Be Excellent To Each Other

And, you know, party on. Dude.

All times are UTC [ DST ]




This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 2974 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 ... 60  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:59 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 69502
Location: Your Mum
I am v. interested in said stats. This is the first counter-argument that doesn't boil down to "I'm a hippy".

Would I be right in thinking that while there might be less problems at a home birth, the problems you're avoiding are likely to be much less serious?

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 11:59 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16552
Then those risks must be offset by other ones present from giving birth at home. As far as I can tell the evidence seems to suggest that where no risk factors to do with the mother have been identified home births are less safe that hospital births, though certainly not by a very significant amount. It's certainly not considered unsafe or else the advice would be different.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:04 
User avatar
Gogmagog

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 48607
Location: Cheshire
I'd be concerned over the carpets.

_________________
Mr Chris wrote:
MaliA isn't just the best thing on the internet - he's the best thing ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:12 
User avatar
Sleepyhead

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 27343
Location: Kidbrooke
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Zardoz wrote:
Er, didn't you kave your kid at home?

That was us, with Second Born. We got more care and attention and had quicker potential access to a doctor then we did in the hospital with First Born. We also weren't exposed to as many filthy unwashed bloodstained surfaces.

How quickly can you get from your living room to your operating theatre room, though?

20 minutes or so. However, we were far, far, far less likely to need an operating theatre than we were likely to have something go wrong due to being in hospital.

Hospitals basically try to kill you while you're there. Facetious, yes, but that's basically what it amounts to, given the increased risks you have whilst there. I'll ask Mrs K for the stats later.


*extremely suspicious face*

I need peer reviewed meta-studies stat, else I'm filing you with the homeopaths.

_________________
We are young despite the years
We are concern
We are hope, despite the times


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:16 
User avatar
INFINITE POWAH

Joined: 1st Apr, 2008
Posts: 30498
markg wrote:
Then those risks must be offset by other ones present from giving birth at home. As far as I can tell the evidence seems to suggest that where no risk factors to do with the mother have been identified home births are less safe that hospital births, though certainly not by a very significant amount. It's certainly not considered unsafe or else the advice would be different.

The Dutch one I posted earleir showed a very small difference, but when it was filtered for extreme cases it came out as a parity. The NHS says they're basically the same risk overall too. There is an increase if it's your first child, but it's a very marginal absolute difference.

_________________
http://www.thehomeofawesome.com/
Eagles soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:20 
User avatar
Isn't that lovely?

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 10910
Location: Devon
We had our 2nd child at home, I know it's anecdotal, but it was by far the easiest of the 4!

However, there were issues with Raven at birth, although I think that was more to do with the hospital equipment not picking up a heart rate.

Malc

_________________
Where's the Kaboom? I was expecting an Earth shattering Kaboom!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:23 
User avatar
INFINITE POWAH

Joined: 1st Apr, 2008
Posts: 30498
Study into increased risk of death at weekends. This one was widely reported not long ago.

I'm looking for the general point about hospitals being statistically unsafe places to be, but may have to ask Mrs K about it. Poor thing used to be an NHS manager.

_________________
http://www.thehomeofawesome.com/
Eagles soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:32 
User avatar
INFINITE POWAH

Joined: 1st Apr, 2008
Posts: 30498
A US study, but this shows that hospitals are the third biggest killer after heart disease and cancer.

_________________
http://www.thehomeofawesome.com/
Eagles soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:37 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 69502
Location: Your Mum
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
I'm looking for the general point about hospitals being statistically unsafe places to be

I'd imagine that quite a few people die in hospitals ;)

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:38 
User avatar
INFINITE POWAH

Joined: 1st Apr, 2008
Posts: 30498
Grim... wrote:
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
I'm looking for the general point about hospitals being statistically unsafe places to be

I'd imagine that quite a few people die in hospitals ;)

Heh. smartarse.

