Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209034/The-babies-born-hospital-corridors-Bed-shortage-forces-4-000-mothers-birth-lifts-offices-hospital-toilets.html" target="_blank">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...ets.html</a> >>The babies born in hospital corridors: Bed shortage forces 4,000 mothers to give birth in lifts, offices and hospital toilets Health chiefs admit a lack of maternity beds is partly to blame for the crisis, with hundreds of women in labour being turned away from hospitals because they are full. Latest figures show that over the past two years there were at least: 63 births in ambulances and 608 in transit to hospitals; 117 births in A&E departments, four in minor injury units and two in medical assessment areas; 115 births on other hospital wards and 36 in other unspecified areas including corridors; 399 in parts of maternity units other than labour beds, including postnatal and antenatal wards and reception areas. Additionally, overstretched maternity units shut their doors to any more women in labour on 553 occasions last year. Babies were born in offices, lifts, toilets and a caravan, according to the Freedom of Information data for 2007 and 2008 from 117 out of 147 trusts which provide maternity services. One woman gave birth in a lift while being transferred to a labour ward from A&E while another gave birth in a corridor, said East Cheshire NHS Trust. Others said women had to give birth on the wards - rather than in their own maternity room - because the delivery suites were full. Tory health spokesman Andrew Lansley, who obtained the figures, said Labour had cut maternity beds by 2,340, or 22 per cent, since 1997. At the same time birth rates have been rising sharply - up 20 per cent in some areas. Mr Lansley said: 'New mothers should not be being put through the trauma of having to give birth in such inappropriate places. << MUCH more at the link..... And then this story.... <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1208970/Man-collapses-ruptured-appendix--weeks-NHS-doctors-took-out.html" target="_blank">http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...out.html</a> >>Man collapses with ruptured appendix... three weeks after NHS doctors 'took it out' After weeks of excruciating pain, Mark Wattson was understandably relieved to have his appendix taken out. Doctors told him the operation was a success and he was sent home. But only a month later the 35-year-old collapsed in agony and had to be taken back to Great Western Hospital in Swindon by ambulance. To his shock, surgeons from the same team told him that not only was his appendix still inside him, but it had ruptured - a potentially fatal complication. In a second operation it was finally removed, leaving Mr Wattson fearing another organ might have been taken out during the first procedure. The blunder has left Mr Wattson jobless, as bosses at the shop where he worked did not believe his story and sacked him. << >>Compensation payments to NHS patients have risen by 20 per cent in the past year to a record high of £769million. At this rate more than £2million a day is being paid over claims against the Health Service.<< Gee, why are we rushing to have problems like this???? Cost Containments (aka Rationing) will cause things like this to happen. No wonder so many people don't want the Government in charge of Health Care.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Cost Containments (aka Rationing) will cause things like this to happen.<< I'm glad that private insurance plans don't have any cost containments and don't exclude people based on pre-existing conditions and so forth. Plus, private plans are affordable so that every American is fully covered, too.
Originally Posted By Mr X I'm hoping DavewasBaloo will chime in here with some comments, as I'm not qualified to speak on behalf of British health care. But Darkbeer, if you want to cut and paste some crap about the Japanese system, bring it on brutha...I've got info and I've been doing research and you...can't...touch it (but still, I dare ya).
Originally Posted By u k fan Haven't got time to join the debate, but roughly 700000 babies are born each year in th uk, 4000 is about 0.5%. If you then take out those that were in hospital, but didn't make it to a labour ward the figure goes down to 0.4. I have left those in unspecified areas in this figure. If you then figure in those who were on there way to hospital that figure would go down again. I'm assuming that these figures don't take in to account elected homebirths which are not uncommon in the uk or elected caesarians, both of which would be recorded by the local healthcare trust, but can't neccessarily be counted as given birth in a labour room. I'm guessing behind the hyperbole the numbers of babies who may have been at risk through some fault of the medical profession is very small and as a percentage overall even smaller. There is a need for more midwives and the government is offering incentives to those who train. I know as my sister starts her midwifery training in a couple of weeks!!!
Originally Posted By ecdc At this point, Darkbeer is essentially a WE's troll. He's a wealth of Disney information, and I'm not saying he's a troll on LP - just WE's. We've asked him many times to participate in the discussion and not just copy and paste copyrighted material. It's gone on for years, and despite the frustration, he continues to do it. It couldn't be clearer that he only continues to do it to irritate those of us in WE's who don't appreciate it. So, with that in mind, it's time to institute a "don't feed the WE's troll" policy. When he does this nonsense, just ignore it. It's the only way. He's not even an honest troll - we've seen how frequently he takes these things out of context, sometimes even going so far as to give what he's posting the *opposite* meaning of what the article really says. So again, I ask all of you: Don't feed the troll.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "It couldn't be clearer that he only continues to do it to irritate those of us in WE's who don't appreciate it." Truer words were never posted.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<63 births in ambulances and 608 in transit to hospitals;>> SO WHAT??? This is a new level of bizarre.... even for Darkbeer. Are you saying this never happens in America? Several times a year in the Twin Cities there would be a story in the news about a baby being born in a cab or a police car or their own car. It is no reflection on a health system... it is just people waiting too long to head to the hospital. I have real questions about the proposal currently before Congress. But posting garbage like this does nothing to aid the discussion.
