[HN Gopher] Immediate skin-to-skin contact with unstable newborn...
___________________________________________________________________
Immediate skin-to-skin contact with unstable newborns improves
survival chances
Author : billyharris
Score : 314 points
Date : 2021-05-27 07:48 UTC (15 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (medlifestyle.news)
(TXT) w3m dump (medlifestyle.news)
| alexmr wrote:
| We had a preemie baby at 26 weeks in December and feel fortunate
| our hospital (UCSF) practiced this recommendation. I was
| surprised they could do kangaroo care that fast (was a few hours
| after birth), but we did it then and everyday our daughter was in
| the ICN for 4 months. I'm convinced it made a difference and am
| sad when I hear about parents who can't do this.
|
| I hope this research helps this become more standard practice.
| locusofself wrote:
| Not getting skin-to-skin contact with our daughter (and only
| child we will have) for several days because of very minor
| complications is something we really resent.
| philliphaydon wrote:
| Home birth, natural, c-sect, whatever works for you to have a
| happy healthy baby.
|
| We had c-sect under GA, as my wife was scared of birth and
| c-sect, so we opted for GA. So there wasn't even an option for
| skin to skin, or me to even be in the room during the procedure.
|
| But our daughter came out happy and healthy. Wouldn't change a
| thing.
| moonbug wrote:
| Based on this, expect US hospital prices for that service to go
| up.
| LibertyBeta wrote:
| Who charges? We just had our second and they didn't charge at
| all. Gave the nurses/midwives a chance to make more ready.....
|
| And this was at Major CT Hospital.
| sodality2 wrote:
| The hospital may charge for this due to someone needing to
| stay and monitor you and the baby while you hold them.
| Ridiculous charge, certainly very rare, but that is typically
| the justification given
| joana035 wrote:
| It should not be charged at all IMHO. And it should be a right
| of the parents to hold their newborn in the moment they enter
| this world.
| e1g wrote:
| OP was being sarcastic. "Skin-to-skin" contact with mum is
| the very first thing they do after child birth, and continue
| recommending for the entire stay.
| tsjq wrote:
| there's a lot of stories / examples about this an item in
| the hospital bills .
| [deleted]
| e1g wrote:
| You might be thinking of one story that went viral a few
| years ago, and was amplified by the media. It was
| successful at generating outrage and so became popular,
| but it was not correct.
| nicoburns wrote:
| It would only be one of many ridiculous charges in the US
| medical system. I personally think it's pretty outrageous
| that one has to pay for medical care while giving birth
| at all.
| jaywalk wrote:
| So the doctors and nurses involved should just deliver
| babies for free? Does the free care apply only to
| standard births, and then they get paid if there are
| complications? Or is anything involving the delivery plus
| anything arising from it provided for free?
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| The central bank prints money (partially offset by tax).
| Some of that money could go to basic medical care like
| this, as it does in most other countries.
| jaywalk wrote:
| We're currently seeing exactly what happens when the
| central bank money printer goes into overdrive, which is
| rising inflation. Maybe we shouldn't be encouraging that.
| nicoburns wrote:
| Taxation funded healthcare seems to work pretty well. It
| allows you to avoid the situation where individuals pay
| significantly more due to bad luck with their health.
| Plus you get to cut out the insurance companies' cut
| completely.
| Tabular-Iceberg wrote:
| Some of the countries that implement universal healthcare
| could actually use some increased inflation. So it
| doesn't seem like a real concern in practice.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| They do actually charge for supervised skin-to-skin
| contact after a C-section [1].
|
| 1. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/doula-explains-why-
| hospital-cha...
| baliex wrote:
| IYHO?! It's patently absurd to expect anything less
|
| Edit: I'm agreeing with you but it seems absurd that it
| should have to be opinion!
| isolli wrote:
| You're joking, but my wife gave birth to our first-born in the
| US, and she had to wait several hours until she could hold her
| baby because... the transportation team (whose job was to roll
| her bed to the elevator) was unavailable due to a change-of-
| shift.
| awestroke wrote:
| Do you have to pay to hold your newborn in the US? Land of the
| free indeed
| wyager wrote:
| Medical is probably the single most regulated industry in the
| US. The US landed at the worst possible system where the
| government mostly only pays for medical for old people (where
| the returns on expenditures are very low), but simultaneously
| interferes a lot with hospitals and insurance in ways that
| make the process very punishing for everyone.
|
| You can get much better service for way less money if you
| avoid the red tape and do a home birth.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > You can get much better service for way less money if you
| avoid the red tape and do a home birth.
|
| My wife had unexpected complications that would have been
| disastrous, possibly fatal if we had been at home rather
| than a hospital for delivery. I can't imagine trying to
| rush her from home to the hospital mid-delivery.
|
| I'm forever grateful for the medical care we received at
| the hospital during delivery. It's simply not possible to
| deliver the same care at home.
| aidos wrote:
| We've had 2 home births now. And the 1st birth was nearly a
| homebirth too.
|
| They've all gone well for us, so I recommend them from that
| point of view, but on the other hand, I don't recommend
| them because I'd hate to have any hand in a situation that
| went wrong for someone else.
|
| Our last we actually delivered on our own because the
| midwifes didn't get to us in time.
| okprod wrote:
| Very interesting. A coworker hired a professional doula
| and their home birth went well. I'm not sure yet what we
| would do.
| choeger wrote:
| While home birth is certainly possible and apparently can
| be a very nice experience, I strongly suggest going into
| a hospital for birth (you should be able to choose a
| hospital of your liking after talking to the
| nurses/doctors/midwifes working there). Birth is safe in
| most cases, but complications _do_ happen. While the
| probability is low, the possible damage is extreme.
| Please consider the availability of experienced medical
| professionals as a safety net for mother and child! I
| witnessed an "emergency" C-section after 18hours of
| labor without any prior indications and was extremely
| happy that professionals were literally in the next room
| when this became necessary.
| jmkd wrote:
| As a counterpoint, home births are in general very safe
| if recommended prerequisites have been met. Typically: 1)
| low-risk pregnancy 2) within X minutes of suitable
| hospital 3) higher level of monitoring in late pregnancy
| and perhaps two midwives at birth
|
| Birth - a natural process - has been commercially
| medicalised, especially in Brasil (C-section rate >60%)
| and the US (>30%). If giving birth at home was
| normalised, we'd see a huge growth in natural birth and
| an increased availability for medical staff to support in
| emergencies if required. But the rates of emergencies
| would actually decline too.
| bredren wrote:
| Point 1 is a big point. Lots of things make a birth not
| "low risk."
|
| Otherwise I think it's an awesome idea and encourage
| people to consider it.
|
| Birthing centers are also a great alternative. I do not
| especially like the idea of hospitals as default places
| of birth, but acknowledge the potential value when
| needed.