_________________
http://www.thehomeofawesome.com/
Eagles soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:39 
User avatar
Ticket to Ride World Champion

Joined: 18th Apr, 2008
Posts: 11843
I can't help but think the statistics are slightly imbalanced there.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:40 
User avatar
INFINITE POWAH

Joined: 1st Apr, 2008
Posts: 30498
Bobbyaro wrote:
I can't help but think the statistics are slightly imbalanced there.

?

_________________
http://www.thehomeofawesome.com/
Eagles soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:54 
User avatar
Ticket to Ride World Champion

Joined: 18th Apr, 2008
Posts: 11843
Well, you said "hospital".
So, for starters it is a US study which states outright the US is worse than some other countries-

The US healthcare system is (at the time of the report, at least) insurance based, and there are a large number of people in the US who can not afford even low/mediocre level care, but would still fall into the statistics as healthcare users.

Secondly, the major "killer" was "106000 deaths/year from nonerror, adverse effects
of medications"
We know nothing about these cases other than this, but they are described as "non-error" so I assume that they were prescribed the correct drug for the illness and the correct dosage (see the differentiation between erroneous medication deaths). As such we can take 2 points
1) They were ill and were being prescribed a medication to cure said illness.
2) The adverse effects were not the fault of the proscriber (the correct prescription was administered).

Furthermore, it does not distinguish between hospital prescriptions and GP/dentist/podiatrist prescription in this number.
The sum of other deaths/year is 119k so this 106k being in doubt significantly decreases the total.

Disclaimer: I haven't read the whole report yet.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:58 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
Plus a huge number of old people die in hospitals purely because they are long term there and have nowhere else to go.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 12:59 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16552
In summary hospitals have to try some complex and risky things in order to unfuck people who find themselves fucked up. Sometimes people die as a result, but in general the alternative was not looking so rosy either.

"hospitals try to kill you" or "hospitals are the third biggest killer" is just a bizarre spin to try to put on it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 13:01 
User avatar
Gogmagog

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 48607
Location: Cheshire
The NHS is a liberal conspiracy.

_________________
Mr Chris wrote:
MaliA isn't just the best thing on the internet - he's the best thing ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 13:01 
User avatar

Joined: 23rd Nov, 2008
Posts: 9521
Location: The Golden Country
My last visit to an NHS hospital: I was told, absolutely earnestly and in all seriousness, that I was "very lucky" to have someone attending to my broken jaw who was "nearly qualified". (Shortly after being handed a plate of mashed potatoes and boiled fish - with my jaw wired tight shut following (botched) surgery, and not having eaten for 3 days).

Some big time drugs dealer/'gangsta' type was in the bed next to me, complete with armed police escort. This did not seem to affect the "quality of his care" from the nurses, though, far from it shall we say. Some raving lunatic in a backroom somewhere howled at the moon for a good few hours, before the nurses decided to "shut him up" with a dose of morphine (he yelped like a puppy momentarily, before blessed (relative) silence pervaded the night time (mixed) ward).

At about this time, I decided that comprehensive private healthcare insurance was a really good idea.

_________________
Beware of gavia articulata oculos...

Dr Lave wrote:
Of course, he's normally wrong but interestingly wrong :p


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 13:14 
User avatar
Ticket to Ride World Champion

Joined: 18th Apr, 2008
Posts: 11843
markg wrote:
In summary hospitals have to try some complex and risky things in order to unfuck people who find themselves fucked up. Sometimes people die as a result, but in general the alternative was not looking so rosy either.

"hospitals try to kill you" or "hospitals are the third biggest killer" is just a bizarre spin to try to put on it.

No, that is unfair, the report clearly gives data for "hospital based" errors, eg wrong medicine, unneeded surgery, it just doesn't define what those are, eg unnecessary could be "chopped off wrong leg" or it could be "the doctor genuinely thought this person had X and the only option to solve it is surgery". There is quite a difference.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 13:18 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
Oh, you actually want us to look at the report? Not gonna happen dude :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 13:19 
User avatar
Gogmagog

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 48607
Location: Cheshire
I got a birthday card from people at work.

