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

Why are so many babies born around 8:00 AM? (2017)

blogs.scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 138 posts

Re: Why are so many babies born around 8:00 AM? (2017)

#121

Post by aikinai »

ars wrote: post #100
rafaelm wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know about the other numbers, but my wife has had two scheduled c-sections and the recovery for both suuucked when compared to everyone we know that had natural birth. Of course, the process of going through labor pains for many hours might make things even between the two...

> Of course, the process of going through labor pains for many hours might make things even between the two... It's not. Labor pain is more time limited and the mother is kind of "out of it", and doesn't usually remember it clearly - plus there's a prize at the end :) C-section pain is worse, and it lasts several weeks exactly at a time when the mother needs to do stuff. It's worse in every way.

My understanding is that when things progress naturally, the mother’s body and mind should be in a state that helps them cope with the pain, but it doesn’t reduce it or help you forget anything.

My wife remembers every instant of all of her births.

Re: Why are so many babies born around 8:00 AM? (2017)

#122

Post by chrisherring »

russdill wrote: post #117
chrisherring wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Scheduled c-sections outperform emergency c-sections in every metric tracked." The comparison is natural birth to c-sections. Comparing scheduled c-sections to emergency c-sections is a ridiculous thing to track, go compare GP visits vs admission to emergency while you're at it.

It's 100% relevant. If you have a pregnancy for which there is a high chance of an emergency c-section, an alternative is a scheduled c-section.

No it’s not. That’s a different comparison.

Re: Why are so many babies born around 8:00 AM? (2017)

#123

Post by watwut »

elgenie wrote: post #96
public_defender wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The practice of routinely scheduling a c-section is basically a confession that birth medicine doesn't serve the patient. Any reasonable medical system would allow natural birth to progress until medical intervention became necessary.

Alternatively, a reasonable medical system might err on the side of a few more not entirely necessary C-sections as opposed to more not entirely necessary maternal and baby deaths. As a legacy of upright locomotion balanced with large cranium size and infant helplessness, humans have ended up with an objectively poor design for giving birth to offspring. Death during that process is “natural”.

Let's do it like with abortions- let people suffer, let's risk their health until it is clear they will die with intervention. Absolutely necessary is cruel standard.

Re: Why are so many babies born around 8:00 AM? (2017)

#124

Post by MandieD »

public_defender wrote: post #77
exhilaration wrote: post #9

The answer is scheduled C-sections and if you haven't read it, Atul Gawande's 2006 New Yorker article on why they've become so common is good read: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2006/10/09/the-score After watching The Business of Being Born , Gawande's article was really helpful in understanding why things are done the way they are.

The practice of routinely scheduling a c-section is basically a confession that birth medicine doesn't serve the patient. Any reasonable medical system would allow natural birth to progress until medical intervention became necessary.

Would have been a bit difficult to tell if my small hiatal hernia that occasionally causes scary heartburn had become an increasingly large hiatal hernia that allowed part of my stomach to slip through, requiring a much worse emergency surgery than my soothingly well-planned c-section, while in the middle of giving birth…

Not everyone giving birth is a fit 25 year old with absolutely no other health issues and a desire to have several more kids.

Tsk tsk all you like about women “waiting too long” - the majority of first-time mothers over 40 have c-sections. Would my child and I have survived a natural birth? Most likely. Would I definitely not have further damaged my diaphragm, debilitating me far more than the planned c-section did (hardly at all) at a point when we could least tolerate it? My gyno, my gastroenterologist, and I decided the c-section was a much better bet for both me and my child.

Re: Why are so many babies born around 8:00 AM? (2017)

#125

Post by MandieD »

doctor_eval wrote: post #112
public_defender wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the first part is correct. There is probably an optimal rate of c-section which is materially higher than "strictly necessary" and optimizes for mom+baby health. What I am concerned about is the scheduled c-sections. For most births, there is not really a medically credible way to determine in advance that vaginal birth will be dangerous (as a relevant corrolary, consider that there is no way to meaningfully…

It's many years since I had children but we were curious about home birth, and what I understood from looking into it was that there is, apparently, no significant difference in overall safety between home births and hospital births. However, there was a significant difference in the reasons things went wrong. Because in a hospital you're more likely to receive unnecessary treatment due to the "cascade of interventio…

How well do they control for planned home births having lower risk profiles at the outset? For example, even had I been determined to try labor, I would have done so in a hospital, because I was 40 and have a hiatal hernia that will always be at risk of tearing further. I’d be an idiot to have tried at home.

