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

161–170 of 230 posts

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

#161

Post by javier123454321 »

BurningFrog wrote: post #149
lionkor wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> denying science science isnt a religion, you cant deny it or follow it, there is a rigorous process and sometimes the results are wrong, misleading, or lead to the wrong decisions. Do not pretend there's an absolute in science, especially medicine, where one can say "this is the only good way" and know it to be true.

"Denying science" usually means denying scientifically proven facts.

https://blogs.loc.gov/headlinesandheroes/2022/04/10-strange-...

You seem to be denying the scientifically proven facts that science gets things wrong... constantly... to the detriments of people suffering the catastrophic effects of those errors.

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

#162

Post by Spooky23 »

ralphc wrote: post #118
forgetfreeman wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I applaud all that with the possible exception of the routine blood draws. Not for childbirth but both my wife and I have been in the hospital and appreciated the monitoring. Things can go south quickly on many medical issues, wouldn't a timely blood test catch things early?

It’s difficult unless you know how the hospital works. If you’re recovering on the standard medical floor, they follow some idiotic process ordered by a hospitalist whom you’ll never see. Basically you’re there because some rule says so.

If you’re on an OB floor, ICU, PACU, or dedicated unit, you’d better know why she’s there and they are doing those blood draws as you’re putting mom at risk for a variety of problems.

If all is well, she’s going home in a day or two, and being an obstructionist is just delaying that process and an actual good nights sleep.

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

#163

Post by h2odragon »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #51
elzbardico wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, why stop at two? This is a software engineer dream: Perfectly linear scalability

The equipment already exists in the form of the fairground ride called The Wall of Gravity (UK). The only change needed would be to lie legs radially outwards instead of standing axially aligned at the rim. You might want to scrub it first too!

Don't forget the spectator market. We can sell tickets to seats outside the device. The first 3 rows are the "splash zone"; for $5 extra you can have a souvenir poncho with the printed logo.

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

#164

Post by Chris2048 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #67
fatbaby wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

You’ve accepted the assertion from someone of supposed authority without question. It’s a pretty awful assertion, as it both blames and infantilizes those helpless and weak “modern women” while dismissing the medical needs of the hearty and hale savages. I suppose those modern women wouldn’t need the spin bed if they spent more time working at home. Great-grandma scrubbed those floors on her knees, and popped out 12…

> it both blames and infantilizes those helpless and weak “modern women”

by saying they "often do not have the opportunity to develop the muscles needed in confinement"?

> dismissing the medical needs of the hearty and hale savages

was the word "savage" used?

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

#165

Post by croo »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #117
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…

>Giving birth is similar to the act of vomiting in the sense that you don't have to do anything, it happens to you when the circumstances call for it. Is it? I imagine the mortality/morbidity rate for women before modern medical interventions during childbirth was much higher. My wife had to have her amniotic sac manually broken by the doctor after 12 hours of labor to resume her dilation.

Yep, women body is able to give birth.

I agree, mortality was most likely higher because when complications happen, modern intervention is much better, cleaner, we know about bacteria and other stuff exists and stuff like that.. but that's only like 10% of the cases(anecdote).

About your wife: if you take a woman in labour from home to an unknown place where strangers stare at her vagina and put stuff in guess what happens? Labour stops. Now you need artificial stuff to make it happen regardless - drugs, breaking sac, more drugs, suction cup, whatnot...

My problem is that we butcher the 90% of cases where there is no need for any intervention to the process.

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

#166

Post by h2odragon »

amenhotep wrote: post #4

The diagrams, which are incredible, intrigued me enough (how is the midwife supposed to observe and assist?) that I actually read further to find out, and wow, I'm glad I did: > Means are provided to assure the safe delivery of the fetus and to stop the machine immediately upon such delivery. These means comprise a pocket-shaped reception net 88 made of strong, elastic material and supported under tension by tail rop…

Change the hook mechanism and we have a baby trebuchet.

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

#167

Post by soudiere »

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.

Same, I linked him a paper on the error margin of these scans in another comment. The poor assumption here is the error margin at 18-19 weeks is the same at 36 weeks.

Might be worth reviewing the ACOG's recommendations on post-term deliveries https://www.acog.org/clinical/clinical-guidance/committee-op...

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

#168

Post by Spooky23 »

pfannkuchen wrote: post #105
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…

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…

Usually people clinging to folk medicine were ignorant people due to circumstances.

Now, people who live in a modern society actively pursue ignorance as they perceive it to be some sort of virtue. Many people want to aspire to home water birth, exclusively breastfeed and only used organic cotton diapers, because…

Others seek cures from goop.com or gurus of various stripes because it makes them feel empowered. Look at Steve Jobs - a fricking billionaire with access to anything possible, who delayed meaningful treatment to chug papaya juice or whatever for his cancer.

It dogmatic thinking just as wrong as the doctor who pushes for a c-section so he doesn’t get called on Christmas morning or miss his football game.

Empowerment and ego can often fool us. And marketers have monetized or.

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

#169

Post by croo »

jncfhnb wrote: post #137
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…

What are the ideal positions? Back seems ideal at a naive glance

I guess it's different for everyone but by anecdote on all four or squatting, preferably in bath.

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

#170

Post by cat_plus_plus »

Well, whoever came up with the patent was trying to help. Didn't end up being practical, but then a lot of things tried in 60s didn't end up being practical. We thought we would find some use of going to the moon, found out it's just an empty piece of rock, do we dump on people for trying?

Actual thing that worked? Pulling baby out with a vacuum cleaner more or less, done all the time and beats other methods like forceps or letting risky labor drag on. Probably many rolled their eyes first hearing of that idea.

Post reply on HN