_________________
Mr Chris wrote:
MaliA isn't just the best thing on the internet - he's the best thing ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 13:20 
Bobbyaro wrote:
markg wrote:
In summary hospitals have to try some complex and risky things in order to unfuck people who find themselves fucked up. Sometimes people die as a result, but in general the alternative was not looking so rosy either.

"hospitals try to kill you" or "hospitals are the third biggest killer" is just a bizarre spin to try to put on it.

No, that is unfair, the report clearly gives data for "hospital based" errors, eg wrong medicine, unneeded surgery, it just doesn't define what those are, eg unnecessary could be "chopped off wrong leg" or it could be "the doctor genuinely thought this person had X and the only option to solve it is surgery". There is quite a difference.



How many were missdiagnosed as lupus?


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 13:25 
User avatar
INFINITE POWAH

Joined: 1st Apr, 2008
Posts: 30498
Bobbyaro wrote:
Well, you said "hospital".
So, for starters it is a US study which states outright the US is worse than some other countries-

The US healthcare system is (at the time of the report, at least) insurance based, and there are a large number of people in the US who can not afford even low/mediocre level care, but would still fall into the statistics as healthcare users.

I have to confess I don’t follow this point. The report says the numbers are from hospitalised patients.

Quote:
Secondly, the major "killer" was "106000 deaths/year from nonerror, adverse effects
of medications"
We know nothing about these cases other than this, but they are described as "non-error" so I assume that they were prescribed the correct drug for the illness and the correct dosage (see the differentiation between erroneous medication deaths). As such we can take 2 points
1) They were ill and were being prescribed a medication to cure said illness.
2) The adverse effects were not the fault of the proscriber (the correct prescription was administered).

Furthermore, it does not distinguish between hospital prescriptions and GP/dentist/podiatrist prescription in this number.
The sum of other deaths/year is 119k so this 106k being in doubt significantly decreases the total.


It does, yes, but then the list of biggest killers in the US (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/deaths.htm) is as follows (ignoring hospitals):


Heart disease: 599,413
Cancer: 567,628
Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 137,353
Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,842
Accidents (unintentional injuries): 118,021
Alzheimer's disease: 79,003
Diabetes: 68,705
Influenza and Pneumonia: 53,692
Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 48,935
Intentional self-harm (suicide): 36,909

So it’s still well, well up there.

And I think you need to still add back on the 98k p.a. errors referred to in the first paragraph (the report’s a little unclear on this point, as the list is preceded with “iatrogenic damage not associated with recognizable error include…”).

_________________
http://www.thehomeofawesome.com/
Eagles soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 13:27 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16552
Bobbyaro wrote:
markg wrote:
In summary hospitals have to try some complex and risky things in order to unfuck people who find themselves fucked up. Sometimes people die as a result, but in general the alternative was not looking so rosy either.

"hospitals try to kill you" or "hospitals are the third biggest killer" is just a bizarre spin to try to put on it.

No, that is unfair, the report clearly gives data for "hospital based" errors, eg wrong medicine, unneeded surgery, it just doesn't define what those are, eg unnecessary could be "chopped off wrong leg" or it could be "the doctor genuinely thought this person had X and the only option to solve it is surgery". There is quite a difference.

I honestly don't know what you are trying to say here. The report says that in the US 225,000 people die as a result of medical care each year. It makes no comment on how many are still alive because of it. Which is kind of crucial when it comes to defending a statement like "hospitals try to kill you".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 13:30 
User avatar
ugvm'er at heart...

Joined: 4th Mar, 2010
Posts: 22256
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2012/o ... work-canal

Swim to work? Hilariously ludicrous.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 13:32 
User avatar
INFINITE POWAH

Joined: 1st Apr, 2008
Posts: 30498
markg wrote:
Bobbyaro wrote:
markg wrote:
In summary hospitals have to try some complex and risky things in order to unfuck people who find themselves fucked up. Sometimes people die as a result, but in general the alternative was not looking so rosy either.

