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

91–100 of 138 posts

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

#91

Post by metacritic12 »

okay_dude_321 wrote: post #81
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.

> Atul Gawande In retrospect, this guy is practically the prototype of villain in healthcare. He's Eric Lander levels of villainy. He shouldn't be considered a credible voice just out of corruption. There are many doctors who can write. Consider his role at Partners (now "Mass General Brigham"): overseeing the growth of a notoriously money grubbing institution, run anticompetitively, despite the excellence of its pro…

Citation?

With all due respect your post sounds a little like a conspiracy theory without a set of good sources.

Is the claim that someone is evil even an intellectual position (versus, a religious one)? And finally but not facetiously, does being evil invalidates a technical statement they're making -- sounds like an ad hom?

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

#92

Post by throwaway98797 »

okay_dude_321 wrote: post #81
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.

> Atul Gawande In retrospect, this guy is practically the prototype of villain in healthcare. He's Eric Lander levels of villainy. He shouldn't be considered a credible voice just out of corruption. There are many doctors who can write. Consider his role at Partners (now "Mass General Brigham"): overseeing the growth of a notoriously money grubbing institution, run anticompetitively, despite the excellence of its pro…

checklist book was good

what has he done that’s bad?

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

#93

Post by throwaway98797 »

adenozine wrote: post #87
jazzyjackson wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you express why someone is wrong instead of just telling them they're wrong and unqualified to have an opinion?

It’s important for purposes of integrity that other commenters know why the person is not a credible source, most especially for important medical information. * Not the person you replied to, just my two cents.

experts aren’t wizards

reasonable people can understand

— law - medicine - accounting - investing

if we leave all judgment to experts we won’t be able to do anything or even judge experts

always remember the doctor who barely graduated is still called a doctor…

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

#94

Post by pc86 »

ezekg wrote: post #88
voz_ wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely incorrect take. Also, irresponsible to spread this kind of nonsense when you are a public defender, and not remotely close to being a medical professional.

You can only have an opinion on the ridiculous prevalence of c-section deliveries if you’re a medical processional?

No, but this opinion is demonstrably wrong. Read any of the ACOG literature, there are dozens of peer-reviewed studies about the safety and efficacy of induction, assisted deliveries like vacuums, and both scheduled and emergency c-sections.

Scheduled c-sections outperform emergency c-sections in every metric tracked. Scheduled c-sections are no worse for the baby than natural delivery, and if you take into account recovery time from surgery, no worse for the mother.

You can have an opinion on whatever you like, but to be blunt, if it's as stupid as this one you should get called out for it.

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

#95

Post by rafaelm »

pc86 wrote: post #94
ezekg wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can only have an opinion on the ridiculous prevalence of c-section deliveries if you’re a medical processional?

No, but this opinion is demonstrably wrong. Read any of the ACOG literature, there are dozens of peer-reviewed studies about the safety and efficacy of induction, assisted deliveries like vacuums, and both scheduled and emergency c-sections. Scheduled c-sections outperform emergency c-sections in every metric tracked. Scheduled c-sections are no worse for the baby than natural delivery, and if you take into account r…

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...

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

#96

Post by elgenie »

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.

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”.

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

#97

Post by gowld »

mahogany wrote: post #37
blfr wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, in completely socialized systems doctors and nurses also usually want to have weekends and evenings off, hospitals aren't staffed as well as during business hours, and people try to limit the workload on their colleagues remaining on duty.

The contrast to "the US hospital business" is not necessarily "socialized systems". A better contrast is, as the original commenter pointed out, birthing centers (or home births). A contrast to a hospital OBGYN in the US is a certified nurse midwife.

Kind of a circular argument to say that we are seeing an increase in birthing centers because the practice of medicine in recent years reduced the use of birthing centers.

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

#98

Post by gowld »

jeffbee wrote: post #26

I witnessed this phenomenon first-hand when my second child was born and during the labor, which was not exceptionally long, only 7 hours, the doctor started making "this is not progressing" noises toward 5pm and I had to sternly tell him to fuck right off. Based on a strip chart of the time between contractions the labor was clearly making normal, bordering on rapid, progress. Doctors are pretty much dicks, and the…

For a 2nd child, 4-8 hours of active labor is normal. Did you go to the hostpital early?

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

#99

Post by ars »

pc86 wrote: post #94
ezekg wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can only have an opinion on the ridiculous prevalence of c-section deliveries if you’re a medical processional?

No, but this opinion is demonstrably wrong. Read any of the ACOG literature, there are dozens of peer-reviewed studies about the safety and efficacy of induction, assisted deliveries like vacuums, and both scheduled and emergency c-sections. Scheduled c-sections outperform emergency c-sections in every metric tracked. Scheduled c-sections are no worse for the baby than natural delivery, and if you take into account r…

What? c-sections are MUCH MUCH worse for the mother in every single metric including pain. C-section pain is longer and more severe than natural birth pain, and natural birth pain can be ameliorated which makes it even better - but even with no intervention at all natural birth pain is less than c-section pain.

If you are scheduling a c-section it means you are not trying for a natural birth and that means your outcome for the mother is strictly worse.

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

#100

Post by ars »

rafaelm wrote: post #95
pc86 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, but this opinion is demonstrably wrong. Read any of the ACOG literature, there are dozens of peer-reviewed studies about the safety and efficacy of induction, assisted deliveries like vacuums, and both scheduled and emergency c-sections. Scheduled c-sections outperform emergency c-sections in every metric tracked. Scheduled c-sections are no worse for the baby than natural delivery, and if you take into account r…

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.

Post reply on HN