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

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

medlifestyle.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 236 posts

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

#121

Post by kevin_thibedeau »

hallway_monitor wrote: post #93
mensetmanusman wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The U.S. experience used to be this way, but about 100 years ago the medical industry realized they could make a lot of money off of child birth (our last bill was $40k). The hospitals released advertisements scaring women from voodoo (read: black) women/midwives helping with birth so that doctors and surgeons could take over, it worked fantastically. The doctors eventually chained women to beds and tested various ch…

We did it in the hospital too but there's nothing stopping you from using a midwife at home right? Another thing that seems to be pushed a lot is epidurals. They expect everyone to get one and are very surprised when someone does not want it.

Then you have to deal with the circumcision sales pitch.

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

#122

Post by Spooky23 »

drknownuffin wrote: post #67
prionassembly wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You pay for a nurse or aide to be ready to intervene if there’s an issue in a post-caesarean situation. We had a pediatrician in the room (which is also a perfectly opportunistic for the ob/gyn to score a referral). OR theater was main OB/GYN (which we chose), his assistant (also ob/gyn, younger and oddly published), anesthesiologist, instruments clerk and pediatrician. I don't think we had a nurse at all.

What country were you in? In the US, a nurse is highly standard. If you're not getting a c-section, the usual array is: OB/GYN, plus or minus a resident or assistant, doing the delivery and doing any post-delivery laceration repairs; and a nurse who brought in instruments and is on hand to assist with repositioning the mother, getting more equipment, etc. In most places it's 1-2 nurses. If everything is expected to b…

> Thank god that idea passed

Why's that? Just curious, I always find it fascinating how physicians pick a speciality!

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

#123

Post by gambiting »

rootusrootus wrote: post #78
gambiting wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, you have to pay to have a baby in the US? The wealthiest country in the world cannot even pay for the birth of its own citizens? I can understand arguments for private healthcare etc....but making people pay to give birth is insane.

Tell me where it is completely free. And I don't mean paid for via taxes.

No offense, but that's such a weird way of looking at it. Even in the US every reasonable adult would say that driving on public roads is free, right? But roads are maintained from taxes so how dare you call them free!!! It's the same thing here - other countries just pay for their citizens giving birth from taxes. The cost to you as a citizen is zero. No it's not free, someone pays for it. But I never used the word free anywhere, so I feel like you want to have an argument for the argument sake.

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

#124

Post by reacharavindh »

quux wrote: post #117
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…

Do they assist in cutting the umbilical cord and delivering the placenta before leaving the parents and baby alone?

Yes, I think the midwife gave me (father) a choice to cut the umbilical cord. I didn't want to, so she did it, and also removed the placenta, and sutured the mother(while the baby was in mom's chest). Once the suture was complete, the midwife and the helper nurse went out of the room and said they are available immediately if we needed them. That hour went like a minute :-)

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

#125

Post by durandal1 »

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…

We had 2 children within the last 5 years, both born at Stanford, Palo Alto, and both were immediately put skin to skin after birth, so I don't think it's unique to Denmark.

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

#126

Post by pumaontheprowl »

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…

2.8 million people die during childbirth every year. It's absolutely a medical condition. And you should absolutely have a doctor there.

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

#127

Post by hahahasure »

hallway_monitor wrote: post #93
mensetmanusman wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The U.S. experience used to be this way, but about 100 years ago the medical industry realized they could make a lot of money off of child birth (our last bill was $40k). The hospitals released advertisements scaring women from voodoo (read: black) women/midwives helping with birth so that doctors and surgeons could take over, it worked fantastically. The doctors eventually chained women to beds and tested various ch…

We did it in the hospital too but there's nothing stopping you from using a midwife at home right? Another thing that seems to be pushed a lot is epidurals. They expect everyone to get one and are very surprised when someone does not want it.

The epidural costs $6000. A 10 minute procedure.

I saw my wife before and after an Epidural so I could not dispute it's effectiveness.

But I generally can't see a reason why we need to spend 12 years in school to learn how various needles and rules of thumbs work.

Only the US has such an education burden, and only does the US have such a strong physician cartel to mandate it..

Edit, and even with midwives you will be hitting max out of pocket with 1 night stay.

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

#128

Post by GloriousKoji »

whall6 wrote: post #107
in_cahoots wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would not call it a "good amount" but I know women who elected for C-sections because they attribute too much value and significance to the date of birth.

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

#129

Post by economusty »

pumaontheprowl wrote: post #126
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…

2.8 million people die during childbirth every year. It's absolutely a medical condition. And you should absolutely have a doctor there.

Thanks for saying this, most do it in the hospital because if something goes wrong we want to have the best chance of saving mom and child.

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

#130

Post by souprock »

tootie wrote: post #99
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's pretty common in the US as well although not the norm. I think it's kinda dumb to be honest. Just get an epidural. My wife was induced twice due to risk factors and got two epidurals. We still got to cuddle them new born. We also had to bottle feed the first week pretty heavily to stave off jaundice although they were mostly breast fed afterwards.

No, don't get an epidural. Pain has a purpose. It guides you to minimize injury. Be thankful you can feel pain.

There are people with genetic defects that prevent feeling pain. These people constantly injure themselves.

Post reply on HN