"hospitals try to kill you" or "hospitals are the third biggest killer" is just a bizarre spin to try to put on it.

No, that is unfair, the report clearly gives data for "hospital based" errors, eg wrong medicine, unneeded surgery, it just doesn't define what those are, eg unnecessary could be "chopped off wrong leg" or it could be "the doctor genuinely thought this person had X and the only option to solve it is surgery". There is quite a difference.

I honestly don't know what you are trying to say here. The report says that in the US 225,000 people die as a result of medical care each year. It makes no comment on how many are still alive because of it. Which is kind of crucial when it comes to defending a statement like "hospitals try to kill you".

No, it really doesn't. What's important here is the number of people who are killed by hospitals getting it wrong, as the conversation arose in the context of home vs hospital birth.

And having come close to being killed by medical negligence three times in the space of a week myself, and my son twice, I'm rather concerned about this sort of thing.

Yes, obviously, if you've got terminal cancer and you don't go to hospital you'll die anyway, but when people get treated for a tumour or something and then die from hospital-aquired infections it's just tragic and needless.

_________________
http://www.thehomeofawesome.com/
Eagles soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 13:37 
User avatar
Sleepyhead

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 27343
Location: Kidbrooke
So you have to weigh up whether they do more harm than good, obviously.

If only there were statistics for infant mortality and life expectancy in countries without our kind of hospitals. Like in the third world, or prehistoric times. I bet hardly anybody died at all back then!

Glib, of course, but I find the idea that hospitals are a crazy, risky death trap where perfectly healthy people are butchered on a daily basis to be absolutely insane.

_________________
We are young despite the years
We are concern
We are hope, despite the times


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 13:43 
User avatar
INFINITE POWAH

Joined: 1st Apr, 2008
Posts: 30498
Curiosity wrote:
So you have to weigh up whether they do more harm than good, obviously.

If only there were statistics for infant mortality and life expectancy in countries without our kind of hospitals. Like in the third world, or prehistoric times. I bet hardly anybody died at all back then!

Glib, of course, but I find the idea that hospitals are a crazy, risky death trap where perfectly healthy people are butchered on a daily basis to be absolutely insane.

Well, if anyone had actually said that then yes, it would be insane.

My original point was that you shouldn't go into a hospital unless you actually have to. There is a real risk of you either getting ill or dying as a result of a hospital stay, which I for one would weigh up against whatever it is I'd be there for. Compare the risks of home birth vs risk of hospital fuck ups and I'd plump for home births every time.

And we've only been looking at figures for deaths here, and those have been huge enough.

_________________
http://www.thehomeofawesome.com/
Eagles soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 13:47 
User avatar
Hibernating Druid

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49104
Location: Standing on your mother's Porsche
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
My original point was that you shouldn't go into a hospital unless you actually have to.

Why else would I go? :shrug:

_________________
SD&DG Illustrated! Behance Bleep Bloop

'Not without talent but dragged down by bass turgidity'


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 13:48 
User avatar
INFINITE POWAH

Joined: 1st Apr, 2008
Posts: 30498
Zardoz wrote:
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
My original point was that you shouldn't go into a hospital unless you actually have to.

Why else would I go? :shrug:

Are you not reading two pages?

_________________
http://www.thehomeofawesome.com/
Eagles soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 13:49 
SupaMod
User avatar
Commander-in-Cheese

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49232
Except the figures you quoted weren't for fuckups, they were for medication correctly prescribed. If you're given medication that has a fair chance of killing you, then the alternative (not taking the medication) is pretty much guaranteed to be worse. So those people do need to be in hospital. So those figures have absolutely no bearing at all on whether you're better off being in hospital or not to give birth.

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 13:49 
User avatar

Joined: 12th Apr, 2008
Posts: 17757
Location: Oxford
Zardoz wrote:
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
My original point was that you shouldn't go into a hospital unless you actually have to.