| souprock wrote:
| I probably wouldn't have most of my family if I'd gone to
| a hospital. My twins would have been a C-section, and
| then the scar would have led to another C-section and to
| troubles with the placenta invading the scar. Before long
| the uterus just plain wouldn't work OK, and would
| endanger the lives of future babies. Avoiding a C-section
| is really important for having a large family. My 13th is
| due in 6 weeks.
| neofrommatrix wrote:
| Yes. For caesarean they do.
| https://www.cbsnews.com/news/doula-explains-why-hospital-
| cha...
| frankenst1 wrote:
| "During a caesarean, many people become shaky, nauseous,
| uncomfortable, even faint," Grant explained. "These are
| normal physiological reactions. In order to facilitate skin
| to skin in the OR, an extra nurse needs to be available to
| assist."
| [deleted]
| tobr wrote:
| I don't understand how that is a "mic drop" as they put
| it in the article. If these are normal physiological
| reactions, why would you charge extra for it? It must be
| the request to hold your newborn child that they consider
| not to be normal, then?
| dboreham wrote:
| Normally the baby is whisked quickly out of the OR to a
| place that's not a tightly controlled clean environment,
| where skin to skin contact is facilitated without charge
| (to the father/non-birthing-close-relative, obviously,
| since mother is still in recovery). Source: two sons born
| this way in the US.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| You pay for a nurse or aide to be ready to intervene if
| there's an issue in a post-caesarean situation.
|
| In our case, the hospital my wife delivered in pushed skin to
| skin heavily, but after a minute or two, I ended up holding
| our son, skin to skin for the next 10-15 minutes becuase
| their policy didn't allow mom to hold the baby while they
| sutured and did their thing. Once they were done in the OR,
| back to mom.
|
| Usually this sort of absurdity on the billing front is based
| on ways to increase Medicaid reimbursements. Since Medicaid
| patients are usually less likely to have good primary and
| pre-natal care, they have a high complication rate and
| typically are a money loser for the hospital. In an extreme
| case, an opioid addicted baby costs >$1M to deliver and
| discharge, a tragic story all around.
| prionassembly wrote:
| > You pay for a nurse or aide to be ready to intervene if
| there's an issue in a post-caesarean situation.
|
| We had a pediatrician in the room (which is also a
| perfectly opportunistic for the ob/gyn to score a
| referral). OR theater was main OB/GYN (which we chose), his
| assistant (also ob/gyn, younger and oddly published),
| anesthesiologist, instruments clerk and pediatrician. I
| don't think we had a nurse at all.
| cycrutchfield wrote:
| >We had a pediatrician in the room (which is also a
| perfectly opportunistic for the ob/gyn to score a
| referral)
|
| Can you clarify what you are implying here? Kickbacks or
| other financial incentives are generally pretty illegal.
| prionassembly wrote:
| Sure, but recommendation based on friendship is not, nor
| does it need to be unethical if you're convinced of your
| friend's high level of skill.
| cycrutchfield wrote:
| Got it, thanks for explaining. The phrase "score a
| referral" made it sound like there was some untoward
| relationship there.
| drknownuffin wrote:
| What country were you in? In the US, a nurse is highly
| standard.
|
| If you're not getting a c-section, the usual array is:
| OB/GYN, plus or minus a resident or assistant, doing the
| delivery and doing any post-delivery laceration repairs;
| and a nurse who brought in instruments and is on hand to
| assist with repositioning the mother, getting more
| equipment, etc. In most places it's 1-2 nurses. If
| everything is expected to be, and remains, stable a
| pediatrician will swing by at some point to check in.
| This isn't generally a major source of referrals for the
| pediatrician - (a) many people have already established a
| relationship with a pediatrician in anticipation of the
| birth, and (b) in many reasonably sized hospitals the guy
| who drops by is either a hospitalist or a neonatologist,
| and they don't have an outpatient practice.
| Anesthesiologist may drop by to start an epidural, but
| otherwise isn't present on a continued basis.
|
| If in the OR for a c-section, you'll have the OB and a
| resident or an assist; one nurse just looking after scrub
| and tools; a second nurse on hand for additional
| assistance and to receive the kid for the initial clean-
| up; an anesthesiologist handling your anesthesia;
| plus/minus a med student or two either holding
| instruments for the OB or speaking with the
| anesthesiologist. If everything is and remains stable,
| peds will swing by. If the kid is unstable or things go
| sideways, peds +/- their resident will be on hand for the
| delivery - a neonatologist if the hospital has one.
|
| I've seen some variation in different places of course,
| but that's pretty much par for the course.
|
| (When I was in the latter part of med school I had a
| brief fling thinking I'd do OB/GYN, so I did sub-I's in a
| few different hospitals around the country. Thank god
| that idea passed.)
| Spooky23 wrote:
| > Thank god that idea passed
|
| Why's that? Just curious, I always find it fascinating
| how physicians pick a speciality!
| drknownuffin wrote:
| OB is ridiculously stressful, in an antagonistic kind of
| way.
|
| 1. A good subset of patients have wildly unrealistic
| ideas about pregnancy and delivery, and when their ideas
| meet reality it's not always reality that wins.
|
| 1.B. You will be the target of their ire whenever their
| desires are not fulfilled, because patients seem to think
| docs are actually in charge of something at the hospital.
| We usually are not.
|
| 2. It's wildly litigious. Their child was perfect (in
| their imagination) before being born; then you got
| involved, and now their child is not perfect. You must
| have fucked something up in the delivery and ruined the
| perfection of their child.
|
| 3. Way too much family involvement. When you're doing
| surgery, you're usually dealing with a patient's attempts
| to understand what's going on. When you're doing OB,
| you're dealing with the patient, the husband, the mother,
| mother-in-law, etc. Each person will come up with their
| own distorted vision of how things should be, and when it
| doesn't align with reality, the doctor is an idiot who
| doesn't know what they're doing. (Doctors are not perfect
| - just people - but it seems like every single person
| without medical training seems better equipped to
| identify the proper medical course of action than a
| physician is.)
|
| 4. Lots and lots of on-call time. Lots of unexpected
| interruptions and lots of drop-everything-and-drive-to-
| the-hospital.
|
| 5. There used to be good money in it. There isn't now,
| which makes all of the above grate on one's nerves.
|
| The results of the above really add up to demolishing the
| spirit of OB/GYNs. Points 1-3 really make you feel like
| you're persistently at war with patients, which is the
| worst feeling ever. I've never been on anyone's side but
| the patient's, and having them treat me like an enemy
| ruins my job, and ruins my ability to _do_ my job.
|
| I ultimately chose to pursue a niche thing that shares a
| name with an existing medical specialty, but is a
| distinct niche. I can't really identify it without doxing
| myself, so forgive me for not.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Could we put aside the politics? Jeez.
| gambiting wrote:
| Wait, you have to pay to have a baby in the US?
|
| The wealthiest country in the world cannot even pay for the
| birth of its own citizens?
