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

201–210 of 230 posts

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

#201

Post by btilly »

jabradoodle wrote: post #198
btilly wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are acting like an ignorant first rate asshole. As example of your ignorance is your lecture about the dangers of an umbilical cord wrapped around the neck. That is, in fact, very common and it is incredibly rare for it to lead to complications. https://unmhealth.org/stories/2022/12/nuchal-cord-managing-d... Which leads to your willful ignorance of the fact that the guy was exposed to a lot of research about prob…

Did you stop to consider that perhaps the reason complications are rare from the umbilical cord wrapping around the neck, is because medical professionals are actively monitoring for it and mitigating the issue?

I absolutely did consider that. Did you consider that I might actually have looked into this reasonably seriously at one point? Like, say, when I was on my way to being a father?

The link that I provided explains the characteristics of the umbilical cord that have been evolved to minimize the probability of problems. It really isn't a problem. Even in childbirths where people don't worry about the umbilical cord.

This shouldn't come as a surprise. Evolution has selected for safe natural childbirth. Unfortunately in homo sapiens there is a conflict between our recent evolutionary pressure for large heads, the needs of walking, and for safety during childbirth. And so childbirth is much more dangerous for us than for other mammals.

Modern humans also have the problem of mothers in poor health. Reasons vary from drug use, to age, to sedentary lifestyles. Of these, drug use is the most dangerous. Despite most mothers not using drugs, drug use is a factor in something like half of childbirth deaths.

Then there is the list of usual complications. Breech birth, infection, blood type incompatibility, diabetes, heart attack and so on. It is a long list. It interacts with the previous lists - for example breech birth is made more dangerous because of our large heads. Complications from knotting of the umbilical cord is very far down the list of things that go wrong.

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

#202

Post by Spooky23 »

Chris2048 wrote: post #164
Spooky23 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The proposition relies on the notion some sort of muscle development is an actual problem.

I'm alluding to the romantic notion of the "noble savage" in this context, as the material assumes that "primitive" peoples somehow didn't have any problem in this area.

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

#203

Post by forgetfreeman »

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?

I'd say it's situational. In this particular instance my wife showed no signs of any complications before, during, or after the birth and the labwork was as much to do with billing our insurance as anything else. They still got to do all of the labwork they wanted, just a few hours later at a more reasonable time of day.

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

#205

Post by lionkor »

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.

There is no proof unless its math, theres just unfalsifiable facts, which just have not yet been falsified.

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

#206

Post by croo »

soudiere wrote: post #145
DoingIsLearning wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Squat birthing is a nice idea, but you have to look at the evidence, it's good for some things and maybe not great for other things like cesarean (RR 2.26 in this meta analysis) https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030121152...

> conclusion: The available evidence does not show the squatting position during childbirth to be beneficial. As there is no evidence for or against squatting, women should be able to choose the position they prefer.

I would also recommend to let the soon-to-be-mother decide how she feels about squatting? You don't read evidence what's the best positure for shitting when you need to shit like hell. I promise you will take up the best positure for your shit.

Also there is more to childbirth than a new life as there is an already existing life it very much affect - the one who's giving birth and I see no such consideration in the linked evidence.

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

#207

Post by [deleted] »

btilly wrote: post #201
jabradoodle wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you stop to consider that perhaps the reason complications are rare from the umbilical cord wrapping around the neck, is because medical professionals are actively monitoring for it and mitigating the issue?

I absolutely did consider that. Did you consider that I might actually have looked into this reasonably seriously at one point? Like, say, when I was on my way to being a father? The link that I provided explains the characteristics of the umbilical cord that have been evolved to minimize the probability of problems. It really isn't a problem. Even in childbirths where people don't worry about the umbilical cord. Thi…

[deleted]

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

#208

Post by jabradoodle »

btilly wrote: post #201
jabradoodle wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you stop to consider that perhaps the reason complications are rare from the umbilical cord wrapping around the neck, is because medical professionals are actively monitoring for it and mitigating the issue?

I absolutely did consider that. Did you consider that I might actually have looked into this reasonably seriously at one point? Like, say, when I was on my way to being a father? The link that I provided explains the characteristics of the umbilical cord that have been evolved to minimize the probability of problems. It really isn't a problem. Even in childbirths where people don't worry about the umbilical cord. Thi…

>Did you consider that I might actually have looked into this reasonably seriously at one point

Pretty much the question I was asking.

While I don't appreciate OPs mockery around CI/CD, what they said about the unbilical cord was accurate. I don't see where the supposed lecture on dangers you mentioned came from.

The post that started this thread was mocking doctors without a proper understanding of the mechanics involved. But sure, it must be a valid criticism by someone who has done their own research.

Not something I've looked into before and I've learned that it seems like it is rare for it to cause issues.

Personally I'd still want a professional on hand to be on the lookout, your posted article links to research where 0.6% of births had the cord wrapped around 3 times and that was correlated with infant death. That's something I would think is of concern even if not of very high chance.

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

#209

Post by drekipus »

pc86 wrote: post #188
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…

Many of the things in the GP comment are idiotic or wrong at very basic levels, so it's possible the "denying science" comments have a root in truth. It's one thing if you've studied a given field, are aware of the limitations in current research, and have a well-informed opinion. It's something completely different if you don't seem to understand the blood is transmitted through the UC and the concern around it bein…

If the doctors say "the cord wrap will stop breathing" and I say "that doesn't make sense" am I denying science or is it just.a normal disagreement?

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

#210

Post by drekipus »

soudiere wrote: post #167
jncfhnb wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

The problem isn't the single digit days. We were totally fine with this and we just put it down to "the baby will come out when they're ready"

I'm saying that you need to tell that to the doctors, who raised all manner of forcible induction on the mother at N+1 days.

Why is a week within margin, but the day after due date isn't?

Post reply on HN