Why else would I go? :shrug:


Because you're Frank Abagnale and have seen enough hospital dramas to know how to operate.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 13:51 
User avatar
INFINITE POWAH

Joined: 1st Apr, 2008
Posts: 30498
Craster wrote:
Except the figures you quoted weren't for fuckups, they were for medication correctly prescribed. If you're given medication that has a fair chance of killing you, then the alternative (not taking the medication) is pretty much guaranteed to be worse. So those people do need to be in hospital. So those figures have absolutely no bearing at all on whether you're better off being in hospital or not to give birth.

READ THE ARTICLE*. 100k or so out of 250k were for that. The remainder were for hospital errors and hopsital acquired infections. And then there were another 44k-98k "recognisable error" deaths as well, potentially.


*Or failing that, at least the posts on this page. Sheesh.

_________________
http://www.thehomeofawesome.com/
Eagles soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 13:55 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 16552
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Curiosity wrote:
So you have to weigh up whether they do more harm than good, obviously.

If only there were statistics for infant mortality and life expectancy in countries without our kind of hospitals. Like in the third world, or prehistoric times. I bet hardly anybody died at all back then!

Glib, of course, but I find the idea that hospitals are a crazy, risky death trap where perfectly healthy people are butchered on a daily basis to be absolutely insane.

Well, if anyone had actually said that then yes, it would be insane.

My original point was that you shouldn't go into a hospital unless you actually have to. There is a real risk of you either getting ill or dying as a result of a hospital stay, which I for one would weigh up against whatever it is I'd be there for. Compare the risks of home birth vs risk of hospital fuck ups and I'd plump for home births every time.

And we've only been looking at figures for deaths here, and those have been huge enough.

The figures comparing outcomes of home vs hospital births are not concerned only with mortality. Without cherry picking studies to support my argument it seems to me that most evidence points to a slight difference in risk such that home births are more dangerous. But it really is a pretty slight difference so people are advised that they have a free choice and provision made for both.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 13:57 
User avatar
Heavy Metal Tough Guy

Joined: 31st Mar, 2008
Posts: 6496
Trooper wrote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2012/oct/10/london-lidoline-commuters-swim-work-canal

Swim to work? Hilariously ludicrous.

Yes, that is definitely going to happen. :D

How do things like this get done? Who pays for them? Did the Department for Counting the Moon have a budget surplus and need to spend it quick, or do design agencies do them as a sort of speculative, practice exercise?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 14:05 
User avatar
Heavy Metal Tough Guy

Joined: 31st Mar, 2008
Posts: 6496
Ahh, it's a competition entry. The other entries look equally as sane. See http://www.landscapeinstitute.org/events/competitions/highline.php


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 14:14 
SupaMod
User avatar
Commander-in-Cheese

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49232
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
READ THE ARTICLE*.


I started. Then there was a thing at the end about high-risk sex that looked more interesting. But wasn't.

Quote:
100k or so out of 250k were for that. The remainder were for hospital errors and hopsital acquired infections. And then there were another 44k-98k "recognisable error" deaths as well, potentially.


OK, but look at the base of treatment. Out of the population of hospital patients, some significant number of them will be at risk of acquiring a nosocosmial infection because of their situation. Either a naturally lowered immune system as a result of age or treatment, or because they've had significant surgeries. Other than in the event of a caesarian, surely none of those situations would apply to maternity patients? Same for surgical errors. And let's face it - if you need a caesarian or any other kind of surgical involvement, your home birth person is going to be rushed to hospital anyway

Basically the report's pretty useless without specific numbers covering maternity.

Disclaimer - what the shit do I know about babies?

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 14:18 
User avatar
Gogmagog

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 48607
Location: Cheshire
Peoples lives are at stake and I don't think any of you are giving the situation the gravitas it deserves.

