Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Nachum

Coming soon to a bathtub near you.

Never mind that if the baby was in dire need of a doctor, the mother might not have time to get to the hospital in time. Check the mortality rates from pre to post hospital eras and then repeat that with a straight face.


6 posted on 07/14/2011 8:53:38 PM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: bgill
Check the mortality rates from pre to post hospital eras and then repeat that with a straight face.

'59 to now appears to be more than triple from what I could find.

13 posted on 07/14/2011 9:12:50 PM PDT by Mygirlsmom (If only Mark Halprin told us how he REALLY felt - it would start to approach the truth.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: bgill
Check the mortality rates from pre to post hospital eras and then repeat that with a straight face.

I didn't read the whole article, but there's a whole lot going on here. Sanitation is a big part of this issue. In 1959, the general level of sanitation in England was about at the level of refrigeration: About nil. Infection has been the biggest factor in medical risk everywhere in the world since about forever. So for a country that was pretty backwater, soap-and-water wise, you can imagine why moving to a hospital setting would have improved things.

But since then, hospitals and houses have been moving in opposite directions with respect to sanitation—washing hands, cleaning cuts, and so on. Ordinary people are much more sophisticated than they were. Meanwhile, at a hospital, you're keeping company with a lot of really sick people, so the germs are really flying. At the same time, hospitals these days are much more . . . unionized. There is a dazzling level of stupidity available. After my wife had given birth to our 2nd in a hospital, she was getting some well-earned sleep. An aide appeared and woke her up to give her . . . a sleeping pill.

Another problem: At hospitals, most of the docs we met had never had children. They seemed to have no sense or experience with kids, and misdiagnosed some obvious things.

We had 2 of our 5 at home with a midwife, the other 3 at various hospitals. The vast majority of the time, complications are something you can see coming weeks or months in advance by signs in the mom or the baby. And at home, you always have a backup plan for which doc you will meet at which hospital if something starts going funny.

For our family, for a straightforward birth, home is way easier, safer, and more comfortable for Mom and kid. Yes, some judgment in your choice of "providers" is called for. But some judgment is always called for.

18 posted on 07/14/2011 9:43:59 PM PDT by SamuraiScot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: bgill
Check the mortality rates from pre to post hospital eras and then repeat that with a straight face.

Actually, the highest maternal mortality rates in all history were in early to mid 19th century hospitals. 10% to 35%. MUCH higher than home births during the same period.

The guy who dropped this rate by over 95% in two years by making the doctors wash their hands was subsequently locked up in the loony bin. Must be crazy, saying doctors could cause disease.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignaz_Semmelweis

21 posted on 07/14/2011 11:34:17 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

To: bgill

Great post.


47 posted on 07/16/2011 5:23:49 AM PDT by Twink
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson