RE: How to have healthy children

[Guest guest]

Levy wrote:

> wrote:

>

> > Doesn't a c/s make the hospital and the dr more money??

>

> Yes, it also makes the anesthetist a lot of money, and it saves the dr time,

> and allows her/him to practice their skills (since, really, they don't do much

> for a low-risk vaginal birth, right? The nurses do all the work during the

> labour and then the dr comes in - maybe - for the catch. People like to feel

> useful, and at an uncomplicated, smooth labour and birth, there's really not

> much for them to do).

>

>

>

I think that's a very valid statement and applies to far more than c/s. Some

doctors feel that because they *can* do something, they should. This seems to be

especially true in teaching hospitals where those learning are scrambling to

perform neato procedures.

S.

>

> >

> >

>

--

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Everyone has the right to believe and accept what they want,

but reality doesn't discriminate. Reality is not different

for different people. Not once has reality excused anyone

for good intentions ignorance or stubbornness. Reality

shows no mercy, accepts no excuses, and issues no pardons.

Reality does not " turn the other cheek. " This does not mean

that reality is cruel, it just means that reality is.

You medical people will have more lives to answer for

in the other world than even we generals.

- Napoleon Bonaparte

The reason doctors are so dangerous is that they believe

in what they're doing.

- S. Mendelsohn

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Guest guest]

According to " 's Obstetrics " (1997), the perinatal (20 weeks gestation to

28 days postpartum) death rate in the US was 12.8/1000 in 1991, compared to

39/1000 in 1950. In 1994 the infant death rate (0 - 28 days) was 495/100,000,

which equals 4.95/1000.

phyllis wrote:

> When viewing Infant mortality rates the are not 25% of 100%. They are

> viewing it as every 1,000 births. This really means that 25 babies in 1,000

> are lost in the first year of life not 25 out of 100. You really have to

> understand how the Medical community rates these mortality. I figured the

> rates of that Midwife from Maine in the 1,700's according to the IMR of

> today's calculations.... I in turn listed today's infant mortality rates in

> the same calculations. This is also the " math " that is used to show

> " epidemic " rates throughout the world. So for instance today if there are

> 26 folks out of 100,000 who have a disease that is communicable... during a

> given peroid of time.....it is considered an " epidemic " . This is " WHO

> math " .....not mine so do get on me about this.....

>

> So sorry that you all seemed to misunderstand me about this issue.

> ----- Original Message -----

> From: " Levy " <1levy1@...>

>

> phyllis wrote:

> >

> > This is really fabulous looking at the infant mortality rates in the US

> today

> > is something

> >

> > > like 26% of which over 98% is hospital births.

> >

> > While the US does have a very high infant mortality rate for an

> overdeveloped

> > country, I don't think a quarter of babies are dying at birth. Maybe

> you're

> > thinking of where the US ranks internationally in terms of its infant

> mortality

> > rate. It used to be about 22nd a few years ago, but is now about 17th.

> In

> > other words, 16 other countries have lower mortality rates, and many of

> them are

> > less developed or underdeveloped countries.

> >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > You spoke about planned homebirth beginning safe.. Many women give

> birth

> > > in Taxi cabs, on their livingroom or bathroom floors.....I even saw a

> woman

> > > in a video on TV from a surveillance camera in a convenience store in

> > > England who gave birth while she was standing in an isle looking for a

> > > product. The baby was born in her panty hose.

> >

> > Often births like these do go smoothly, but one important point is that

> when

> > people compare morbidity and mortality rates of home and hospital birth,

> > sometimes home birth appears, by the numbers, to be less safe. That is

> b/c some

> > of these " studies " are including unplanned home births, which do have an

> > increased chance of problems, especially when there has been little

> prenatal

> > care. When studies are done, like the one by one of my profs (and my

> neighbour)

> > Holliday Tyson ( " Outcomes of 1001 Midwife-Attended Home Births in Toronto

> > 1983-1988 " ), the results show that home births are indeed safer. Women

> and

> > babies were dying at birth 100 years ago on this continent b/c of things

> like

> > unsterilized equipment and attempted delivery of babies who were lying

> > transverse (very rare) or a complete placenta previa (very rare) or

> abruptio

> > placentae (also very rare). Women and babies don't genreally die fom

> these

> > things today, unless they don't have access to emergency facilities, b/c

> of

> > caregivers' ablity to diagnose them, and b/c we do have the medical

> technology

> > which we can rely on to save lives in these very rare cases. Today in

> North

> > America women VERY rarely die during childbirth, and babies do, sometimes

> b/c of

> > mismanagement, or perhaps overmanagement, of labour, and other such

> things - I'm

> > sure you can all rattle off a few things from the tops of your heads.

> > Unfortunately today it is often less clear what the cause is when

> something goes

> > wrong, b/c there are so many interventions that often unfold in a domino

> fashion

> > - you know - woman's set up with an IV and continuous EFM, stuck on her

> back,

> > given pitocin if she hasn't already been induced, then she needs an

> epidural,

> > now both drugs, plus the woman's immobility are causing baby to be

> distressed,

> > they screw an internal monitor into the baby's head, no doubt causing even

> more

> > distress, they turn the pit down, they turn it back up, epidural needs to

> be

> > topped up, more drugs to the baby, they stick the bay's head again to get

> a

> > blood gas reading to see if the baby's really in distress, which by now of

> > course she is, then they do a section. Of course, I just described one of

> the

> > worst case scenarios, but I can't tell you how many births I've been at

> that

> > progressed exactly like this. And I didn't even include the attempted

> forceps

> > and/or vacuum extraction. So who really knows why babies are dying at

> birth

> > today. It's certainly not b/c women aren't able to birth their babies.

> That's

> > my $2 worth!

> >

> >

> >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> Doesn't a c/s make the hospital and the dr more money??

Yes, it also makes the anesthetist a lot of money, and it saves the dr time,

and allows her/him to practice their skills (since, really, they don't do much

for a low-risk vaginal birth, right? The nurses do all the work during the

labour and then the dr comes in - maybe - for the catch. People like to feel

useful, and at an uncomplicated, smooth labour and birth, there's really not

much for them to do).

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> Does anyone know the Native American quote about thinking about the

> next 7

> generations before doing something? I have been looking for it but

> can't

> find it.

>

> thanks-

>

>

>

I believe it comes from the Iroquois Confederacy. The quote is, " In our

every deliberation, we must consider the impact of our decisions on the

next seven generations. " Pretty good advice, huh? -Gretchen

________________________________________________________________

GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!

Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!

Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:

http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.