_________________
Mr Chris wrote:
MaliA isn't just the best thing on the internet - he's the best thing ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 14:21 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 69502
Location: Your Mum
Captain Caveman wrote:
Some big time drugs dealer/'gangsta' type was in the bed next to me, complete with armed police escort. This did not seem to affect the "quality of his care" from the nurses, though, far from it shall we say.

And that's good, right?

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 14:24 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 14130
Location: Shropshire, UK
Grim... wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote:
Some big time drugs dealer/'gangsta' type was in the bed next to me, complete with armed police escort. This did not seem to affect the "quality of his care" from the nurses, though, far from it shall we say.

And that's good, right?

I was going to say exactly the same thing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 14:32 
User avatar

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 32618
GazChap wrote:
Grim... wrote:
Captain Caveman wrote:
Some big time drugs dealer/'gangsta' type was in the bed next to me, complete with armed police escort. This did not seem to affect the "quality of his care" from the nurses, though, far from it shall we say.

And that's good, right?

I was going to say exactly the same thing.

For all we know, he was a key witness in a murder trial to put a kingpin behind bars and the armed police were because threats had been made against his life. Probably a good thing the nurses were attentive.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 14:32 
User avatar
Sleepyhead

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 27343
Location: Kidbrooke
The chance of something dramatically fucked up happening in a hospital during birth that would not have happened at home that leads to the death or similar of mother and/or child are teeny tiny.

The chance of something happening at home during birth is also teeny tiny (though I'm surprised at how many on this board have needed operating theatres). Though the stats need to reflect that at-risk people will be at hospitals anyway.

The difference in care if something does go wrong is VAST.

The argument still seems to be that you're more likely to die with lots of care and equipment as opposed to minimal care and equipment. I think this is (obviously) bollocks, or we'd just close the fuckers down and all give birth in a ditch somewhere.

_________________
We are young despite the years
We are concern
We are hope, despite the times


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 14:38 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 69502
Location: Your Mum
So, Mrs Grim... went to the Grimlet's first "proper school" parent's evening today.

He's very bright with numbers and letters and phonics, and he's popular with the other children and all the teachers like him. He also calls out a lot, doesn't listen, and talks all the time.

It's me, thirty years ago.

Oh fuck.

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 14:40 
User avatar
Gogmagog

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 48607
Location: Cheshire
Good work, sir.

_________________
Mr Chris wrote:
MaliA isn't just the best thing on the internet - he's the best thing ever.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 14:41 
User avatar
Excellent Member

Joined: 25th Jul, 2010
Posts: 11128
Grim... wrote:
He's very bright with numbers and letters and phonics, and he's popular with the other children and all the teachers like him. He also calls out a lot, doesn't listen, and talks all the time.

It's me, right now.

Oh fuck.


Feex.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 14:41 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 69502
Location: Your Mum
Alt+S submits your post!

Alt and other keys does stuff too - alt+P adds the image tags, for instance. B, U and I do bold, underlined and italic.

(This is all on the default branding).

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 14:41 
SupaMod
User avatar
Est. 1978

Joined: 27th Mar, 2008
Posts: 69502
Location: Your Mum
Bamba wrote:
Grim... wrote:
He's very bright with numbers and letters and phonics, and he's popular with the other children and all the teachers like him. He also calls out a lot, doesn't listen, and talks all the time.

It's me, right now.

Oh fuck.


Feex.

Well, yes.

_________________
Grim... wrote:
I wish Craster had left some girls for the rest of us.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 14:42 
SupaMod
User avatar
Commander-in-Cheese

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49232
Grim... wrote:
Alt+S submits your post!

Alt and other keys does stuff too - alt+P adds the image tags, for instance. B, U and I do bold, underlined and italic.

(This is all on the default branding).


Shit me, so they do!