|
| I can understand arguments for private healthcare etc....but
| making people pay to give birth is insane.
| linuxftw wrote:
| The US spends all of it's money that should be going to
| infrastructure and services on killing people overseas. We
| use migrant labor to produce crops below minimum wage, so
| large corporations can send Europe cheap produce.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| Tell me where it is completely free. And I don't mean paid
| for via taxes.
| gambiting wrote:
| No offense, but that's such a weird way of looking at it.
| Even in the US every reasonable adult would say that
| driving on public roads is free, right? But roads are
| maintained from taxes so how dare you call them free!!!
| It's the same thing here - other countries just pay for
| their citizens giving birth from taxes. The cost to you
| as a citizen is zero. No it's not free, someone pays for
| it. But I never used the word free anywhere, so I feel
| like you want to have an argument for the argument sake.
| rootusrootus wrote:
| > every reasonable adult would say that driving on public
| roads is free, right?
|
| No? I certainly don't. I'm constantly aware of how much
| we don't spend on roads.
|
| Any conversation trashing the US for not having
| healthcare that is free-at-point-of-sale is meaningless
| without discussing the larger system.
|
| What can I say, I get tired of Europeans trashing the US
| using singular metrics as if they're a meaningful
| reflection of policy.
|
| You want to get into a more interesting conversation,
| let's talk about how the US citizenry is essentially
| subsidizing the universal healthcare that many other
| countries enjoy. That's not some political talking point,
| either, it's legitimate.
| gambiting wrote:
| >>No? I certainly don't. I'm constantly aware of how much
| we don't spend on roads.
|
| Let me ask this then - is there _anything_ in the world
| you would call free, or do you avoid the word out of
| principle?
|
| >>Any conversation trashing the US for not having
| healthcare that is free-at-point-of-sale is meaningless
| without discussing the larger system.
|
| I think you are purposefully trying to drag me into a
| discussion about a point I didn't make, I merely
| expressed surprise at the fact that United States of
| America, the wealthiest nation in the world, cannot even
| pay for the births of its own citizens. No statement
| anywhere about healthcare as such. If you want to read
| into it in my comment, then that's on you.
|
| >>You want to get into a more interesting conversation,
| let's talk about how the US citizenry is essentially
| subsidizing the universal healthcare that many other
| countries enjoy.
|
| Let's have that discussion then, please, I'm curious to
| hear your thoughts.
| tialaramex wrote:
| Sure
|
| https://www.vox.com/2016/10/4/13160624/medical-bills-
| birth-d...
|
| "Skin to Skin after C-Sec" $39.95
|
| [C-Sec here means Caesarean section, a relatively safe
| surgical procedure to delivery a baby via an incision in the
| mother's abdomen. Although mostly safe, and certainly
| preferable to situations where vaginal delivery would incur
| an undue risk to mother or baby, C-Section is undesirable
| because it increases the rate of complications both that
| time, and in any subsequent pregnancy. But it's very common
| in the US, for a variety of reasons.]
| agumonkey wrote:
| _facepalm_
|
| how long until they try to give everyone the best service
| according to their budget. one arm holding 30$, two arms
| 40$, full cuddle 70$
| prionassembly wrote:
| I think the whole rhetoric about C-sections needs to be
| adjusted for a time where many older women are having
| babies. There's a kind of narrative about optimal
| pregnancy/childbirth/early care that seems to make sense
| for 27-year-olds who will sneeze and squeeze out their baby
| and shoot milk at the thought of their baby. But that's
| increasingly not the norm.
|
| More generally: declining birth rates are one of our top-
| ten societal problems if we think 50-100 years ahead; part
| of addressing it is changing the conversation around
| pregnancy in one's late 30s and even early 40s. From
| watching TV shows it would seem by age 35 your shot is
| shot.
| dools wrote:
| Lots to be learned about the microbiome, and how vaginal birth,
| breastfeeding and skin contact feeds that. The trend towards
| caesarian births and formula feeding countervenes this trend in
| health research.
| ed25519FUUU wrote:
| Everything about birth is incredible. For example it's
| extremely common to defecate while giving birth. Oh no lots of
| germs and bad for baby right? Actually the exposure helps
| jumpstart the infants gut biome.
|
| And in the 1930s they were trying to figure out why there's a
| type of sugar in breast milk which the infant can't digest. Why
| the weird evolutionary waste? It turns out these
| oligosaccharides are there _to feed not the baby but the good
| bacteria in the gut_. The incredible and amazing mother
| anatomy. Amazing in so many levels.
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/d42473-018-00007-1
| williesleg wrote:
| Where's Michael Jackson and Jimmy Kimmel?
| alephnan wrote:
| Reminded me of the Behavioral Despair experiment on the
| psychology of hope
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioural_despair_test
| newobj wrote:
| Is this news? This was the crunchy stuff we did when my son was
| born ~13 years ago. It seemed like crunchy 101 then, shrug.
| OJFord wrote:
| Was your son born ' _unstable_ '?
| barrenko wrote:
| Newborns can die from lack of food, water or touch.
| philliphaydon wrote:
| Huh, you should never give a newborn water...
| neilpmas wrote:
| I'm sceptical of single study medical research and especially
| that which involves the crazily political world of birth. It
| might be better to wait until the Cochrane collaboration does a
| meta analysis on multiple studies before anyone changes what they
| are currently doing.
| tediousdemise wrote:
| Crazily political indeed.
|
| Every SUV-driving MLM Starbucks mommy with 5 homeschooled
| children will rally against anything science says about safe
| medical practices, including (but not limited) to childbirth.
|
| Science doesn't care about your opinions, Karen.
| drknownuffin wrote:
| Skin-to-skin for children has been studied for a few decades,
| and the consensus is strongly in its favor, after a pile of
| studies have all pointed in the same direction.
|
| This study isn't "skin to skin care is good." This study was
| aimed to answer the question, as contextualized, "We have
| established that skin-to-skin care for healthy children is good
| (pile of studies); for unhealthy children that have been
| stabilized is good (pile of studies), but is it good for kids
| that are still unstable? (controversy)"
|
| "I'm skeptical of a single study" is only a valid criticism if
| you're familiar with the body of scientific literature.
| Otherwise, what you're actually saying is, "I'm skeptical of
| results that pop magazines and press releases have only
| surfaced to my attention once" - which is a shoddy mechanism
| for curating your knowledge.
| irremediable wrote:
| Your response is great. Thanks for sharing information about
| the literature and way more context.
|
| > Otherwise, what you're actually saying is, "I'm skeptical
| of results that pop magazines and press releases have only
| surfaced to my attention once" - which is a shoddy mechanism
| for curating your knowledge.
|
| At the risk of nitpicking, this seems like a good principle
| to follow? Like, assuming skeptical means "I won't instantly
| buy into this being as great as the pop magazine claims"
| rather than "I will strongly presuppose that this is untrue
| because it was in a pop magazine".
