Birth Pool Upstairs??

[tony sayer]

Shuttup you miserable old git;!...

[tony sayer]

Well...

Our first child was born in an abysmal placed in an old workhouse;!, passing as the Mill road maternity hospital, now long defunct but the second and third were at the Rosie maternity unit at Cambridge and very good it was too.

Much left to your own devices with minimal intervention but it was there when needed, not that it was, but mother liked all the fussing around and attention afterwards but was pleased to be off home after a few days.

And no matter how many times you've witnessed the event its one of the most humbling experiences there is:)...

[The Medway Handyman]

But my early death will save a fortune on pensions & care.

I don't crave the attention of the NHS, in fact I'd like them to leave me alone & stop lecturing me. My kids don't passive smoke, they don't live at home.

Unless a problem occurs.

Why would I want to spam a DIY group, most of whom live well away from my operating area.? And I don't use the sig that mentions trading standards anymore.

Smokers are less of a burden, we contribute between 5 & 7 times what it costs the NHS to treat us. One of the highest tobacco taxes in the world

[Mary Fisher]

It is.

There are other reasons for multi-child families.

Lust is a powerful urge ...

Mary

>

[Mary Fisher]

Two of our grandchildren were born very quickly at home after daughter in law had been booked into hospital - she had very quick and easy births. One was during a violent snow storm when the ambulance couldn't get to her, the other was when she was already in Stage 2 when the ambulance arrived.

On both occasions it was insisted that she went to hospital - after the process was complete - and stay for a couple of hours.

Of course it was an unnecessary interruption of the first hours with the babies and a waste of NHS money and services, we all thought, but their records had to be straight, it seemed.

Mary

[Mary Fisher]

He's an expert?

Mary

[The Medway Handyman]

Simply the crew covering their backs Mary. Had anything gone wrong, however unlikely, they would have been in big trouble. Management don't back up the staff.

[dennis]

Its about time the benefits system was changed.

[n0tail]

I know it seems counter-intuitive but it is a fact. In hospital intervention often leads to further intervention which can sometimes lead to problems that wouldn't have arisen otherwise, this is often due to trying to 'hurry things up'.

If you think having the attention of a midwife while in established labour is 'attention-seeking', then yes, I am. I think every woman should be able to have this.

There are plenty of hospital maternity units that don't have pediatrics / anaesthestatists / obstetricians, the NHS advocates this type of non-medical environment for normal births. Access to those things is available, just not in the same building.

You couldn't be more wrong about that. Maybe elsewhere in the country.. where I live it's not popular or 'trendy' at all (about one home birth a month in the county), I've not discussed it at all with most of my friends and virtually all of the people I work with day-to- day have no idea where I plan to have my baby.

I don't really understand that, why would anything go wrong at home that wouldn't have gone wrong in hospital.. causing exactly the same expense apart from maybe an ambulance journey. It's still cheaper for the NHS overall. Home births are cheaper to the NHS than hospital births

> d) I'll be able to move around and not forced to lie on a bed being > > monitored

I have nothing against the NHS. The NHS is very supportive of home births and midwives are part of the NHS too. Giving birth is very different to other hospital procedures, your body does it itself, the hospital doesn't (and shouldn't) 'make it happen' unless there's a serious problem.

jb.

[Hugo Nebula]

Most floors would be designed to the TRADA tables, which use loads of

1.5kN/m² or 150kg/m² plus a point load of 1.4kN (140kg) acting together. They also don't take account of flooring acting as a diaphram.

Correct. On longer joists, the limiting factor is deflection, so just over the limit the floor may appear to bounce & there may be some hairline cracks in the ceiling below, but the floor won't fall through.

And as someone else said, lay some plywood sheets down to spread the load across a wider area (and also to stop any water getting through).

[Lobster]

You're saying she went on to have a (presumably intentional) home delivery *after* that experience...???

David

[Lobster]

But the thing is, all the above (except possibly 'a' and 'e', if valid) are about the mother's feelings/emotions/happiness etc; and nothing to do with the prime aim, which IMHO should be to end up with a healthy and undamaged mother and baby. On balance, I can't accept that this is more likely to happen with a homebirth than a hospital-based one.

As I have heard an obstetrician say (not to an impending mother, I have to add), "what does she want from this, a wonderful experience or a healthy baby?"

David

[Clint Sharp]

In message , The Medway Handyman writes

Having been present at both of my children's births I can honestly say I really don't think it would be possible to have a teenager. At least not naturally.