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 14:43 
User avatar
INFINITE POWAH

Joined: 1st Apr, 2008
Posts: 30498
Craster wrote:
OK, but look at the base of treatment. Out of the population of hospital patients, some significant number of them will be at risk of acquiring a nosocosmial infection because of their situation. Either a naturally lowered immune system as a result of age or treatment, or because they've had significant surgeries. Other than in the event of a caesarian, surely none of those situations would apply to maternity patients? Same for surgical errors. And let's face it - if you need a caesarean or any other kind of surgical involvement, your home birth person is going to be rushed to hospital anyway

Or you need any sort of stitching as a result of vaginal tears etc. There are other reasons your blood system will be open to the elements during birth other than a caesarian.
Quote:
Basically the report's pretty useless without specific numbers covering maternity.

Well, no. It's a report that shows that being in hospital means you are exposed to a number of additional risks which may result in death (and we're not counting illness/disability here either, which is another component)

Yes, there are situations where not being in hospital is far greater than the risk of being in hospital e.g. terminal cancer etc.

The other reports I've posted show that home births are, on the whole, about at the same level of risk as births in hospital for the baby - they don't cover deaths of the parents as a result of home birth vs hospital birth.) The fact that they’re at roughly the same level may well be because not being in hospital when something goes horrendously wrong makes up a fair whack of the home birth risk, and being in hospital results in a death of the child that otherwise wouldn’t have occurred if you hadn’t been in hospital (i.e. hospital error or infection).

It seems logical that if you have two births where there are no complications in and of itself in the birth, you’re at higher risk in hospital.

_________________
http://www.thehomeofawesome.com/
Eagles soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 14:47 
User avatar
INFINITE POWAH

Joined: 1st Apr, 2008
Posts: 30498
Curiosity wrote:
The chance of something dramatically fucked up happening in a hospital during birth that would not have happened at home that leads to the death or similar of mother and/or child are teeny tiny.

The chance of something happening at home during birth is also teeny tiny (though I'm surprised at how many on this board have needed operating theatres). Though the stats need to reflect that at-risk people will be at hospitals anyway.

The difference in care if something does go wrong is VAST.

The argument still seems to be that you're more likely to die with lots of care and equipment as opposed to minimal care and equipment. I think this is (obviously) bollocks, or we'd just close the fuckers down and all give birth in a ditch somewhere.

No, you're arguing about two different things. On the one hand, yes, if something does go wrong with a birth and you need surgery (and how common's that?!), the baby's more likely to survive if you're in hospital as you've got the kit and doctors there. I've not disputed that.

However, if you're in a situation where all is going smoothly, you're at higher risk in the hospital due to hospital error or infection.

if you've got home births and hospital births both coming out at the same level of risk, that means that all of the deaths in hospital are due to things other than "not having doctors and machines there". The majority of those hospital based deaths are going to be hospital error or infection. So if you're not in any sort of "at risk" category, you're better off at home.

_________________
http://www.thehomeofawesome.com/
Eagles soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Bits and Bobs 36
PostPosted: Wed Oct 10, 2012 14:55 
SupaMod
User avatar
Commander-in-Cheese

Joined: 30th Mar, 2008
Posts: 49232
Mr Kissyfur wrote:
Well, no. It's a report that shows that being in hospital means you are exposed to a number of additional risks which may result in death (and we're not counting illness/disability here either, which is another component)


The report doesn't say that at all. It says that there are an amount of deaths caused by those risks in hospitals. At no point does it give any indication whatsoever that a maternity patient would be at the same risk of death for those reasons than X other type of patient. For all you can tell in that report, the deaths could be entirely patients who undergo cardiothorassic surgery.

_________________
GoddessJasmine wrote:
Drunk, pulled Craster's pork, waiting for brdyime story,reading nuts. Xz


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 2974 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38 ... 60  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search within this thread:
You are using the 'Ted' forum. Bill doesn't really exist any more. Bogus!
Want to help out with the hosting / advertising costs? That's very nice of you.
Are you on a mobile phone? Try http://beex.co.uk/m/
RIP, Owen. RIP, MrC.

Powered by a very Grim... version of phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.