Immediate skin-to-skin contact with unstable newborns improves survival chances • Hacker News Board

Re: Immediate skin-to-skin contact with unstable newborns improves survival chances

#101

Post by reacharavindh » Thu, May 27, 2021, 4:45 PM UTC

t0mas88 wrote: post #53

reacharavindh wrote: post #33

Interesting to read this here. When my son was born (naturally, normal weight, fully healthy, and around expected due date), the midwife in Denmark had educated us about the Danish way of handling the birth - as soon as the baby comes out, they literally put the baby on mom’s chest, and leave us(parents, and baby) alone in the room for about an hour. Nothing needs to be done other than the baby being in care of it’s…

It goes like this in the Netherlands as well. Typically with only a midwife, and a nurse if you want pain reduction medication because the midwife is not allowed to handle that. The exception is if there are medical indications like an early birth (I think before week 36), then a doctor would be present from the start. Home births are a choice and a lot of people make that choice because it is a less stressful enviro…

It is reassuring to hear that Netherlands works more or less the same. Today is my first day in the Netherlands(moved here from DK) :-)

Just to add, we also had the exact situation as you described. An annex physically close but separated from the hospital. The child birth rooms are similar to normal room with a "help please" button. I'd also take this close proximity to the hospital over home births. Just in case something unexpected occurs and medical help is needed.

Re: Immediate skin-to-skin contact with unstable newborns improves survival chances

#102

Post by Tabular-Iceberg » Thu, May 27, 2021, 4:49 PM UTC

jaywalk wrote: post #42

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The central bank prints money (partially offset by tax). Some of that money could go to basic medical care like this, as it does in most other countries.

We're currently seeing exactly what happens when the central bank money printer goes into overdrive, which is rising inflation. Maybe we shouldn't be encouraging that.

Some of the countries that implement universal healthcare could actually use some increased inflation. So it doesn't seem like a real concern in practice.

Re: Immediate skin-to-skin contact with unstable newborns improves survival chances

#103

Post by in_cahoots » Thu, May 27, 2021, 4:51 PM UTC

blhack wrote: post #70

reacharavindh wrote: post #33

Interesting to read this here. When my son was born (naturally, normal weight, fully healthy, and around expected due date), the midwife in Denmark had educated us about the Danish way of handling the birth - as soon as the baby comes out, they literally put the baby on mom’s chest, and leave us(parents, and baby) alone in the room for about an hour. Nothing needs to be done other than the baby being in care of it’s…

This sounds exactly like the process my wife and I are going through in the US right now. I’ve never heard of pregnancy being treated like an “illness” (??). Midwives are also extremely common here. Granted I live in Arizona, and I know much of HN lives in SF. So maybe this is unique to Arizona in some way?

The country’s c-section rate is somewhere near 33% when most estimates say it should be around 15%. That’s a pretty good indicator of systematic over-medicalization.

Re: Immediate skin-to-skin contact with unstable newborns improves survival chances

#104

Post by afavour » Thu, May 27, 2021, 4:52 PM UTC

recursive wrote: post #85

afavour wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...and despite it being essentially a time period where the hospital leaves you alone, you still get billed for it.

Have you heard about hotels? They bill me for a full day, and barely even communicate with me all night long?

When you stay at a hotel do you receive a specific line-item in your bill for being time spent lying in bed with your partner?

Re: Immediate skin-to-skin contact with unstable newborns improves survival chances

#105

Post by reacharavindh » Thu, May 27, 2021, 4:54 PM UTC

prionassembly wrote: post #58

reacharavindh wrote: post #33

Interesting to read this here. When my son was born (naturally, normal weight, fully healthy, and around expected due date), the midwife in Denmark had educated us about the Danish way of handling the birth - as soon as the baby comes out, they literally put the baby on mom’s chest, and leave us(parents, and baby) alone in the room for about an hour. Nothing needs to be done other than the baby being in care of it’s…

> 1. Childbirth is handled by midwives (Jordemothers) instead of doctors. Doctors are brought only when medication or any treatment is necessary. This is perfectly rational in the context of publicly-funded healthcare; for many mothers (younger and in optimal health) pregnancy has little complications. On the other hand, we really benefited from high-intensity pre-natal care with frequent ultrasounds, as we were able…

> What I mean is that it's a wonderful cost-saving tactic which doesn't imply better care.

I don't agree.

