[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)