:lol:
Printable View
:lol:
da, da
karanje se vratilo na forum
i kod nas je
možda malo drugačijim slijedom
nakon svađe se bolje kara
a nakon karanja, jelte, nitko više nije posvađan :mrgreen:
apsolutno se slažemCitiraj:
ms. ivy prvotno napisa
Pobijedila si, tvoj jeCitiraj:
aleksandra70vanja prvotno napisa
:lol::lol:
i ja mislim :lol: :lol: :lol:Citiraj:
Cubana prvotno napisa
Ona zaboravila!! :lol: :lol:,i suze frcaju od smijeha.Citiraj:
anchie76 prvotno napisa
Neka sam vidjela da i Roda forum može biti ovako opušten. Trebalo bi malo reklamirati ovu temu, ili bar naslov ukrasiti sa smajlićima....
trebalo bi ići na bazen.
(ali ne radi rađanja)
a šta će onda čitat dokone kućanice?
A kako se sad glupo osjećaju svi oni čiji su postovi obrisani radi OT-a :roll:
ne znam kakvo je more sada u Zg,
ali ovdje je presavršeno
bonaca teška
bilo bi pametnije da ja sve vas usišem ovdje i dobro rashladim od nečistih misli
kakav OT
pa to su sve planovi za savršen PKK
:mrgreen:
uz stručnu asistenciju
i još osigurano cijepljenje odmah po porodu
kud ćeš bolje
isssss, koji kul party ja propuštam!
aaaah, lijepo je opustiti se i ovdje jednom u forumskom životu :zaljubljen:
punto, moj savjet ti je da ti dodješ u taj dvor s tom kokošom i čekaš
ti si mirna, doktora ko škalje, a ako će njih za nadriorgazmiranje tužit, eebiga.
baš iz naslova
rađaš u kući i osiguraš djetetu sva prava
a sad što to baš nije tvoja kuća nego nečiji vrt, to su samo finese
što bi rekao đole "princip je isti sve su ostalo nijanse" :sing:
Ni ja ne znam kakvo je more u ZG, ali ovdje na Kvarneru je toplo, predobro, naročito poslije 7 navečer. Ma, i bebe bi se uživale roditi u tako toplom moru.
A može li se to? Ako je čisto more, kao u Plavoj laguni, npr?
kako ne bi mogloCitiraj:
Beti3 prvotno napisa
ako se može roditi na krevetu u ležećem položaju onda ne vidim razloga zašto se ne bi moglo u moru, jadranskom, naravno, ako je bonaca ko danas ;)
najbolje u moru
Ča, početak ili kraj trudnoće?8-)Citiraj:
princess puffy prvotno napisa
baš si mi draga beti, jakoCitiraj:
Beti3 prvotno napisa
jel vidite sad koliko je zabranjeno voće slađe?
sad kad je adminica dala "voljno" do nedjelje navečer, nigdje šege...
Citiraj:
princess puffy prvotno napisa
Citiraj:
Beti3 prvotno napisa
:lol::lol:
princezo p:kiss:
back on topic:
http://montreal.openfile.ca/montreal...irth-baby-girl
kaj velite tek na ovo - vaginalni 5 mjeseci nakon poroda!
Nismo ipak mi najgori. sad vidimo da je i u drugim zemljama isto: dokaži da si rodila baš to dijete, pa ćeš dobiti rodni list.
I babice su isto "underground",
Stvarno, zašto ne naprave DNK test? Zar nije manje invazivno.
Pregledom mogu dokazati da je rodila, ali neće dokazati da je rodila baš to dijete.
Na početku sam se našalila da treba službeni svjedok porodu, ali izgleda da je to jedina sigurna opcija. Angažirati bilježnika, njima vlasti vjeruju. To je još jedna stvar koju treba pripremiti kod kućnog poroda.
(Osim roštilja, radlera i mujice.)
