Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Birth is a natural process and therefore its safe!

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Science & Skepticism » Skepticism, Science and Pseudoscience Group Donate to DU
 
TZ Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 12:21 PM
Original message
Birth is a natural process and therefore its safe!
Only the evil hospitals are covering that knowledge up. Because women only die in childbirth because of teh evil doctors.
:banghead:
God the stupidity sometimes....
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
JitterbugPerfume Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
1. birth is a natural process
and so is death , as women and babies from earlier times could tell us. Those evil Doctors are why so many of us reached old age.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
2. Often you don't need a hospital or doctor working on you when giving birth
if you do, it is great to be there and have one. If you don't, they can cause complications.

No one right answer for everyone every time.

God the stupidity sometimes...
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
WhollyHeretic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 02:12 PM
Response to Original message
3. I started typing a few replies in that thread but decided I didn't feel like dealing with the stupid
The study itself had a couple of problems.

-The home birth group is self-selected which skews it off the bat
-It studied home birth and hospital birth with a midwife. How about hospital birth with a doctor?

The inevitable ramblings about "they only want you moneys!!!" and "you only think it's dangerous because doctors told you so" were headache inducing. I guess giving birth was such a peaceful and low risk thing before there were hospitals. :eyes:

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
CreekDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 02:38 PM
Response to Original message
4. A friend used a midwife to deliver their first baby and she was in labor for over 24 hours
the soon to be parents were concerned something might be wrong but the midwife told them, "it's work, that's why it's called labor".

they ended up going to the hospital, no thanks to the midwife.

not all midwives are like that, but this attempted to make them feel guilty when something really was wrong.

they said, "never again".
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-16-09 03:24 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. A friend used a doctor to deliver their first baby and was in labor for 6 hours
the doctor wanted to get that baby delivered and go home so they gave her pitocin to "stimulate the contractions" and then almost had to do a c-section due to fetal distress. My friend got ripped up inside, needed to get repair work done on her urethra later since it was injured due to the doctor's actions.

they said, "never again" and had their second also in a hospital but with a much more watchful doctor and midwife team


There are all sorts of stories and no one right answer for everyone.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Djinn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-17-09 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. that depends
There are all sorts of stories and no one right answer for everyone.

In Australia this is a hot button issue right now because the Fed govt is making homebirth midwives be insured as of (I think) July next year, given the insurance would be prohibitive the hippies are up in arms.

I'm all for choice in childbirth but not at my expense. In Australia it's taxpayers who'll pay if your child ends up with a developmental disability and needs round the clock care for life because of a complicated birth. In a nation with no social compact and no national health care I'd be happy for people to give birth in caves if that's what they want but the fact of the matter is that home births have a MUCH MUCH higher proportion of deaths/severe complications (hence no insurer willing to cover) and I view it much the same as Australians not having the "right" to drive without a seatbelt, and for the same reason. WE ALL end up paying for your decision.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-17-09 12:37 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. Screening and continual evaluation is needed. I would like to see
Edited on Fri Apr-17-09 12:42 PM by uppityperson
midwives and birthing centers and doctors and hospitals working closely together since there are good reasons for each of them. And there are "bad" practitioners in all those groups.

We have few md's who will do births in my small town, because of the prohibitive insurance issue.

I have many friends and family who have had babies, and several friends who are nurses, doctors, and a couple midwives. Most of them feel the strong need for whomever is doing whatever to seriously not overestimate themselves, to be aware of what is going on and seek assistance at all times. Some of the doctors like having midwives working with them, as they can spend more time helping and monitoring the laboring woman.

One doctor I used to work for, delivered many many babies, had to get out of it since he didn't charge enough to cover the insurance cost. Was a true humanitarian doc. Paid all of his employees less than most, but then he did also take home much less, since he charged much less, according to what someone could pay. We sometimes got crab in trade, which was nice though.