| drknownuffin wrote:
| Thank you.
|
| I think it's a poor mechanism because "appeared once in a
| pop magazine" isn't a good signal for knowledge curation
| regardless of whether you assign it a positive or negative
| weight; especially when the original comment implied (to my
| reading) "the topic has only surfaced once, therefore the
| existing knowledgebase is only one study."
|
| The existence of a single study in pop literature is a very
| poor predictor of whether the study was accurate or not,
| and a very poor predictor of whether there are other
| studies on the topic. So I think it a mistake to substitute
| "it has come to my attention once" for "it has only been
| studied once."
| OJFord wrote:
| It is however a very good indicator that the pop
| portrayal is inaccurate though!
|
| At least this is ' _med life_ style news ', arguably not
| really 'pop', by the time this hits, I don't know, 'ifl
| science' or whatever, Techcrunch for general
| science/medicine, I wouldn't count on 'with unstable' in
| the headline, or perhaps even the body.
| powerapple wrote:
| The conclusion may be 'keeping baby warm' increases the
| survival rate. I agree with you, these researches are too
| vague, there are so many parameters, correlation maybe.
| mirekrusin wrote:
| They sniff like little piggys on the breast and suck it. It
| must be traumatic coming out of womb and very comforting when
| getting the breast.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| It's not unsurprising reading about western doctor's historical
| skepticism of this practice.
|
| Reading about the history of child birth in the U.S. over the
| last century is messed up. No wonder we have such high mortality
| rates still.
|
| I remember having to change hospitals in Boston because they were
| proud of the fact that 50% of the births were c-sections...
| MarketingJason wrote:
| I wish we could have experienced this. Our OBGYN didn't catch
| (after we insisted) that the baby was breach. After 2 hours of
| labor we were rushed to an emergency c-section.
|
| I'm thankful that my wife did get a little skin-to-skin but it
| was not immediate and it was for maybe 5 minutes before they were
| seperated. I think we got to see our baby about an hour later.
|
| The whole experience during and after was horrible but I'm not
| sure if we or the hospital could have handled it better other
| than if we had insisted more strongly that the position felt
| wrong weeks before delivery.
| pella wrote:
| imho: correction of the side effects of "evidence-based medicine"
|
| related-satire:
|
| "Satirical paper puts evidence-based medicine in the spotlight"
|
| "A spoof paper about mothers kissing their children's 'boo-boos'
| draws attention on social media."
|
| https://www.nature.com/news/satirical-paper-puts-evidence-ba...
|
| _" The paper's underlying message is in line with the journal's
| philosophy, says Miles, who is also senior vice-president of the
| European Society for Person Centered Healthcare in London and
| Madrid. In medicine, he notes, scientific research is only one
| type of knowledge, which must sit alongside other forms, such as
| professional medical experience, and not above them. "Over-
| reliance on science is a very dangerous thing," Miles says. Next
| month, the journal will publish another article unpacking the
| lessons contained in the satirical paper, he adds."_
| jonathanlydall wrote:
| Interesting.
|
| Our baby arrived 10 weeks premature and although it wasn't
| immediately after birth (as I'll explain why below), the hospital
| strongly encouraged the kangaroo care as mentioned in the
| article, which mom did daily until we could take our baby home.
|
| In a week it will be a full year since birth and the baby is in
| no way behind developmentally compared to other 10 month olds
| (when adjusting age due to prematurity). So although anecdotal, I
| can believe this can be a very helpful practice.
|
| Due to arriving mid-pandemic and because neither of us had COVID
| tests prior to the unexpectedly premature birth, we weren't
| allowed to visit the baby in the NICU until our tests came back
| negative, which was about 30 hours later. I wasn't even allowed
| to be with mom during delivery, but the doctor did allow me to
| see the baby for a couple of minutes from a distance and under
| the proviso that I touched nothing in the NICU (including things
| like walls, windows, doors, handles, etc).
|
| Anyway, somewhat superfluous information at the end there, but it
| was quite an experience and I'm just happy everything turned out
| fine.
| prionassembly wrote:
| We had a 35-week baby stay a couple of weeks in the NICU too.
| Our maternity ward was far less paranoid over COVID, and we got
| to hold the baby _during_ the C-section and for a while
| afterwards. Baby is just two months (unadjusted) and it 's
| already annoying to always be explaining adjusted age and where
| people should be counting from for developmental placemarks.
|
| I find as a father that sometimes the only way I can soothe the
| baby (mom breastfeeds and has to sleep during the daytime) is
| to take my shirt off and place him on my chest. I can almost
| code one-handed this way. I think babies somehow imprint to
| your smell or taste.
| syntaxing wrote:
| Totally hear you but the bright side is that they catch up
| extremely quickly. My kid "caught up to average" within
| around nine months or so.
| jonathanlydall wrote:
| Yes! I just read this to my wife and we had to laugh a little
| as the adjusted age thing has definitely been a bug bear at
| times.
|
| At this point when people ask our child's age, we almost
| always just say the adjusted age as it's easier, especially
| with my wife's gran who doesn't speak English as her first
| language and then is worried about her being behind
| developmentally.
|
| In regards to the bonding, for me it's a feeling like no
| other to have your baby see you and mom as the greatest two
| people in the whole world.
| bredren wrote:
| I'm so glad to hear your 10 month old has been making out well.
|
| My wife and I are weeks away from our first.
|
| While very lucky--our close friends and family have not had
| serious encounters with covid, We've been most affected by
| regulations that have interrupted what would have been normal
| parts of a couple's first pregnancy.
|
| I'm sorry to hear you were not allowed to be with the mom
| during delivery. And that you were delayed in visiting the nicu
| by those tests.
|
| That must have been very difficult.
|
| I remember being told I wouldn't be able to be there with my
| wife for the first ultrasound. I attended via FaceTime.
|
| I was a little more accepting of the circumstances at the 28
| week, but still not happy about it.
|
| One of the bigger bummers has been having no I'm person social
| interaction with other new parents approaching the same life
| stage. It's just not the same over zoom and it feels like a
| pretty big miss.
|
| Always trying to keep these things in perspective. As of now
| I'll be there for the birth, and really just want a good
| outcome after all.
| jonathanlydall wrote:
| Congratulations and I'm glad to hear that things seem to be
| good as could be hoped for considering the pandemic.
|
| With everything else that happened I kind of forgot about not
| being allowed to join for check ups and ultrasounds, it
| definitely sucked.
|
| Fortunately they made an exception on the day of the birth
| (where we made an appointment only because my wife was
| feeling uncomfortable), otherwise I probably wouldn't have
| been with my wife at all before she was rushed off to
| theatre.
|
| Good luck and enjoy.
| thanatos519 wrote:
| Congratulations!
