Meet the Modders

Steph said:

your choice, but I personnally won't support it. Unless you'd have some trained medical staff and equipment really close.

Click to expand...

I vote with you, Steph, but it is Plotinus' wife and his decision to make. I pray that it was the right one.

My experience is 3 pregnancies for my wife, three cases of toxemia, the first of which nearly killed her, three hospitalizations prior to birth of the children, first son was born 3 months premature, and did not make it, second son and daughter were 5 weeks premature each, both did well.

I pray that things go well for Plotinus' wife.

Plotinus said:

Well, we do - the hospital's 20 minutes away. As I say, the midwives encourage home births as being safer, and they're able to tell if there are likely to be any issues requiring a move to the hospital at any point.

Click to expand...

My brother and I were both happy healthy home births 30 odd years ago. I agree with Plotinus. We would have had a home birth but my wife had a condition that meant an increased chance of bleeding after birth so we decided to have a hospital birth but it was a natural birth in most respects. Any intervetion increases the chances of more intervention. Many people l know have had home births. In New Zealand midwives bring a lot of medical equipment to your house before the birth.

It sounds like childbirth in NZ is similar to Britain. It's very different from the US, where things are much more medicalised and things like episiotomies and other often unnecessary interventions are routine. (I can't believe I know about stuff like this now.) I don't know what's standard in France though.

It's funny how these things change. When I was born, my mother's mother urged her to insist on a hospital birth even if the midwives tried to pressure her into a home birth, which they didn't do. When I was born, birth was highly medicalised and everyone did it in a hospital, but when my mother was born, that had not yet become the case and people of my grandmother's generation thought of a hospital birth as something to aspire to! Whereas now home births are what many people aspire to and are increasingly encouraged to have.

Both my children were born through c-section, since my wife had an accident when she was young with a broken collar bone. So doctors were not sure she could gave birth naturally.
For the first one, she went to hospital and tried the natural way. But since after 20 hours of work she had only opened 2 cm... Doctors said "stop", and c-section.
And for the second one, since she was a little bigger, they went direction for C-section because of collar bone issue.

Generally speakking, people usually go to the hospital to be safe, but they are offered choice to do it naturally (i.e. no pain killers for example) or not. But that was 12 years ago now... Maybe things evolved

Plotinus said:

It sounds like childbirth in NZ is similar to Britain. It's very different from the US, where things are much more medicalised and things like episiotomies and other often unnecessary interventions are routine. (I can't believe I know about stuff like this now.) I don't know what's standard in France though.

It's funny how these things change. When I was born, my mother's mother urged her to insist on a hospital birth even if the midwives tried to pressure her into a home birth, which they didn't do. When I was born, birth was highly medicalised and everyone did it in a hospital, but when my mother was born, that had not yet become the case and people of my grandmother's generation thought of a hospital birth as something to aspire to! Whereas now home births are what many people aspire to and are increasingly encouraged to have.

Click to expand...

There is also this thing called "malpractice suits" in the US. Any physician that okays a home birth and then has complications develop is quite simply "dead meat". He or she is looking at a multi-million dollar damage award against his insurance company, and having his liability insurance cancelled immediately following the suit. No malpractice insurance, no medical practice.

Plotinus, NZ is similar to the UK I'd say. Still home births amount to only a small percentage of births I believe. In NZ you must choose a Lead Maternity Carer (LMC). This person is in charge of your pregnancy and birth care. The LMC is almost always a midwife but it can be your GP (General Practitioner) or an Obstetrician. Midwives in NZ do a three year degree which I think is different to most/all other countries were midwives are usually nurses who have done a comparatively short midwifery course. All care during pregnancy and birth is 100% free in NZ unless you choose a private obstetrician as your LMC. When you have a hospital birth it is your midwife who delivers the baby unless there are complications that require an obstetrics team to step in.

The problem you mention Timerover, is not really an issue under the NZ system. Where one gives birth is at the discretion of the parents and if you choose to ignore medical advice then be it on your own head (assuming you were advised not to do it at home for some reason). In our case we were advised by both our midwife and an obstetrician that a hospital birth would be safer because there was an increased chance of bleeding after the birth. My wife had some fibroids that at times were very painful and had the potential to cause bleeding. They didn't affect the birth though and there was no bleeding but I'm still glad we were at the hospital just in case. However if there had been no fibroids then we would have been happy to try a home birth.

Sounds a good system, Nick, much like ours. I hadn't thought of the issue Timerover raises but of course that would make a big difference. I thought I'd long since stopped being astonished at how a country as advanced as the US manages to have such an appalling healthcare system, but it seems not.

I'm not much involved in this thread but been reading many of the posts. Just would like to add something about home births and hospitals. As Plotinus said, the mother is more comfortable at home, but also the chance of getting an infection at a hospital is at a much higher risk than having a home birth as there are many sick people and germs spread easily at the hospital. Also other conditions in the hospital are not always the best (like the food). My parents always preferred home births because doctors tend to interfere a bit too much during a pregnancy/birth and cause many of their own problems. My parents had half at the hospital and half at home and in at least one case the doctor who was an older one, delivered at the house. In other cases there was a midwife and there was always proper equipment and precautions taken before the birth takes place.

Plotinus said:

Sounds a good system, Nick, much like ours. I hadn't thought of the issue Timerover raises but of course that would make a big difference. I thought I'd long since stopped being astonished at how a country as advanced as the US manages to have such an appalling healthcare system, but it seems not.

