Live data from Hacker News

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

medlifestyle.news

81–90 of 236 posts

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

#81
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m in the US and most hospital does the same now. They call it the golden hour where it’s just an hour of skin to skin just like you mentioned with no baby health routine until after such.

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

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

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

#82

I'm sceptical of single study medical research and especially that which involves the crazily political world of birth. It might be better to wait until the Cochrane collaboration does a meta analysis on multiple studies before anyone changes what they are currently doing.

The conclusion may be 'keeping baby warm' increases the survival rate. I agree with you, these researches are too vague, there are so many parameters, correlation maybe.

They sniff like little piggys on the breast and suck it. It must be traumatic coming out of womb and very comforting when getting the breast.

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

#83
post #70

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?

Not unique to Arizona. It's rather common throughout the country now.

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

#84

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…

My wife had a couple of complicating factors, so we had doctors involved from the get-go. Fun fact for the unaware: if you're predisposed for diabetes or just unlucky, you get gestational diabetes because pregnancy does WILD things to hormones.

But we've had instant skin to skin (after a quite o2 check, but within minutes) for both pregnancies, even the "urgent" c-section (not quite "emergency", but better safe than sorry, story for another time).

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

#85
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m in the US and most hospital does the same now. They call it the golden hour where it’s just an hour of skin to skin just like you mentioned with no baby health routine until after such.

...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?

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

#86

I'm sceptical of single study medical research and especially that which involves the crazily political world of birth. It might be better to wait until the Cochrane collaboration does a meta analysis on multiple studies before anyone changes what they are currently doing.

Skin-to-skin for children has been studied for a few decades, and the consensus is strongly in its favor, after a pile of studies have all pointed in the same direction. This study isn't "skin to skin care is good." This study was aimed to answer the question, as contextualized, "We have established that skin-to-skin care for healthy children is good (pile of studies); for unhealthy children that have been stabilized…

Your response is great. Thanks for sharing information about the literature and way more context.

> Otherwise, what you're actually saying is, "I'm skeptical of results that pop magazines and press releases have only surfaced to my attention once" - which is a shoddy mechanism for curating your knowledge.

At the risk of nitpicking, this seems like a good principle to follow? Like, assuming skeptical means "I won't instantly buy into this being as great as the pop magazine claims" rather than "I will strongly presuppose that this is untrue because it was in a pop magazine".

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

#87

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 US spends all of it's money that should be going to infrastructure and services on killing people overseas. We use migrant labor to produce crops below minimum wage, so large corporations can send Europe cheap produce.

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

#88
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.

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.

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

#89
It’s not unsurprising reading about western doctor’s historical skepticism of this practice.

Reading about the history of child birth in the U.S. over the last century is messed up. No wonder we have such high mortality rates still.

I remember having to change hospitals in Boston because they were proud of the fact that 50% of the births were c-sections…

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

#90

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 very similar to our experience in the public hospital system in Australia.

With both our sons the process was mostly handled by midwives including a lot of the pre and post natal checkups. The births were done naturally and immediately afterwards mum was given the baby to skin cuddle. They didn’t wash the baby and we were advised not to bath the baby for the first few days even.

Mum was also given the option of how long she wanted to stay in hospital (anything from 6 hours to 4 days if I recall).

Post reply on HN