U Quebec porod izvan ustanove jest porod u centar za porode odn kući za porode. drugog nema.Citiraj:
Beti3 prvotno napisa
Država ne želi otvarati nove centre niti zapošljavati nove primalje niti licencirati nove primalje. Pa se žene snalaze, kao i kod nas. To nije dobro, i problemi koje mogu nastajati su zbog državne birokracije.
Žena ima pravo roditi gdje želi, i pritom ima pravo na medicinsku skrb bez ikakvih prepreka. Bilo što manje je kršenje ljduskih prava i majke i djeteta.
a ja stekao dojam iz postova navijačica za kućni porod da smo mi jedina zemlja na sjevernoj hemisferi u kojoj se ženama gaze elementarna prava kućnog poroda, jer je cijeli vrli zapadni i sjeverni svijet odavno shvatio da je to super.
Pa dobro u teoriji što bi trebalo napraviti da rodiš doma bez tužbe. Znači ne smije biti medicinsko osoblje, ali mora biti javni bilježnik i dva svjedoka s kojim nisi u rodu niti u sporu? To je to? Gle ako živiš u kući preko puta Petrove, sasvim ok.
xxCitiraj:
mujica prvotno napisa
tua, odličan tekst. nevjerojatno kako počinješ gubiti perspektivu nakon što samo čitaš homebirth sajtove i klipove i filmove, bar ja. a mogu misliti što je s vama ostalima koji jedino što proučavaju je nepregledna literatura na tu temu.
tuin tekst, čini mi se, realno prikazuje stanje stvari - i negativnosti poroda u bolnici, i negativnosti PKK.
što ne znači da mijenjam svoje mišljenje - i dalje sam za asistirani PKK, kao legalnu opciju u hrvatskoj.
EU direktiva kaže da žene moraju imati pravo na birati medicinsku skrb i da primaljstvo mora postojati kao neosvisna struka. ECHR kaže da žena ima pravo roditi gdje i kako želi i da joj država to mora omogućiti.Citiraj:
mujica prvotno napisa
Nekoliko puta sam govorila o stanju u raznim zemaljama, SAD i Kanada su federacije odnosno po organizaciji svaka država (SAD) odnosno provincija ili teritorij (Kanada) organizira zdravstvene djelatnike / skrb kako želi. Quebec je jedna provincija u Kanadi gdje situacija nije baš sređena, dok primjerice Ontario i British Columbia su primjeri gdje je dosta dobro sređeno.
Članak is Macleans je ok, ali pokvari ga Amy Tuteur koja je preradikalna osoba za takav članak i ovaj liječnik koji je dvije godine radio za ambulantnu službu i vidio komplikacije ali ne daje do znanje koliko komplikacije na koliki broj kućnih poroda pa dvije strašne priče meni ne drže vodu bez više informacije. Općenit ton članka mi se ne sviđa jer se u početku stavi upitnik na HB umjesto da se pita gdje je najsigurnije rađati što nam daje ideju što misli uredništvo Macleans i/ili autor teksta, ali ok, dobar je uvod u tematiku za nekoga tko ne zna puno o tome i uključuje puno bitne informacije.
Za kraj nudim vam statistike Ina May Gaskin za period od 1970-2000, broj trudnica 2028 ovdje .
Ne želim kvariti dobar kupus i roštilj pa gibam s ovog topica
zašto je preradikalna? sad sam baš čitala njezin blog, meni je jednaka ovim radikalnima s druge straneCitiraj:
Članak is Macleans je ok, ali pokvari ga Amy Tuteur koja je preradikalna osoba za takav članak
tako sam npr. saznala i za ovo
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2009...ife-baby-birth
ta slavna babica iz filma koji je ovdje spomenut više tisuća puta nije imala potpisan ugovor
niti s jednom medicinskom ustanovom kao niti s jednim ginekologom
kako bi, u slučaju koplikacija pri porodu
ženu mogla transferirati u bolnicu
a ovu statistiku ne shvaćamCitiraj:
jer kaže omražena Amy
ja bih isto rekla da pretjeruje, ali IMG nigdje nije navela broj umrle djeceCitiraj:
In fact I know, and perhaps you know, too, that the Midwives Alliance of North America, the organization started by your friend Ina May Gaskin, is refusing to release their own death rates because an appalling number of the 23,000 babies in their database died at homebirth.