Re: Why are so many babies born around 8:00 AM? (2017)

#126

Post by doctor_eval »

MandieD wrote: post #125
doctor_eval wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's many years since I had children but we were curious about home birth, and what I understood from looking into it was that there is, apparently, no significant difference in overall safety between home births and hospital births. However, there was a significant difference in the reasons things went wrong. Because in a hospital you're more likely to receive unnecessary treatment due to the "cascade of interventio…

How well do they control for planned home births having lower risk profiles at the outset? For example, even had I been determined to try labor, I would have done so in a hospital, because I was 40 and have a hiatal hernia that will always be at risk of tearing further. I’d be an idiot to have tried at home.

I don’t recall. It’s a long time ago. I do remember that there were some other factors like proximity of home to hospital.

Mostly the advice we got was, if you have a medical condition that increases risk, then go to a hospital or a birthing centre. But if not, and you live reasonably close to a hospital, home birth is quite safe.

Re: Why are so many babies born around 8:00 AM? (2017)

#127

Post by public_defender »

russdill wrote: post #116
public_defender wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My opinion isn't stupid, I have just considered and valued sources that you have disregarded. The ACOG is a trade group that supports medical intervention in birth. It doesn't make their contributions to research on the efficacy of medical intervention in birth irrelevant, but you should consider their contributions in the same light as Exxon's sponsored research into the environmental impacts of oil extraction. Ther…

There's a huge difference between arguing that many scheduled c-sections are not for medical reasons vs that there are not medical reasons for a scheduled c-section.

Well, good thing nobody is taking the second position. My point is that natural labor is not allowed by the medical system to progress in many cases where there is no medical reason to intervene.

I said wait until medical intervention becomes necessary, not force active labor on everyone. As others have pointed out, we can detect the need for medical intervention at an early stage sometimes. That's great, people should have the medical care they need. They should not have surgery forced on them.

Re: Why are so many babies born around 8:00 AM? (2017)

#128

Post by hulitu »

charcircuit wrote: post #106
lostNFound wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s correct, and scheduled C-Sections are also the reason Christmas is the rarest birthday.

Is December 25th actually rarer than February 29th?

February 29th may be a working day. December 25th is usually free in Christian countries.

Re: Why are so many babies born around 8:00 AM? (2017)

#129

Post by public_defender »

MandieD wrote: post #124
public_defender wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The practice of routinely scheduling a c-section is basically a confession that birth medicine doesn't serve the patient. Any reasonable medical system would allow natural birth to progress until medical intervention became necessary.

Would have been a bit difficult to tell if my small hiatal hernia that occasionally causes scary heartburn had become an increasingly large hiatal hernia that allowed part of my stomach to slip through, requiring a much worse emergency surgery than my soothingly well-planned c-section, while in the middle of giving birth… Not everyone giving birth is a fit 25 year old with absolutely no other health issues and a desi…

That's a great medical outcome and I'm glad you were able to have it. I don't mean to detract from that at all. My experience is that, though many mothers have stories like yours, many others have an experience where the doctor forecloses natural birth from an early stage and forces a path of increasing medical intervention. I'll bet that there are quite a few fit 25 year olds with no health conditions on the scheduled c-section plan because of medical advice that didn't put mom or baby first.

The example that sticks in my mind is from one of the Ina May Gaskin books where the doctor tells a woman that she has a "big baby, but only an adequate pelvis." I can't imagine the amount of damage this kind of doctoring is still doing to people, but it's surely significant.

Re: Why are so many babies born around 8:00 AM? (2017)

#130

Post by public_defender »

MandieD wrote: post #125
doctor_eval wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's many years since I had children but we were curious about home birth, and what I understood from looking into it was that there is, apparently, no significant difference in overall safety between home births and hospital births. However, there was a significant difference in the reasons things went wrong. Because in a hospital you're more likely to receive unnecessary treatment due to the "cascade of interventio…

How well do they control for planned home births having lower risk profiles at the outset? For example, even had I been determined to try labor, I would have done so in a hospital, because I was 40 and have a hiatal hernia that will always be at risk of tearing further. I’d be an idiot to have tried at home.

Unfortunately there are still very limited services for birth outside of hospitals in the US. Providers have a hard time getting regulatory approval and insurance, so they are selective in who they will take as homebirth or out-of-hospital birthing center clients. Basically, only people with very low risk profiles can make it through all the qualifiers for an attended out-of-hospital birth.

I am speaking from personal experience with births in one of the biggest US cities in the last five years. Anecdotally, I think that some less-dense areas have better CNMW practices and more access to midwives due to traditionally less access to hospitals, but it seems very variable.

Post reply on HN