|
| My kid was also a preemie and got kangaroo care alternating
| with being wrapped in a UV-emitting blanket. Now he is 8 and
| still blows me away every day with his kindness, smarts, skills
| and ... uh ... argumentation. :)
|
| The benefits of kangaroo care are worth studying, but the
| results of the study are about as unexpected as the 'your cats
| love you back' study.
| CPLX wrote:
| > the 'your cats love you back' study
|
| Hold on, your cats love you back?
| thanatos519 wrote:
| I don't remember which study it was, but a quick search
| will find quite a few, e.g.
| https://www.inverse.com/science/how-do-i-know-if-my-cat-
| love...
| mberning wrote:
| There is a lot of "woo woo" crap in the child birth industry. All
| the way from hardcore "all natural" proponents to traditional
| "hospital birth no matter what" people. Unfortunately this causes
| a lot of anxiety and second guessing on the part of new parents.
| I really didn't appreciate the quasi-relgious or cult-like
| guidance we received on breast feeding our son, only to have him
| lose 15% of his body weight and not gain it back until we
| supplemented with formula.
| jeduehr wrote:
| I will say this is something we've known for a while:
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27885658/
| mhb wrote:
| This is not what the study addressed - the study is about
| contact with premature babies which is typically withheld until
| they are stable. The outcomes are better if the skin-to-skin
| contact is initiated before they are stable.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| Yes, and it's standard practice in hospitals.
|
| Additionally, our doctor prescribed a certain quota of skin-to-
| skin contact daily for the first several weeks after birth.
| drknownuffin wrote:
| Skin-to-skin is standard. Skin-to-skin for _unstable
| neonates_ is not, which is the debate in the medical field
| and the question that the study sought to answer.
| reacharavindh wrote:
| Interesting to read this here. When my son was born (naturally,
| normal weight, fully healthy, and around expected due date), the
| midwife in Denmark had educated us about the Danish way of
| handling the birth - as soon as the baby comes out, they
| literally put the baby on mom's chest, and leave us(parents, and
| baby) alone in the room for about an hour. Nothing needs to be
| done other than the baby being in care of it's parents! They
| believed it helps the baby form a natural bond, but also
| acclimate to the outside world better than being whisked away and
| cleaned.
|
| It was such a lovely experience. One of the many things I am
| thankful to Denmark for.
|
| Several things that I was surprised to learn while going through
| this in DK.
|
| 1. Childbirth is handled by midwives (Jordemothers) instead of
| doctors. Doctors are brought only when medication or any
| treatment is necessary.
|
| 2. Child birth is considered a natural process and never
| treated/thought of as a sickness or medical condition. This is
| reflected in the whole process.
|
| 3. The social healthcare system works great. It changed my
| perspective even more. Not having to think about hospital bills
| or insurance leaves us parents to enjoy the arrival of our little
| one.
|
| 4. If everyone in the country, regardless of their current
| financial condition gets such an experience for their childbirth,
| I will gladly pay my taxes, and never complain. Healthcare should
| not be a business imho.
| mensetmanusman wrote:
| The U.S. experience used to be this way, but about 100 years
| ago the medical industry realized they could make a lot of
| money off of child birth (our last bill was $40k).
|
| The hospitals released advertisements scaring women from voodoo
| (read: black) women/midwives helping with birth so that doctors
| and surgeons could take over, it worked fantastically. The
| doctors eventually chained women to beds and tested various
| chemicals to 'cure' their pain that resulted in profound
| unintended consequences.
|
| This history is still with us, and creates a lot of uncanny
| valley experiences. I.e. treating pregnancy like a disease.
|
| When we gave birth during covid, I had to use an elevator to
| get to my wife. When the elevator door opened, a group in
| hazmat exited with a patient clearly dying of covid.
|
| I was like: "are you fucking kidding me, this is still where we
| give birth in this country..."
| Accujack wrote:
| >but about 100 years ago
|
| It wasn't really an issue for the most part until laws were
| changed in the early 70s - by Nixon.
|
| That was when for profit health care took over here.
| hallway_monitor wrote:
| We did it in the hospital too but there's nothing stopping
| you from using a midwife at home right?
|
| Another thing that seems to be pushed a lot is epidurals.
| They expect everyone to get one and are very surprised when
| someone does not want it.
| hahahasure wrote:
| The epidural costs $6000. A 10 minute procedure.
|
| I saw my wife before and after an Epidural so I could not
| dispute it's effectiveness.
|
| But I generally can't see a reason why we need to spend 12
| years in school to learn how various needles and rules of
| thumbs work.
|
| Only the US has such an education burden, and only does the
| US have such a strong physician cartel to mandate it..
|
| Edit, and even with midwives you will be hitting max out of
| pocket with 1 night stay.
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| Then you have to deal with the circumcision sales pitch.
| jjeaff wrote:
| We never heard even the slightest hint of a sales pitch
| for circumcision. A single question of whether we were
| planning to do it or not was all.
| Stratoscope wrote:
| In fact, we had an _anti-circumcision_ pitch. They showed
| a video of the process. It was horrible and makes me
| queasy just remembering it.
| ezekg wrote:
| Midwives are the way. My first child's prenatal and birth was
| < $5k, born at home.
| spockz wrote:
| Amazing. In the Netherlands it is free. You get a midwife,
| hospital and medical staff when required. You get a box of
| goods for the first days of baby care. We get 4-6 weeks
| paid leave as a father and 16 as a mother. There is help in
| the house for about a week to take care of baby and mother
| and do checkups.
|
| The only thing you pay a symbolic amount of money for is
| some to borrow tools like bath chairs.
|
| Probably some pain meds require a contribution but you
| never pay the whole thing.
|
| Children up until 18 are insured on your own insurance
| policy without additional fees.
|
| It must be hell to live in a cold place as the US where
| everything costs tons of money out of pocket.
| brnt wrote:
| Parental leave in the Netherlands, both for women and
| man, is the lowest in the EU. By a wide margin. So, while
| we get some things right, leave and the conseqences that
| implies for the carreer of the mother is not something we
| can boast about.
| Fomite wrote:
| There is no "U.S. experience" because of the absolute mess of
| our healthcare system. There are birthing centers that work
| very much like the process described above.
| klipt wrote:
| > Childbirth is handled by midwives (Jordemothers) instead of
| doctors.
|
| Is midwife a female-only profession or are there male midwives
| too?
| OJFord wrote:
| Are you objecting to 'mother' in the Dutch as if 'wife' in
| the English doesn't imply the same?
| gameman144 wrote:
| I didn't read that as objecting to anything, it looks like
| an honest question...
| OJFord wrote:
| Fair enough. The quote made it seem like 'That's so non-
| PC why do you call it that' to me, so I was just pointing
| out it's not any different in English, quoting the Dutch
| is redundant!
| blhack wrote:
| This sounds exactly like the process my wife and I are going
| through in the US right now.
|
| I've never heard of pregnancy being treated like an "illness"
| (??).
|
| Midwives are also extremely common here.