stvarno ih nije bilo?
pa i ja sam :mrgreen:Citiraj:
cvijeta73 prvotno napisa
mislim da ovo zaslužuje biti ovdje, hbg, to je tih 12 argumenata oko kojih se mi ovdje vječno natežemo i ponavljamo, pa nek stoje. kao protuteža njihova ponavljanja, iz rasprave u raspravu.
Citiraj:
1. The US does very poorly on infant mortality.
Infant mortality is the WRONG statistic. It is a measure of pediatric care. That's because infant mortality is deaths from birth to one year of age. It includes accidents, sudden infant death syndrome, and childhood diseases. The correct statistic for measuring obstetric care (according to the World Health Organization) is perinatal mortality. Perinatal mortality is death from 28 weeks of pregnancy to 28 days of life. Therefore it includes late stillbirths and deaths during labor. The US has one of the lowest rates of perinatal mortality in the world.
2. The Netherlands, which places the greatest reliance on midwives, has low mortality rates.
No, the Netherlands has, and has had for some years, the HIGHEST perinatal mortality rate in Western Europe. It also has a high and rising rate of maternal mortality. The Dutch government is deeply concerned about these high mortality rates and a variety of studies are underway to investigate.
The most recent study published in the BMJ is early November 2010 revealed and astounding finding. The perinatal mortality rate for low risk women cared for by midwives is higher than the perinatal mortality rate for high risk women care for by obstetricians!
3. Obstetricians are surgeons.
I never understand how anyone has the nerve to say this to me. I AM an obstetrician. No one knows better than I what obstetricians are or are not. I went to college. I went to medical school. I spent four years in obstetric training. I delivered thousands of babies. I have cared for thousands of gyn patients. That some doula who is a high school graduates thinks that she can possibly know more than I about the nature of obstetricians defies belief. Obstetricians do surgery as part of their practice. That does not make them surgeons. If it did, ophthalmologists and dermatologists would be surgeons too, since they do surgery as a routine part of caring for their patients. Is anyone seriously suggesting that you cannot go to an ophthalmologist for an eye exam because he or she will recommend unnecessary surgery?
4. Homebirth is safe.
No, all the existing scientific evidence and all national statistics indicate that homebirth triples the rate of neonatal death. Even studies that claim to show that homebirth is as safe as hospital birth, like the Johnson and Daviss BMJ 2005 study, ACTUALLY show that homebirth with a CPM has triple the rate of neonatal mortality of comparable risk women who delivered in the hospital in the same year. The Midwives Alliance of North America (MANA) is well aware that homebirth is dangerous. That's why they are hiding their own mortality rates. They spent almost a decade collecting information on more than 18,000 CPM attended homebirths, announcing at intervals that they would use the data to show that homebirth is safe. So why haven't any of us seen it?
The data is publicly available, but ONLY to those who can prove they will use the data for the "advancement" of midwifery. MANA is quite up front about the fact that they will not let anyone else know what they have learned. Obviously, if homebirth had been anywhere near as safe as hospital birth, they would be trumpeting it from the mountain top. It does not take a rocket scientist to suspect that their data shows that homebirth dramatically increases the risk of neonatal death.
5. Homebirth midwives are experts in normal birth.
This one always makes me laugh. Experts in normal birth? That's like a meteorologist who claims to be an expert in good weather.
