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

161–170 of 236 posts

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

#161

Post by Accujack »

mensetmanusman wrote: post #91
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…

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…

>but about 100 years ago

It wasn't really an issue for the most part until laws were changed in the early 70s - by Nixon.

That was when for profit health care took over here.

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

#162

Post by jschwartzi »

johncessna wrote: post #155
carlmr wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it blinds people to say "country's messed up healthcare system is not my problem" because my employer took care of it :-( This is something I never understood. If your employer is in power of your health insurance, how free are you?

I'm not saying it's a good system, but I'm not following your logic here. If the government is in power of your health insurance, how free are you? I can change my employer a lot easier than I can change my government.

But when you change employers you risk losing access to your healthcare. Whereas if government pays for the health system you can maintain continuity of care, which can be essential to treat various psychiatric and medical conditions. Imagine if, because you got a new job, your lease on an apartment were canceled and you had to go find a new place to live? That's what our healthcare system is like and it's maddening.

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

#163

Post by johncessna »

jschwartzi wrote: post #162
johncessna wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not saying it's a good system, but I'm not following your logic here. If the government is in power of your health insurance, how free are you? I can change my employer a lot easier than I can change my government.

But when you change employers you risk losing access to your healthcare. Whereas if government pays for the health system you can maintain continuity of care, which can be essential to treat various psychiatric and medical conditions. Imagine if, because you got a new job, your lease on an apartment were canceled and you had to go find a new place to live? That's what our healthcare system is like and it's maddening.

I'm not defending the system, I was trying to point out the absurdity of the parent's statement.

To your point, the affordable health care act addressed the issue with not being able to get insurance due to preexisting conditions. In the US you're required to have healthcare insurance. You can buy it yourself, get it through your employer, or, assuming you qualify, get it from the government.

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

#164

Post by OJFord »

gameman144 wrote: post #138
OJFord wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you objecting to 'mother' in the Dutch as if 'wife' in the English doesn't imply the same?

I didn't read that as objecting to anything, it looks like an honest question...

Fair enough. The quote made it seem like 'That's so non-PC why do you call it that' to me, so I was just pointing out it's not any different in English, quoting the Dutch is redundant!

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

#165

Post by ARandomerDude »

cultofmetatron wrote: post #149
durandal1 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Palo alto is not typical of America. Its one of the richest places in the country for one along with having a high percentage of liberal/educated people. IN America you have to be upper middle class at minimum to have the same standard of living as the bottom tier in Scandinavian countries.

Doubtless, you're leaving soon then...

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

#166

Post by calvinmorrison »

cultofmetatron wrote: post #149
durandal1 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Palo alto is not typical of America. Its one of the richest places in the country for one along with having a high percentage of liberal/educated people. IN America you have to be upper middle class at minimum to have the same standard of living as the bottom tier in Scandinavian countries.

I always assumed poor people had midwifes

Source: born in a house not a hospital like my whole family

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

#167

Post by ACS_Solver »

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?

I know that in Russian culture, pregnancy is often treated somewhat like an illness. Not in the sense that it's bad, but it's commonly believed the pregnant woman needs a lot of bed rest, should avoid any physical activity more strenuous than walking, etc. In the last trimester, the woman is treated similarly to someone recovering from a major surgery. Medical supervision is handled by a doctor throughout the pregnancy.

This is in complete contrast to the thread starter's Danish approach, or the approach where I am in Sweden. Women are encouraged to remain physically active, to only abstain from very major activities (think skydiving or marathon running), and to generally keep doing things as long as they're physically comfortable. Midwives handle everything from the first checkup until labor, a doctor only gets involved if there's something that requires a doctor's skills in particular.

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

#168

Post by pmiller2 »

LightG wrote: post #88
throwkeep wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, the bed and room itself is a limited resource of the hospital and it's one of their expenses.

Of course ... but it's incredibly sad to read how it is even a part of the thought process of childbirth in some countries.

> ... the thought process of capitalism in some countries.

FTFY.

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

#169

Post by lolinder »

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.

My understanding is that that is often because doctors fail to educate them sufficiently on the cons. The recovery from a C-section is worse, the outcomes are worse for both mother and child, future children are likely to be more difficult. There's not much reason to recommend an elect C-section in most cases (certainly not 33% of cases) except that the doctors get to bill for it.

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

#170

Post by yupper32 »

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…

According to a recent study reported by Reuters, child birth in a hospital setting is far safer: https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-homebirths-newborn...

Skin-to-skin contact immediately after birth is pretty common in hospital settings now.

You shouldn't care about it all being a "lovely" or "natural" experience. You should care that everyone gets out safely. Birth can be a brutal and deadly affair.

Post reply on HN