|
| Granted I live in Arizona, and I know much of HN lives in SF.
| So maybe this is unique to Arizona in some way?
| throwkeep wrote:
| Not unique to Arizona. It's rather common throughout the
| country now.
| dieortin wrote:
| Except for the bills part
| ACS_Solver wrote:
| I know that in Russian culture, pregnancy is often treated
| somewhat like an illness. Not in the sense that it's bad, but
| it's commonly believed the pregnant woman needs a lot of bed
| rest, should avoid any physical activity more strenuous than
| walking, etc. In the last trimester, the woman is treated
| similarly to someone recovering from a major surgery. Medical
| supervision is handled by a doctor throughout the pregnancy.
|
| This is in complete contrast to the thread starter's Danish
| approach, or the approach where I am in Sweden. Women are
| encouraged to remain physically active, to only abstain from
| very major activities (think skydiving or marathon running),
| and to generally keep doing things as long as they're
| physically comfortable. Midwives handle everything from the
| first checkup until labor, a doctor only gets involved if
| there's something that requires a doctor's skills in
| particular.
| in_cahoots wrote:
| The country's c-section rate is somewhere near 33% when most
| estimates say it should be around 15%. That's a pretty good
| indicator of systematic over-medicalization.
| whall6 wrote:
| Lots of women I know elect to have C-sections.
| [deleted]
| lolinder wrote:
| My understanding is that that is often because doctors
| fail to educate them sufficiently on the cons. The
| recovery from a C-section is worse, the outcomes are
| worse for both mother and child, future children are
| likely to be more difficult. There's not much reason to
| recommend an elect C-section in most cases (certainly not
| 33% of cases) except that the doctors get to bill for it.
| GloriousKoji wrote:
| I would not call it a "good amount" but I know women who
| elected for C-sections because they attribute too much
| value and significance to the date of birth.
| jacobolus wrote:
| > I know much of HN lives in SF
|
| SF has more options for different types of prenatal/delivery
| medical experiences than most regions of the US, and has been
| ahead of the trend for years. My 2 kids were delivered by
| midwives in a hospital focused on respecting parents' choices
| to the extent possible.
| pasquinelli wrote:
| My first kid in 2008 in Chicago wasn't like this, my second
| in 2012 in Portland was. I'd say America is adopting the
| approach; maybe it fully has by now.
| pumaontheprowl wrote:
| 2.8 million people die during childbirth every year. It's
| absolutely a medical condition. And you should absolutely have
| a doctor there.
| kkwteh wrote:
| Where did you get the 2.8 million figure? Wikipedia says "an
| estimated 303,000 women killed each year in childbirth and
| pregnancy worldwide", which isn't the same.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death
| economusty wrote:
| Thanks for saying this, most do it in the hospital because if
| something goes wrong we want to have the best chance of
| saving mom and child.
| lcfcjs wrote:
| Here in America, we have GoFundMe.
| syntaxing wrote:
| I'm in the US and most hospital does the same now. They call it
| the golden hour where it's just an hour of skin to skin just
| like you mentioned with no baby health routine until after
| such.
| afavour wrote:
| ...and despite it being essentially a time period where the
| hospital leaves you alone, you still get billed for it.
| throwkeep wrote:
| Well, the bed and room itself is a limited resource of the
| hospital and it's one of their expenses.
| wycy wrote:
| It's not just your time in the bed/room, there's often a
| line item on your bill for skin-time. On top of that, you
| pay for your time in the room.
| LightG wrote:
| Of course ... but it's incredibly sad to read how it is
| even a part of the thought process of childbirth in some
| countries.
| pmiller2 wrote:
| > ... the thought process of _capitalism_ in some
| countries.
|
| FTFY.
| chaps wrote:
| Why is this getting downvoted? They bill for this
| _specifically_. This isn 't the same thing as a damn
| hotel.. this site, I swear..
| recursive wrote:
| Have you heard about hotels? They bill me for a full day,
| and barely even communicate with me all night long?
| afavour wrote:
| When you stay at a hotel do you receive a specific line-
| item in your bill for being time spent lying in bed with
| your partner?
| stickfigure wrote:
| I'm pretty sure there are places in rural Nevada that
| work exactly like that.
| tootie wrote:
| It's pretty common in the US as well although not the norm. I
| think it's kinda dumb to be honest. Just get an epidural. My
| wife was induced twice due to risk factors and got two
| epidurals. We still got to cuddle them new born. We also had to
| bottle feed the first week pretty heavily to stave off jaundice
| although they were mostly breast fed afterwards.
| souprock wrote:
| No, don't get an epidural. Pain has a purpose. It guides you
| to minimize injury. Be thankful you can feel pain.
|
| There are people with genetic defects that prevent feeling
| pain. These people constantly injure themselves.
| sfink wrote:
| They are constantly giving birth? That seems like a much
| more relevant medical condition. (But yes, I get your point
| -- it's just that it's not relevant when you're conflating
| burning a finger with giving birth.)
|
| Pain definitely does have a purpose. It alerts you to
| things you may need to know about. Once you're alerted, its
| purpose is mostly lost. And many, many people living with
| chronic pain can tell you that sometimes the message is
| worse than the cause. The fact that complete absence of
| pain is a problem in no way supports your imperative to not
| get an epidural _during childbirth_.
|
| I agree that getting an epidural before handling sharp
| objects is unwise.
| tootie wrote:
| Lol, you know epidurals only last as long as they're
| administered right? As soon as the baby and placenta are
| out, they stop the flow and feeling starts coming back
| pretty quickly. The doc can also adjust the level of meds
| on the fly to allow enough sensation to facilitate pushing.
| And mom just stays in a hospital bed until it's safe
| anyway.
| souprock wrote:
| It's not just about injury after the birth. It's about
| injury during the birth.
|
| As soon as the baby and placenta are out, it's too late
| to avoid injury during childbirth. It is no longer
| possible to let pain be guidance for minimization of
| injury. The chance was missed.
| quux wrote:
| Do they assist in cutting the umbilical cord and delivering the
| placenta before leaving the parents and baby alone?
| reacharavindh wrote:
| Yes, I think the midwife gave me (father) a choice to cut the
| umbilical cord. I didn't want to, so she did it, and also
| removed the placenta, and sutured the mother(while the baby
| was in mom's chest). Once the suture was complete, the
| midwife and the helper nurse went out of the room and said
| they are available immediately if we needed them. That hour
| went like a minute :-)
| thorin1 wrote:
| It's exactly the same in Canada. It was a great experience and
| we were so happy that we could be with our baby 100% of the
| time.
| swman wrote:
| I resonate with #4. I'm in US, so healthcare is tied to
| employer. My first job ever paid 12/hr and I did not have
| health care and it was a part time job, so I'm glad I could
| rely on my mother's health insurance until age 26 (thanks
| Obama).