I guess they're trying to make a virtue of necessity. Homebirth midwives know virtually nothing about the prevention, diagnosis and management of pregnancy complications. That's a problem when you consider that the only reason you need a birth attendant is to prevent, diagnose and manage complications. You don't need any expertise to catch the baby and make sure it doesn't hit the floor. Ask any taxi drive; he'll tell you.
6. Childbirth is safe.
No, childbirth is INHERENTLY dangerous. In every time, place and culture, it is one of the leading causes of death of young women. And the day of birth is the most dangerous day in the entire 18 years of childhood.
Why does childbirth seem so safe? Because of modern obstetrics. Modern obstetrics has lowered the neonatal mortality rate 90% and the maternal mortality rate 99% over the past 100 years. What has the contribution of midwifery been to lowering those mortality rates? Zero? They've invented nothing, discovered nothing and tested nothing that has had any impact on perinatal or maternal mortality.
7. Childbirth used to be dangerous but that is only because sanitation was poor and women were poorly nourished.
No, the great advances of sanitation occurred in the 1800's and the early years of the 1900's. Not surprisingly, this had a big impact on deaths from infectious causes. However, rates of perinatal and maternal mortality did not begin to drop appreciably since the late 1930's and the discovery of antibiotics. In the intervening years, easier access to C-sections, epidural anesthesia, newer and better antibiotics, blood banking, and neonatology led to dramatically lower mortality rates.
8. C-section increases the risk of maternal and neonatal death.
No, women who die in pregnancy are most commonly women with serious pre-existing medical illness (heart disease, kidney disease) or serious pregnancy complications (pre-eclampsia). C-sections are often done in an effort to save the lives of these women. Sometimes it is not enough. The C-section is what is known as a "confounding factor." Both the C-section and the death can be traced back to the mother's health status; the C-section did not cause the death.
MacDorman and colleagues have attempted to show that C-sections for "no indicated risk" increase the neonatal death rate. Their papers have been roundly criticized because they used birth certificates, not hospital record. Unrelated investigations of birth certificates have shown that, while they are highly reliable for data like weight and Apgar scores, they are highly unreliable for risk factors. Indeed, unrelated studies have shown that up to 50% of women who have serious medical illnesses like heart disease, have those risk factors missing from the birth certificate.
9. Induction harms babies.
No, induction lowers perinatal mortality. The yearly CDC data on births shows that as the induction rate has risen, the rate of late stillbirth has dropped by 29% and the neonatal death rate has not increased.
10. If childbirth were dangerous, we wouldn't be here. (Mikka, ovo je tvoj :mrgreen:)
This represents a profound lack of knowledge about evolution as well as a profound lack of knowledge about childbirth. Evolution does not lead to perfection. Evolution is the result of the survival of the fittest, not the survival of everyone. Human reproduction, like all animal reproduction, has a massive amount of wastage. Every woman was born with millions of ova that will never be used. Every man produces billions of sperm that will never fertilize an ovum. Even when a pregnancy is established, the miscarriage rate is 20%. That's right. One in five pregnancies dies and is expelled and yet we are still here. Human reproduction is perfectly compatible with a natural neonatal death rate of approximately 7% and a natural maternal death rate of approximately 1%. (a evo i pčelice :mrgreen:)
11. US maternal mortality is rising.
Despite a rather histrionic political report from Amnesty International making that claim, US maternal mortality is not rising and has even dropped in both of the past two years. Why does it look like it has risen? Because the standard death certificate has been revised twice in the past two decades in order to more accurately capture maternal deaths. The new death certificate has revealed maternal deaths which otherwise would not have been counted. There is no evidence that maternal deaths have increased; it's merely that reporting of those deaths has improved.
12. Women are designed to give birth.
Women are not "designed": they have evolved and evolution involves trade offs. Babies with big heads tend to be more neurologically mature, so having a big neonatal head has evolutionary advantages. A small maternal pelvis makes it easier for a woman to walk and run, providing her with an evolutionary advantage. Those two advantages are often incompatible. The woman with a small pelvis may have been able to survive by outrunning wild animals, but when it came time to give birth, she was more likely to die because that small pelvis could not accommodate a large neonatal head.