It is not mutually exclusive to have a midwives dealing with childbirths and Doctors providing excellent care when needed. The midwives perform the scheduled ultrasound and if there was any inkling of complication, they would have immediately involved a Doctor into the process(I was told so, but my son didn't need any). This way the Doctors are engaged only when necessary thereby increasing chances of better care and not wasting their time handling sore throats or clipping rich people's toe nails.

Re: Immediate skin-to-skin contact with unstable newborns improves survival chances

#106

Post by philsnow » Thu, May 27, 2021, 4:54 PM UTC

swman wrote: post #100

reacharavindh wrote: post #33

Interesting to read this here. When my son was born (naturally, normal weight, fully healthy, and around expected due date), the midwife in Denmark had educated us about the Danish way of handling the birth - as soon as the baby comes out, they literally put the baby on mom’s chest, and leave us(parents, and baby) alone in the room for about an hour. Nothing needs to be done other than the baby being in care of it’s…

I resonate with #4. I'm in US, so healthcare is tied to employer. My first job ever paid 12/hr and I did not have health care and it was a part time job, so I'm glad I could rely on my mother's health insurance until age 26 (thanks Obama). I got my first "real" job after spending a year trying to find a full time job after graduating college, during which I was working that 12/hr job. Even at the new job which paid 8…

> I could rely on my mother's health insurance until age 26 (thanks Obama)

I don't know the particulars of what law enabled this, but I used my dad's health insurance until I was 26 as well, before Obama's first term.

Re: Immediate skin-to-skin contact with unstable newborns improves survival chances

#107

Post by whall6 » Thu, May 27, 2021, 4:54 PM UTC

in_cahoots wrote: post #103

blhack wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds exactly like the process my wife and I are going through in the US right now. I’ve never heard of pregnancy being treated like an “illness” (??). Midwives are also extremely common here. Granted I live in Arizona, and I know much of HN lives in SF. So maybe this is unique to Arizona in some way?

The country’s c-section rate is somewhere near 33% when most estimates say it should be around 15%. That’s a pretty good indicator of systematic over-medicalization.

Lots of women I know elect to have C-sections.

Re: Immediate skin-to-skin contact with unstable newborns improves survival chances

#108

Post by kritiko » Thu, May 27, 2021, 4:58 PM UTC

philsnow wrote: post #106

swman wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I resonate with #4. I'm in US, so healthcare is tied to employer. My first job ever paid 12/hr and I did not have health care and it was a part time job, so I'm glad I could rely on my mother's health insurance until age 26 (thanks Obama). I got my first "real" job after spending a year trying to find a full time job after graduating college, during which I was working that 12/hr job. Even at the new job which paid 8…

> I could rely on my mother's health insurance until age 26 (thanks Obama) I don't know the particulars of what law enabled this, but I used my dad's health insurance until I was 26 as well, before Obama's first term.

Are you from Massachusetts? In that case it was Mitt Romney's healthcare reform.

Re: Immediate skin-to-skin contact with unstable newborns improves survival chances

#109

Post by locusofself » Thu, May 27, 2021, 5:00 PM UTC

Not getting skin-to-skin contact with our daughter (and only child we will have) for several days because of very minor complications is something we really resent.

Re: Immediate skin-to-skin contact with unstable newborns improves survival chances

#110

Post by reacharavindh » Thu, May 27, 2021, 5:02 PM UTC

swman wrote: post #100

reacharavindh wrote: post #33

Interesting to read this here. When my son was born (naturally, normal weight, fully healthy, and around expected due date), the midwife in Denmark had educated us about the Danish way of handling the birth - as soon as the baby comes out, they literally put the baby on mom’s chest, and leave us(parents, and baby) alone in the room for about an hour. Nothing needs to be done other than the baby being in care of it’s…

I resonate with #4. I'm in US, so healthcare is tied to employer. My first job ever paid 12/hr and I did not have health care and it was a part time job, so I'm glad I could rely on my mother's health insurance until age 26 (thanks Obama). I got my first "real" job after spending a year trying to find a full time job after graduating college, during which I was working that 12/hr job. Even at the new job which paid 8…

I am very sorry for what you went through.

I lived in the US for 6 years, and worked at above average tech company and had excellent healthcare benefits through employer. I must admit it blinds people to say "country's messed up healthcare system is not my problem" because my employer took care of it :-(

Before my move to Europe, I risked living in the US for a month without health Insurance, and I was very anxious about it. I can't imagine what most Americans who don't have that luxury of employer benefits feel daily.

It's silly to think that the richest country on earth by far does not have a decent healthcare system that covers all of its citizens.