|
| I got my first "real" job after spending a year trying to find
| a full time job after graduating college, during which I was
| working that 12/hr job. Even at the new job which paid 80k a
| year, I had to pay $30/paycheck ($60/mo) towards healthcare.
| Thankfully never had to use that insurance while I worked
| there.
|
| Now at my current place I get HDHP (high deductible health
| plan) and when I messed up my leg the hospital I went to didn't
| even have crutches in their inventory.. got wheeled out to my
| car and I had to drive to a pharmacy to purchase crutches.. it
| was horrible, and I couldn't imagine what this situation must
| be like for someone without insurance.
|
| Anyway the worst part is that I still ended up paying about
| $1500 out of pocket, because the 1st X-Ray was covered, but the
| next two were $600 each....... $40 crutches ..............
| reacharavindh wrote:
| I am very sorry for what you went through.
|
| I lived in the US for 6 years, and worked at above average
| tech company and had excellent healthcare benefits through
| employer. I must admit it blinds people to say "country's
| messed up healthcare system is not my problem" because my
| employer took care of it :-(
|
| Before my move to Europe, I risked living in the US for a
| month without health Insurance, and I was very anxious about
| it. I can't imagine what most Americans who don't have that
| luxury of employer benefits feel daily.
|
| It's silly to think that the richest country on earth by far
| does not have a decent healthcare system that covers all of
| its citizens.
| carlmr wrote:
| >it blinds people to say "country's messed up healthcare
| system is not my problem" because my employer took care of
| it :-(
|
| This is something I never understood. If your employer is
| in power of your health insurance, how free are you?
| johncessna wrote:
| I'm not saying it's a good system, but I'm not following
| your logic here. If the government is in power of your
| health insurance, how free are you? I can change my
| employer a lot easier than I can change my government.
| jschwartzi wrote:
| But when you change employers you risk losing access to
| your healthcare. Whereas if government pays for the
| health system you can maintain continuity of care, which
| can be essential to treat various psychiatric and medical
| conditions. Imagine if, because you got a new job, your
| lease on an apartment were canceled and you had to go
| find a new place to live? That's what our healthcare
| system is like and it's maddening.
| johncessna wrote:
| I'm not defending the system, I was trying to point out
| the absurdity of the parent's statement.
|
| To your point, the affordable health care act addressed
| the issue with not being able to get insurance due to
| preexisting conditions. In the US you're required to have
| healthcare insurance. You can buy it yourself, get it
| through your employer, or, assuming you qualify, get it
| from the government.
| Retric wrote:
| You can generally keep paying for the same health
| insurance for to 18 or 36 months after leaving a job via
| COBRA except in cases of gross misconduct. It can be
| shockingly expensive though.
|
| https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/legacy-
| files/ebsa/abo...
| philsnow wrote:
| > I could rely on my mother's health insurance until age 26
| (thanks Obama)
|
| I don't know the particulars of what law enabled this, but I
| used my dad's health insurance until I was 26 as well, before
| Obama's first term.
| kritiko wrote:
| Are you from Massachusetts? In that case it was Mitt
| Romney's healthcare reform.
| doggodaddo78 wrote:
| I just watched the Frontline episode on the Healthcare Divide
| where US safety-net hospitals (accept anyone hospitals of last
| resort) have been closing or being sold to vulture investors
| who buy, trim costs, and sell them at the cost of reduced care.
|
| For-profit healthcare should be like for-profit prisons:
| illegal.
| OJFord wrote:
| I'm not sure about that, I live in the UK with public
| healthcare and optional private for-profit; I think that's
| fine.
|
| Non-profit replacing the public is an interesting idea
| though, I've never heard that suggested before, people
| usually just argue about public being available or not. (And
| invariably quite pointlessly since neither side will budge!)
| M5x7wI3CmbEem10 wrote:
| how do you manage getting around the hospital system? seems
| overwhelming with having a different language, and it isn't as
| simple as going to the ER I assume
| rootusrootus wrote:
| This is the experience we had 8 and 10 years ago, and I live in
| the US. I'm sure some people have had bad experiences, but
| there are exceptions to every rule.
| yupper32 wrote:
| According to a recent study reported by Reuters, child birth in
| a hospital settings is far safer:
| https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-homebirths-newborn...
|
| Skin-to-skin contact immediately after birth is pretty common
| in hospital settings now.
|
| You shouldn't care about it all being a "lovely" or "natural"
| experience. You should care that everyone gets out safely.
| Birth can be a brutal and deadly affair.
| gffrd wrote:
| What's wrong with it being a lovely experience?
|
| Couldn't we assume that OP's hierarchy includes the "everyone
| gets out safely" box having been ticked?
|
| This is like saying cars should not be enjoyable because they
| exist purely to move us around.
| baby wrote:
| Country A infant mortality rate in 2021: 2.86 deaths per 1000
| births.
|
| Country B infant mortality rate in 2019: 5.75 deaths per 1000
| births.
|
| Guess which country is which.
| gambiting wrote:
| Had a baby 3 weeks ago in the UK, it was the same. Baby was
| immediately on mum's chest.
| jedimastert wrote:
| My wife had a couple of complicating factors, so we had doctors
| involved from the get-go. Fun fact for the unaware: if you're
| predisposed for diabetes or just unlucky, you get gestational
| diabetes because pregnancy does WILD things to hormones.
|
| But we've had instant skin to skin (after a quite o2 check, but
| within minutes) for both pregnancies, even the "urgent"
| c-section (not quite "emergency", but better safe than sorry,
| story for another time).
| prionassembly wrote:
| > 1. Childbirth is handled by midwives (Jordemothers) instead
| of doctors. Doctors are brought only when medication or any
| treatment is necessary.
|
| This is perfectly rational in the context of publicly-funded
| healthcare; for many mothers (younger and in optimal health)
| pregnancy has little complications. On the other hand, we
| really benefited from high-intensity pre-natal care with
| frequent ultrasounds, as we were able to increase our kid's
| chances of survival with lung development-accelerating
| steroids.
|
| What I mean is that it's a wonderful cost-saving tactic which
| doesn't imply better care. In Brazil we have MDs handling sore
| throats in overloaded ERs, and it might be more cost-effective
| to have teams of RNs in a more distributed proactive fashion. I
| still can't think of a case where, individually, I would prefer
| a RN rather than a MD handling my sore throat. Billionaires
| might even have MDs clipping their toenails to care for fungi.
| gregmac wrote:
| I'm not sure why you're talking as if these are mutually
| exclusive?
|
| I'm in Canada, where midwives are publicly funded, but still
| not that common (there's a waitlist and not everyone gets
| in). The midwives have hospital privileges, and are basically
| the "primary care provider" (instead of an obstetrician or
| family doctor). They still do ultrasounds, and if there was a
| concern, they can turn over care to a MD.