Click to expand...

Kindly explain in detail what you mean by "appalling" or retract the statement. That comment is not acceptable coming from someone who is a moderator.

timerover51 said:

Kindly explain in detail what you mean by "appalling" or retract the statement. That comment is not acceptable coming from someone who is a moderator.

Click to expand...

Having friends and family that work in the US healthcare system (including my younger sister who works in a NICU) I agree with timerover.

timerover51 said:

Kindly explain in detail what you mean by "appalling" or retract the statement. That comment is not acceptable coming from someone who is a moderator.

Click to expand...

I believe that Plotinus is echoing your own previous statements, Timerover. Whether right or left in America, we have to admit that when we have junk lawsuits and unnecessary medical care, not to mention millions that still don't have health insurance coverage, that the situation could be described as 'appalling', especially when compared to other countries where the government provides health care the way the US provides universal elementary education. Certainly, anyone who believes in 'local control' should support the right of any country to decide for themselves what system of health care they prefer, as long as the process of deciding is participatory. And of course, as supporters of free expression, we should support the right of anyone to comment on any issue.

My own belief is that you can't run health care as a free market, because for a market to work properly requires that consumers are free to choose, and it's damned hard to make consumer choices from the back of an ambulance. It's downright comical to see ads on TV that say, "Talk to your doctor about..", as if I have a guy on speed dial who won't charge me the cost of a small refrigerator for five minutes advice. Currently, the US is the only advanced industrial nation that doesn't provide universal health care, so the big money against it in America - mostly pharmaceutical companies, medical equipment makers, and insurance companies - know they're in the trenches simply trying to delay the inevitable. In the end, arguing against universal health care is like arguing against public water decontamination: it will succeed only until the next epidemic.

As an American with Diabetes who has elderly parents, a wife with chronic health issues, and 2 young children, I completely agree with Balthasar on this one. Breaking Bad only works as a US-based show, because he simply wouldn't have needed a million dollars for cancer treatment anywhere else.

Free Markets are great and ideal in the retail area, but others, like healthcare, utilities, public safety, education, and politics it has no place in at all.

Balthasar -

While I can agree with you that the issues you raise are concerning, I vehemently disagree with your solution as there are much better ways to solve those problems than socialized/government-provided healthcare. My sister, step-mother, cousin, and two friends who all work in healthcare have really informed my opinion on this and I find it insulting that someone would besmirch them. I can point out things in other industrialized countries' systems that I find way more "disturbing" and "appalling" than anything here in the US, but I wouldn't make those allegations in a non-off topic forum.

I would suggest any further debate of home vs. hospital birth and socialized vs. free market healthcare be relegated to the Off Topic forum.

Laurana Kanan said:

Balthasar -While I can agree with you that the issues you raise are concerning. . .I would suggest any further debate of home vs. hospital birth and socialized vs. free market healthcare be relegated to the Off Topic forum.

Click to expand...

Probably a good idea - we don't want anyone besmirched.

timerover51 said:

Kindly explain in detail what you mean by "appalling" or retract the statement. That comment is not acceptable coming from someone who is a moderator.

Click to expand...

I mean exactly what you said: medical decisions are motivated not by what's best for the patient but by what's financially safest for the provider. That's clearly wrong, and I'd be surprised if anyone thought otherwise - I certainly took your description of it to be intended critically, so I was just agreeing with you. I'm not criticising the people who provide the healthcare, who must deal with the system they live in and I'm sure do the very best they can within it, but the system itself.

But yes, further discussion of this subject ought to stay in OT.

Plotinus your right it is crap...let me explain..I know this is Off Topic but let me explain...

I know from experience here, that when Insurance got involved in the Mental Health field in the 1990s, the care doctors could provide became severely limited. Insurance companies wouldn't want anyone admitted longer than two weeks for example.

Its only gotten worse for me over the last few years because Insurance companies have gotten even worse. It takes longer and longer to approve my Bi-Polar medications now.

I wouldn't put the fault of this in Free Market, because it is actually lack of a free market here where I live that's mostly to blame for this.

off topic yes... but just adding to Geddon.

USA definitely does not have a Free Market Health and it would actually benefit from one. It used to be encouraged by Insurance Companies to seek 2nd and 3rd opinions but now it is frowned upon to do so because you are not trusting that particular medical doctor. Medical doctors make mistakes all the time and you should be seeking other medical opinions. There is not a free flow of information between different types of physicians which is the problem in the USA unlike places like Germany and Hong Kong.

It has been reported in many news articles that children have been taken away from their parents because they sought another medical opinion instead of following through with the initial opinion.

Plotinus said:

further discussion of this subject ought to stay in OT.

Click to expand...

*Emphasis added.

I spend three weeks every summer teaching a class on World War 2. My co-teacher and I started with the World situation in the 1930s leading up to the outbreak of the war in Europe in September of 1939. This summer class ended with the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. We use a large 4 foot by 8 foot map of the World as of September 1, 1939, and lots and lots of miniatures from Axis and Allies and other games to simulate the military units. The picture below shows the map with the units set up for late 1941. I really enjoy working with the class and the students.

I'm between phases of my fieldwork -finished with one site, evaluating, coming up with new questions, picking a new site. So I'm taking the opportunity to pick up some of the C3 modding I left off for a while.