***
The above statements have two things in common. First, they are wrong. Second, they are passed back and forth between natural childbirth advocates who "teach" each other they are true. That's why it is impossible to become "educated" by reading natural childbirth books and websites. Most of their information is flat out false, and they are entirely insulated from scientific evidence. Natural childbirth advocates make up their "facts" as they go along. They don't read the scientific literature. They don't interact with science professionals. Indeed, professional natural childbirth advocates take special care to never appear in any venue whether they might be questioned by doctors or scientists. They know they'd be laughed out of the room. That's okay with them as long as there is a large pool of gullible women out there who will believe them and buy their products.
It is important that those who are parachuting in to "educate" me understand that they literally have no idea what they are talking about. Most of what they think they "know" is factually false. And they demonstrate that every time they utter one or more of those twelve statements.
Sori, ako ćemo izvlačiti Amy Tuteur onda ja odlazim, njene konstatacije ne želim komentirati jer ne drže vodu, ne znam tko je Midwives Alliance of North America, a da su 28.000 djeca umrla pri porodu teško bi itko to sakrio. Svugdje sam se trudila nalaziti činjenice i podataka te linkove na iste, tko voli nek izvoli.
i ako netko može nek iskopa da li je ta dr amy prava osoba ili neki internet avtar koji se koristi te gdje je licencirana za rad jer ja ne mogu naći gdje je ona licencirana.
ok, ja bih samo zamolila da se ne briše. nek stoji. ja sad prvi put čujem za nju, tako, zanimljivo je pročitati tu i tamo sasvim drugačije mišljenje od odenta i gaskin. ne misliš?
nemam pojma dal drži vodu, nemam pojma dal ove tvoje statistike drže vodu.
informiranost znači čitati obje strane, ne?
a one tko stvarno žele biti informirane, pročitati će i njene i tvoje linkove.
mislim da, za razliku od cjepljenja, na ovom forumu nema osobe (opstretičara, ginekologa) koja bi bila suvereno s "druge" strane, sa znanjem i iskustvom u porodništvu.
i, zato mislim da je dobro da to ostane, ne da bi ja i ti raspravljale i dokazivale istinitost tvrdnji. i tražile linkove na netu.
slažem se sa tobom cvijeta i ja sam bila iznenađena kad sam prvi put čitala njene blogove, i čitala sam puno. sad vidim na njenoj stranici 'mother of six dies in home birth' i slika nadgrobnog spomenika koji piše samo 'MOTHER'. too much. i da je zaista žena negdje umrla u porodu žao mi je ali to mi je too much, jer žene umiraju u porodu u svim mjestima gdje se porod obavlja (nažalost) i nitko ne izvlači na taj način. osobno znam sad jednu ženu koja sada čeka u bolnici sa otvorenom maternicom zbog problema nakon 5. CR-a, ima doma 4 male djece i novorođenu bebu i eto, ne vidim da je to igdje u novinama niti da se igdje govori da je to 'botched CS'.
ali pogledom na pubmed i u prave studije nisam uvidjela da to što ona govori drži vodu. dapače. i činjenica da mora svugdje biti 'poklopac' u nekoj diskusiji te da ako ju netko pita za objašnjenje je uvijek odgovor 'ne možeš razumijeti ako nisi epidemijolog' i ako ju epidemijolog pita onda ignorira. ova njena konstatacija o carskim rezovima mislim da može biti primjer njene logike, dakle žena ne umiru od komplikacije uzrokovane abdominalnom kirurgijom nego su sve prije toga bile bolestne.
dapače, neka ju ljudi čitaju, ali njene činjenice svakako provjerite čitajući studije koje citira jer ne drži vodu u svakom trenutku.
XCitiraj:
cvijeta73 prvotno napisa