doctor_. You are looking at it from the eyes of the Health System that you know. I lived in countries were elective C-sections are a thing and the father is j…

Here in Oxford, UK, both the above are available in the same hospital - we could choose what we wanted. Is that not normal elsewhere?

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#87

Post by sokoloff »

watwut wrote: post #41
fatbaby wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

I do not think it is appropriate to imply non western people are "less civilized" or call them "primitive". Also, the part about "civilized Women who often do not have the opportunity to develop the muscles needed in confinement" is simply untrue today. We all have tons of opportunities to develop whatever muscles we desire to develop. We just need to take those opportunities. Note that western people, including wome…

I don't read "primitive" to mean "modern-day people who live in other countries", but rather "people who lived thousands to tens of thousands of years before us", which is both much closer to the definition of the word and something which would be relevant to understanding why the author fancies that we might need this contraption now and not previously in our evolutionary journey. (And therefore I find it a completely inoffensive description.)

If you take that reading of the word, I think it's fair to say that the 90th percentile in fitness modern human aged 20-40 is less physically fit than the median human aged 20-40 of 10K to 100K years ago likely was.

If you read primitive to mean, say 10-100K years ago, it's definitionally true that humans are more civilized today than we were then, with what we think of and call "civilization" starting well within the last 10K years with the rise of agriculture, and has nothing to do with how one pronounces certain words or holds their pinky while drinking.

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#88

Post by causi »

undecisive wrote: post #13

> In the case of a woman who has a fully developed muscular system and has had ample physical exertion all through the pregnancy, as is common with all more primitive peoples, nature provides all the necessary equipment and power to have a normal and quick delivery. This is not the case, however, with more civilized Women who often do not have the opportunity to develop the muscles needed in confinement. Ignoring the…

Ignoring the depressingly-predictable classist/colonialist tone

Isn't it an anti-classist tone if anything? It's associating "civilization" with weakness, confinement, and a lack of opportunity, and associating primitive living with fully developed muscles and says it provides for a normal and quick delivery. How is that not an endorsement of primitive living? I don't see how you can call that paragraph colonialist unless you see the word "civilized" and just turn your brain off.

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#89

Post by mahopa »

drekipus wrote: post #53
croo wrote: post #39

Everybody is joking half sarcastically here but childbirth as a process in hospitals do have serious problems and modern day labour leaves deep mental scars in most women while being one of the most important thing in their life. This is definitely a step in the wrong direction however laughable the idea is. Do you know what is the most uncomfortable position for labour is? Yeah, layin on your back. It's just the mos…

Thanks for sharing this. It's so crucial to know that we have actually lost this information and we're getting worse. > Do you know what is the most uncomfortable position for labour is? Yeah, layin on your back. My wife and I were shocked when we had our first. We were recommended a "natural birth" course that taught us this, and everyone gave us crap about being "woo-woo" and "denying science". Everyone. We also ha…

Asking about abuse is a standard question in the US now during hospital interactions not just births and not just natural births.

Re: Apparatus for facilitating the birth of a child by centrifugal force (1963)

#90

Post by VeninVidiaVicii »

drekipus wrote: post #53
croo wrote: post #39

Everybody is joking half sarcastically here but childbirth as a process in hospitals do have serious problems and modern day labour leaves deep mental scars in most women while being one of the most important thing in their life. This is definitely a step in the wrong direction however laughable the idea is. Do you know what is the most uncomfortable position for labour is? Yeah, layin on your back. It's just the mos…

Thanks for sharing this. It's so crucial to know that we have actually lost this information and we're getting worse. > Do you know what is the most uncomfortable position for labour is? Yeah, layin on your back. My wife and I were shocked when we had our first. We were recommended a "natural birth" course that taught us this, and everyone gave us crap about being "woo-woo" and "denying science". Everyone. We also ha…

Thanks for sharing. This lines up so well with my experience as a translator in the ER — doctors are constantly catastrophizing and make it seem like everyone is going to die all the time and seemingly massively overtreat/overtest most patients. It really turned me off and decided not to go to medical school. Maybe it’s their version of upselling.
Post reply on HN