|
| We actually did the birth in the hospital, and were just
| alone in the room with 2 midwives the entire time (no nurses
| / doctors involved). Our midwife did warn us that if a
| complication became up - especially at the end - that the
| room could get very busy very fast if they had to call in
| people, but thankfully that didn't happen.
|
| We have a friend that had their kids at home. The midwives
| notify the hospital and ambulance service this is happening.
| They actually had to go to the hospital for one kid who had a
| complication, and my understanding is the ambulance was there
| very quickly and things were turned over to the medical team
| for birth, then after everything was ok, care turned back to
| he midwife a few hours later.
| mikepurvis wrote:
| Surely frequent contact with a lower-cost specialist who is
| trained to monitor for situations requiring escalation very
| much implies better care?
|
| Maybe I'm misreading your tone, but it sounds like you're
| dismissing midwifery as being only about cost savings. I
| don't think that's true at all (parent of three; we did a
| midwife for the younger two), but even if that was a major
| motivation, it's like saying SpaceX is only about cost
| savings. The cost savings are a game changer in terms of
| access/frequency/etc.
| reacharavindh wrote:
| > What I mean is that it's a wonderful cost-saving tactic
| which doesn't imply better care.
|
| I don't agree.
|
| It is not mutually exclusive to have a midwives dealing with
| childbirths and Doctors providing excellent care when needed.
| The midwives perform the scheduled ultrasound and if there
| was any inkling of complication, they would have immediately
| involved a Doctor into the process(I was told so, but my son
| didn't need any). This way the Doctors are engaged only when
| necessary thereby increasing chances of better care and not
| wasting their time handling sore throats or clipping rich
| people's toe nails.
| durandal1 wrote:
| We had 2 children within the last 5 years, both born at
| Stanford, Palo Alto, and both were immediately put skin to skin
| after birth, so I don't think it's unique to Denmark.
| cultofmetatron wrote:
| Palo alto is not typical of America. Its one of the richest
| places in the country for one along with having a high
| percentage of liberal/educated people.
|
| IN America you have to be upper middle class at minimum to
| have the same standard of living as the bottom tier in
| Scandinavian countries.
| ARandomerDude wrote:
| Doubtless, you're leaving soon then...
| calvinmorrison wrote:
| I always assumed poor people had midwifes
|
| Source: born in a house not a hospital like my whole family
| franze wrote:
| Our midwife literally threw the doctor out of the room:
| "Everything is ok. You go now!" The doctors know that the
| midwife is in charge and respect this.
| t0mas88 wrote:
| It goes like this in the Netherlands as well. Typically with
| only a midwife, and a nurse if you want pain reduction
| medication because the midwife is not allowed to handle that.
| The exception is if there are medical indications like an early
| birth (I think before week 36), then a doctor would be present
| from the start.
|
| Home births are a choice and a lot of people make that choice
| because it is a less stressful environment. We were told that
| the Netherlands has an above average amount of home births
| compared to the rest of Europe.
|
| However for my daughter we were offered an even nicer option:
| There are special "non medical delivery" rooms in the hospitals
| around here. It looks and feels much more homely than a
| hospital room, has some normal chairs in it, the walls aren't
| white, it has a nice bathroom. You go there with your midwife
| that you already know from all the checkups. The process is
| like you describe it in Denmark, they indeed give you a lot of
| time to relax before and after.
|
| But there is one thing different from home birth: It is right
| across the hallway from the medical delivery rooms, with full
| baby-ICU capabilities less than 10 seconds away and a red alarm
| button to press when you need medical help immediately. That
| was for us a comfortable feeling, because if things don't go
| right the natural way, you really don't want to be 15 minutes
| away from the hospital by ambulance.
|
| Luckily we didn't need any of it, but the fact that it's there
| when needed feels safe.
| reacharavindh wrote:
| It is reassuring to hear that Netherlands works more or less
| the same. Today is my first day in the Netherlands(moved here
| from DK) :-)
|
| Just to add, we also had the exact situation as you
| described. An annex physically close but separated from the
| hospital. The child birth rooms are similar to normal room
| with a "help please" button. I'd also take this close
| proximity to the hospital over home births. Just in case
| something unexpected occurs and medical help is needed.
| mattlondon wrote:
| Same in the UK. Literally _immediately_ as the kid came out he
| was on my wife 's chest... umbilical still connected and
| everything.
|
| They banged on and on about the importance of "skin on skin" in
| all the ante-natal stuff. Even for the father they say skin on
| skin is beneficial. Apparently it promotes oxytocin for both
| parties.
| njovin wrote:
| I had a similar experience in the US with a large private
| healthcare provider at a large regional hospital. They did some
| quick health checks but then quickly left the baby with my wife
| and I for skin-to-skin time. This was planned ahead of time and
| encouraged by the nurses and doctors.
|
| I'm not sure if it's become commonplace across the country but
| our care was impeccable and the nurses and doctors were happy
| to recommend and support as natural a birth as possible.
| xen2xen1 wrote:
| I've heard / overheard from multiple women from multiple
| states that birthing has changed and the baby is put on mom
| as immediately as possible, to the point it seemed odd from
| my experience 20 years ago. Doctors in the states have read
| all this too and things have changed.
| kazen44 wrote:
| using midwives is quite common in most European countries. in
| some countries people usually bear there children at home
| instead of in the hospital as well.
| snikeris wrote:
| My son would probably be dead if we didn't give birth in a
| hospital. The cord was wrapped around his neck three times
| and he wasn't breathing when he came out. A small team of
| doctors (angels) came in and saved his life. An hour or so
| later, they had to do it again.
|
| It was a short part of their work day, but made all the
| difference for us.
| gibrown wrote:
| Don't know your specific circumstances and it sounds like
| it was kinda a rough birth so sorry. I will say that the
| cord wrapped around the neck is super common and something
| midwives deal with all the time.
| reacharavindh wrote:
| Yes, this way of care was new to me as I have only lived in
| India and the USA prior to moving to Denmark. It simply makes
| sense to have midwives be the specialized practitioners for
| this normal natural human care.
| jeeeb wrote:
| This sounds very similar to our experience in the public
| hospital system in Australia.
|
| With both our sons the process was mostly handled by midwives
| including a lot of the pre and post natal checkups. The births
| were done naturally and immediately afterwards mum was given
| the baby to skin cuddle. They didn't wash the baby and we were
| advised not to bath the baby for the first few days even.
|
| Mum was also given the option of how long she wanted to stay in
| hospital (anything from 6 hours to 4 days if I recall).
| gibrown wrote:
| We had both our kids at a birth center in the US (actually both
| born in the same room three years apart) and it was a great
| experience. There are certainly cases where you can't but I
| really liked not being in an overly medical setting. Also (as a
| new exhausted Dad) taking that first nap in the same bed your
| baby was just born in and your wife is beside you wide awake...
| magic. Then about 6-8 hours later we are back home for when my
| wife was ready to crash as the hormones wear off.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-05-27 23:01 UTC)