Edited to add, I have 1 child, gave birth in a hospital having to fight the nurse since I didn't proceed "as I should" with regular contractions gradually and regularly getting closer together. I am also a nurse who has worked in labor, rarely in delivery, yrs back.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
progressoid Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-17-09 11:13 AM
Response to Original message
7. Lots of things are a natural process
Cancer, hepatitis, gonorrhea, etc.

Good old mother nature! :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
LeftishBrit Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-17-09 12:35 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. Not to mention various products provided by good old Mother Nature...
E.g. hemlock, monkshood, deadly nightshade, poisonous toadstools, cobras, rattlesnakes, etc.

I think I suggested before that our urban upbringing makes us less aware that Nature can sometimes kill you. Modern urban children get taught about the danger of traffic, but not toadstools; and may end up with the sentimental idea that natural = safe.

If it comes to that, biological warfare generally involves use of 'natural' germs in an attempt to kill people. Anthrax is perfectly natural, but that doesn't make it a good idea.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Apr-17-09 12:45 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Took a tour of a daycare yrs back, checking out for Jr and noticed the gardening
Lots of pretty digitalis (foxglove) and the like, waiting for the darling little kids to pick and put in their mouths. Jr stayed there for a 2 hr trial later, cried the whole time and never went back. The owner ended up in some legal trouble for shooting someone (while out camping), was an odd situation.

She didn't know that plants could hurt anyone. Odd person.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
onager Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Apr-18-09 09:16 PM
Response to Reply #8
11. Very true. I was a rural kid.
So I learned what plants to avoid (chinaberry, poison oak, etc.). Also critters, which in my area was mostly poisonous snakes (water moccasin, Eastern diamondback rattler and their friends). I also learned the hard way, at a young age, that bulls are not very good playmates and can be very cranky.

Once a cousin and I decided to commune with Nature and say "Howdy" to a large honeybee hive--just a few hours after my father and a neighbor had robbed all their honey. Those bees were extremely irate, to the tune of about 10 or 12 stings each.

But I think most of my childhood poison warnings concerned stale mayonnaise. According to my mother, that stuff would kill you quicker than a water moccasin.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
bluedawg12 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Apr-21-09 12:08 AM
Response to Original message
12. True statement, the less doctors* and hospitals, the lower the maternal mortality.
Edited on Tue Apr-21-09 12:18 AM by bluedawg12
:sarcasm:

*This is not to mean MD's versus midwives, just saying, mother nature can use a little help with professional health care, with even the "most natural" of all processes, birth.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_mortality
Maternal Mortality Ratio (MMR)
Maternal Mortality Ratio is the ratio of the number of maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. The MMR is used as a measure of the quality of a health care system. Sierra Leone has the highest maternal death rate at 2,000, and Afghanistan has the second highest maternal death rate at 1900 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, reported by the UN based on 2000 figures. According to the Central Asia Health Review, Afghanistan's maternal mortality rate was 1,600 in 2007.<7> Lowest rates included Iceland at 0 per 100,000 and Austria at 4 per 100,000. In the United States, the maternal death rate was 11 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births in 2005.<8>

"Lifetime risk of maternal death" accounts for number of pregnancies and risk. In sub-Saharan Africa the lifetime risk of maternal death is 1 in 16, for developed nations only 1 in 2,800.

In 2003, the WHO, UNICEF and UNFPA produced a report with statistics gathered from 2000. The world average per 100,000 was 400, the average for developed regions was 20, and for developing regions 440. The worst countries were: Sierra Leone (2,000), Afghanistan (1,900), Malawi (1,800), Angola (1,700), Niger (1,600), Tanzania (1,500), Rwanda (1,400), Mali (1,200), Somalia, Zimbabwe, Chad, Central African Republic, Guinea Bissau (1,100 each), Mozambique, Burkina Faso, Burundi, and Mauritania (1,000 each).

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 22nd 2024, 09:00 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » DU Groups » Science & Skepticism » Skepticism, Science and Pseudoscience Group Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC