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

151–160 of 230 posts

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

#151

Post by koenigdavidmj »

omniglottal wrote: post #120
twodave wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is available in the US, but you make the choice based on the facility, typically. You can have the more medicalized experience at a hospital, or you can do home birth and hire a doula to assist, or you can go to a birthing center, which is sort of an in-between but more intimate atmosphere than a hospital. Usually the birthing center will be close enough to a real hospital to intervene if something goes wrong du…

Which of these options does medical insurance cover?

My wife has had kids in all these settings, except the home birth was through the same provider as the birthing center. All of them were covered by insurance, except the birthing center is out of network. There’s an in-network one the next city over.

(This is a perfectly ordinary HDHP/HSA plan through a large company that you’ve heard of.)

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

#152

Post by purpleflame1257 »

dev_tty01 wrote: post #127
danesparza wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Be safe. The United States has the highest maternal mortality rate among developed countries. In 2020, there were 23.8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in the US. That number includes both hospital and home births. However studies have found home births with certified professional midwives in the US to have very low rates of maternal and infant mortality, comparable to hospital births for low-risk women.

I don't disagree that there are real problems, but these statistics don't really help much. The home birth group is less likely to include high risk births. Many issues are detected during prenatal care and most of those parents will choose a birthing environment better equipped to deal with crises. As far as high US mortality rate, I wonder if this is more of a reflection of general poor health issues from terrible…

Demographics plays a significant role here. In the U.S. women in the middle 3 quintiles of income have fewer children than the top, and far fewer than the bottom. In countries with more generous maternity policies I believe the trend is not as strong.

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

#153

Post by Chris2048 »

danesparza wrote: post #102
drekipus wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Be safe. The United States has the highest maternal mortality rate among developed countries. In 2020, there were 23.8 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in the US. That number includes both hospital and home births. However studies have found home births with certified professional midwives in the US to have very low rates of maternal and infant mortality, comparable to hospital births for low-risk women.

> studies have found home births with certified professional midwives in the US to have very low rates of maternal and infant mortality

Does this factor in that high-risk births might be more likely had in the hospital?

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

#154

Post by pfannkuchen »

throw0101a wrote: post #146
pfannkuchen wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone know how the phrase "denying science" crept into people’s vocabulary? I find it incredibly creepy since it sort of treats science as a religion, and usually people who say it seem to know basically nothing about actual science. If I think back before about 10 years ago I don’t think I had ever heard it before. In the past, non-technically minded people didn’t really cite “science” as a concrete reason to…

> I find it incredibly creepy since it sort of treats science as a religion […] This has been a thing for a while: * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

This is different from what I observe though. One can believe that the scientific method is the best way we know of to understand reality, without assigning dogma status to any particular artifact that comes out of this process. Doing so is, ironically, actually anti science (in the scientific method sense), which is probably what makes it so creepy.

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

#155

Post by croo »

jncfhnb wrote: post #139
drekipus wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I find it crazy that you’re bothered by scans having a margin of error measured in single digit days.

It's not a problem if the error margin means nothing - the baby comes out between 38-42 week is all good.

It is a problem because if you run out of the pre determined terminus based on erroneous scans you will get c-section because protocol.

Of course this is a personal anecdote and may not apply to your country.

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

#156

Post by hirundo »

PixyMisa wrote: post #143
hirundo wrote: post #94

There was a Heinlein story where Lazurus Long delivers the baby of a slave girl he had rescued by accelerating the spaceship they were in at the crucial moment. Anyone remember which book?

Time Enough for Love, the section of the story with the complementary twins. I think he adjusted the artificial gravity rather than the acceleration, but yes, I immediately thought of that when I saw this item.

Thank you! Time Enough for Love was published in 1973, and this article is from 1963, so it doesn't count as a Heinlein invention:

  My stool was bolted to the deck, I had added a seat belt. As I strapped myself down, I reminded them that we had a rough ride coming-and this we had not been able to practice; it would have risked miscarriage. "Lock your fingers, Joe, but let her breathe. Comfortable, Llita?" "Uh-" she said breathlessly. "I-I'm starting another one!" "Bear down, dear!" I made sure my left foot was positioned for the gravistat control and watched her belly. Big one! As it peaked, I switched from one-quarter gravity up to two gravities almost in one motion-and Llita let out a yip and the baby squirted like a watermelon seed right into my hands. I dragged my foot back to allow the gravistat to put us back on low gee even as I made a nearly instantaoeous inspection of the brat. --- But more interesting is the Senior's allegation that he used a pseudogravity field in that year to facilitate childbirth. Was he the first tocologist to use this (now standard) method? Nowhere does he assert this, and the technique is usually associated with Dr. Virginius Briggs of Secundus Howard Clinic and a much later date.
http://www.technovelgy.com/ct/content.asp?Bnum=1929

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

#157

Post by fdsalkjvadlkj »

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…

I'd caution you to take this attitude in this case. Modern medicine isn't run by boogiemen out to get you. Nuchal cords really do increase risk, and you're making a cavalier and poorly informed statement to justify your reasoning with "the baby isn't even using its throat to breath yet." [1]

Forceps are generally reserved for emergencies, and could save your baby's life.

Birth goes ok, 90%+ of the time. I don't think it's right saying doctor and nurses are overreacting, their job and where they make a difference is in the 10%. And there's no knowing where you'll fall until after.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5719938/

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

#158

Post by soudiere »

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…

Imagine working with this guy on a software system. Says no to established best practices across the board "no" to version control, CI/CD, vulnerability scans, patching and all the interventions.

Gets one project off the ground by "following their gut", and it wasn't a disaster, concludes this is the way to go.

> Doctors and nurses make a big deal about things like "the cord is wrapped around the neck" when the baby isn't even using its throat to breathe yet. It still has the cord for everything they need.

This is just wildly ignorant, they're concerned about occlusion of bloodflow through the cord and/or the carotid artery.

> The morphology scans can't seem to decide if we're at 18 weeks or 19 weeks. Due dates my ass.

What are you upset about? The error margin being well within the stated limitations in current research?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7844476/

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

#159

Post by Spooky23 »

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…

It’s a tough process in the US because healthcare is a mess in the US and obstetrics is dominated by defensive medicine, especially if there’s a significant number of Medicaid patients.

Most of the hysteria is because they get a lot of women who show at at 42 weeks, no prenatal care, gestational diabetes and no support system. Even worse, if mom is hooked to opioids, and that baby costs $2m to deliver.

America in this area is basically the privileged who get world class care and the proles who get whatever.

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

#160

Post by amelius »

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…

> Do you know what is the most uncomfortable position for labour is? Yeah, layin on your back.

Well, the more G-forces, the more lying down becomes like standing ...

Post reply on HN