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

171–180 of 236 posts

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

#171

Post by gffrd »

yupper32 wrote: post #170
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.

What's wrong with it being a lovely experience?

Couldn't we assume that OP's hierarchy includes the "everyone gets out safely" box having been ticked?

This is like saying cars should not be enjoyable because they exist purely to move us around.

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

#172

Post by baby »

yupper32 wrote: post #170
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.

Country A infant mortality rate in 2021: 2.86 deaths per 1000 births.

Country B infant mortality rate in 2019: 5.75 deaths per 1000 births.

Guess which country is which.

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

#173

Post by Retric »

carlmr wrote: post #120
reacharavindh wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

>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?

You can generally keep paying for the same health insurance for to 18 or 36 months after leaving a job via COBRA except in cases of gross misconduct. It can be shockingly expensive though.

https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/legacy-files/ebsa/abo...

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

#174

Post by pedroma »

gambiting wrote: post #50
awestroke wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have to pay to hold your newborn in the US? Land of the free indeed

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.

Why should I pay for other people's kids if I'm never going to have kids? The only people that should have to pay for those services are the people who actually use those services. For things that are unplanned like injuries (or even unplanned pregnancies), payment can be deferred if necessary and wages deducted straight from the paycheck to pay back for those services.

Ideally, roads are that way too. People licensed should be charged a tax for road maintenance based on their odometer readings, or something to that effect. Or just use a Fastrak-type system where it automatically scans a device in your car when you get onto certain roads and charges you for that usage -- but do it in more places.

Everyone else can get a very minimal tax for the upkeep of the administration in case few very people use these services.

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

#175

Post by acuozzo »

gambiting wrote: post #50
awestroke wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have to pay to hold your newborn in the US? Land of the free indeed

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.

The government doesn't send you a bill if you elect to have a baby at home.

Most US citizens have babies in hospitals.

Many either don't know that alternative options exist or think of them as dangerous / an unnecessary risk.

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

#176

Post by cultofmetatron »

ARandomerDude wrote: post #165
cultofmetatron wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I've been a digital nomad for about 4 years. got stuck back stateside for a few months due to the pandemic but I can't wait to leave again.

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

#177

Post by Thorentis »

pmiller2 wrote: post #168
LightG wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Providing poor service and still making money isn't capitalism. That's a lack of competition. Plenty of countries have poor government run services and there's no alternative. Same deal - no competition.

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

#178

Post by setBoolean »

spockz wrote: post #153
ezekg wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Midwives are the way. My first child's prenatal and birth was < $5k, born at home.

Amazing. In the Netherlands it is free. You get a midwife, hospital and medical staff when required. You get a box of goods for the first days of baby care. We get 4-6 weeks paid leave as a father and 16 as a mother. There is help in the house for about a week to take care of baby and mother and do checkups. The only thing you pay a symbolic amount of money for is some to borrow tools like bath chairs. Probably some…

I really don't get that sentiment though, as a German citizen for example health care insurance is mandatory as in you pay a certain percentage of your salary each month towards health care insurance. So by any means it isn't the land of free healthcare some people made it to be. Also in the US there is the Charity Care Policy that applies when you make under a certain yearly salary.

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

#179

Post by missedthecue »

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.

This is true. My aunt chose to have all of her children by C-section, and this was over 30 years ago.

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

#180

Post by jac241 »

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 live in the Midwest. Skin-to-skin is the standard of care. It is not just the coasts that do these things.
Post reply on HN