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.

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.

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

I can't help but think the statistics are slightly imbalanced there.

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.

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.

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".

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.

My original point was that you shouldn't go into a hospital unless you actually have to.

Why else would I go?

Why else would I go?

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.

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.guardian.co.uk/global/2012/oct/10/london-lidoline-commuters-swim-work-canal

Swim to work? Hilariously ludicrous.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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

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

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.

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)