If you're lucky.

[Clint Sharp]

In message , Mary Fisher writes

Child benefit is probably a bigger one, 'specially if you can get a couple or more kids diagnosed ADHD or autistic. About £2500 a month, rent and council tax paid IIRC.

Cynical.

[Tanner-'op]

Oh goody, when will that be?

If you smoke, then you crave the attention of the NHS - and did you smoke when the kids were at home?

Just like you and your smoking then!

Well stop using the Medway Handyman signature then - which just happens to be the name of your 'firm'. Now was that an accident or subliminal spamming? ;-)

"Smokers are less of a burden" - now that must be the daftest thing I've read from you in ages. Take a wander into the "chest clinic" of your local hospital and ask the patients how many are non-smokers.

And would you say that the average female of today doesn't contibute to the National Insurance Scheme or Income Tax fund?

I bet there are many females out there who earn far more than you do, and who pay a damn site more than you ever you will to the government - whether they use the services or not!

Tanner-'op

[Mary Fisher]

...

What's wrong with both?

Mary

[Lobster]

Nothing at all of course - providing one's not at the expense of the other...

David

[The Medway Handyman]

Hopefuly in time to return & haunt you :-)

We only smoked in the kitchen, because they 'didn't like the smell'. However, since passive smoking doesn't represent a health hazzard its not a problem.

Read the FAQ numb nuts. I quote; "Company representatives may mention their products, services or websites in the signature of their replies to questions but signatures longer than four 75-character lines will be considered abuse".

And consider what possible benefit I could accrue by spamming a DIY group. It would be a bit like advertisng meat to a vegetarian society.

Not the point. Smokers pay over £7 billion to the tresury, far in excess of the cost (estimated to be £1.5 billion) of treating so-called 'smoking-related diseases' on the NHS. I should have priority over non smokers like you. Bloody parasites you are, getting treatment while smokers pay for it.

Why would I say that? It would obviously depend on her employment history.

And?

[Kevin]

typical smokers attitude, sure any smoker can find information to back up this claim but I can find just as many to prove it is a health risk

heres one Secondhand smoke accounts for at least 35,000 deaths in the U.S. each year. Though passive smoking delivers only 1 percent as much toxins as active smoking, it has a surprisingly large effect on coronary risk: a

30 percent increase in risk, on average, compared to 80 percent for active smoking. Research reveals some of the coronary effects occur with even brief exposures (minutes to hours) to secondhand smoke. The researchers found the cardiovascular system is ?exquisitely sensitive? to the toxins in secondhand smoke. There are at least a dozen effects, which interact to endanger the heart, including:

-The smoke rapidly increases the tendency of blood to clot.

-The smoke impairs the functioning of blood vessels.

-The smoke increases atherosclerosis, party by lowering HDL (good) cholesterol and oxidizing LDL (bad) cholesterol.

-The smoke increases chronic inflammation.

-The smoke creates cell-damaging free radicals.

-The smoke decreases the body?s levels of antioxidants (such as vitamin C), which help protect against free radicals.

-The smoke increases insulin resistance, which may increase the risk of Type 2 diabetes.

The smoke also increases the risk of lung cancer, respiratory disorders, and adverse effects during pregnancy. University of California Berkeley Wellness Letter 9/05.

and your doing such a wonderful job representing your firm ;-) and your next job is to repair the gunshot wound to your foot

[n0tail]

I'll let the "if valid" comment pass!

I think the point is that it is difficult to distinguish between the two and medical intervention doesn't always end up with a healthier 'undamaged' mum and baby, the decisions made during labour often aren't clear-cut. The "mother's feelings/emotions/happiness etc" inseperable from the desired result of "a healthy and undamaged mother and baby". There are physiological / hormonal factors that affect the birth process (and therefore the end result of health mother and baby) as well as ability to successfully feed, bond etc. For example, travelling to hospital and going through the admission process does sometimes cause labour to slow or even stop, maybe due to stress - not sure but it's a fact, so labour stopping / slowing could lead to induction which could lead to epidural / forceps / ventouse / episiotomy / distressed baby. I'm not saying that would always happen but it can and does and it's a good example of a scenario where things are likely to have gone much better at home if that's what the mother preferred.

Also, are you implying that if pain relief doesn't contribute to a heathy mum or baby, women shouldn't be offered it? All pain relief comes with risks (ironically, apart from the use of water!).

I'm not looking for a 'fun experience' here, of course I want a healthy baby, it's my belief that this is the right way for me.

jb.