Originally Posted By hopemax While I agree that not responding to Darkbeer directly, asking him to respond is pointless. By just letting the posts stand without any comparative information or explanation, might leave people wondering, "Is it really that bad in the UK?" So here are some US Maternity Stats: US ranks 27th in infant mortality rates among industrialized countries. Behind those socialist countries like Japan, Sweden, Germany and yes, the UK. The World Health Organization recommendation for C-sections is between 10-15% of births. The US rates have been rising and now are over 30%. Which possibly has led to an increase in the Maternal Mortality Rate. US is now up to 13.1/100,0000 births. A number that has been increasing since 1982. In 2007, the US ranked 41st tied with Belarus and behind Serbia & Montenegro. On one website, I saw a figure that 13% of pregnancies are uninsured. 57% of uninsured women don't start pre-natal care until the second trimester.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>57% of uninsured women don't start pre-natal care until the second trimester.<< Well they should just opt in to the private insurance world. I mean, it's not like it's rationed or anything.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer And why are the C-sections more in the USA??? Because of Lawsuits and Malpractice claims.... Another reason why the Government should be looking at TORT reform and lowering the cost of Malpractice insurance. That would do a LOT more good that Government run Health Care! And talking about posts/threads at WE... There is a LOT of post/threads I think are in extremely poor taste and just plain Republican/Conservative bashing, but since they are within the Board Guidelines, I basically ignore them.....
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "but since they are within the Board Guidelines" Except you plagiarize and steal content all the time, thereby violating guidelines. If anyone ought to e ignored or banned for th esake of the site, it's you, sweetcheeks.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>And why are the C-sections more in the USA??? Because of Lawsuits and Malpractice claims....<< I see. So you're saying that instead of vaginal birth, doctors are choosing to perform surgery, opening themselves up (pardon the pun) to the risks of such a procedure, thereby actually increasing the likelihood of a lawsuit/malpractice claim against them? Really? Think about that before you trot off to Google.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan LOL, really, that is the most confounding bit of "logic" I've seen. No wonder Darkbeer doesn't comment... when he does, he tangles himself up.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer And there are PLENTY of WE posters that totally ignore this rule.... <a href="http://mb.laughingplace.com/MsgBoard-Rules.asp" target="_blank">http://mb.laughingplace.com/Ms...ules.asp</a> >>. NO FIGHTING: Please be polite to all posters on the Discussion Boards. Mean spirited messages and exchanges will be deleted at the administrators' discretion. We also ask that you don't unnecessarily antagonize others, and don't represent yourself as another person. Also, do not post any material that is defamatory, infringing, obscene, violates the legal rights of others. And remember, you can be held legally liable for what you write.<< Or this rule... >>7. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS: Personal attacks against anyone - other posters, public figures, names in the news - anyone, is not allowed on LaughingPlace.com<< Gee, names in the news... AMAZING!!!! >>8. STAYING ON TOPIC: There is a section on LaughingPlace.com for each area of Disney. Please post your messages in the most appropriate section. If you feel a new section should be created, please send us Feedback and we will consider it.<< How many times have a thread in WE been taken off-topic on purpose?????
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF >>There is a LOT of post/threads I think are in extremely poor taste and just plain Republican/Conservative bashing, but since they are within the Board Guidelines, I basically ignore them.....<< Oh, BS. You're just as bad if not worse. You're just more subtle about it.
Originally Posted By BlueDevilSF SAUERBRATEN MARINADE INGREDIENTS: 1 cup dry red wine 1 cup red wine vinegar 2 cups cold water 1 medium onion, thinly sliced 1 Tablespoon black peppercorns, coarsely crushed 1 Tablespoon juniper berries, coarsely crushed 2 bay leaves 1 teaspoon salt 2-3 Tablespoons Sauerbraten Spice 4 pounds boneless beef roast, preferably bottom round ROASTING/ SAUCE INGREDIENTS: 3 Tablespoons butter 2 1/2 cups onions, diced 2 1/2 cups carrots, diced 1 1/4 cups celery, diced 2 Tablespoons flour 1/2 cup water 3/4 cup gingersnap cookies, crumbled Serves / Yields 6-8 servings Preparation Instructions Combine all marinade ingredients, except the roast itself, in 2-3 quart saucepan. Bring to boil over high heat. Remove from heat and allow to cool to room temperature. Place the beef in a deep, non-reactive (glass or ceramic) bowl or pot just large enough to hold it. Pour marinade over beef. The marinade should be at least halfway up the sides of the roast. If necessary add more wine. Cover tightly with foil or plastic wrap and refrigerate for 2-3 days, turning the meat in the marinade at least twice each day. Remove meat from marinade and pat completely dry with paper towels. Strain the marinade through a fine sieve and reserve the liquid. Discard spices and onions. In heavy, 5-quart dutch oven, heat the butter until bubbling stops. Add the meat and brown on all sides, turning frequently, so that it browns evenly without burning. Transfer to platter and set aside. For roasting, add the onions, carrots, and celery to the same pan you cooked the meat in. Cook over moderate heat until soft and light brown (5-8 minutes). Sprinkle 2 Tablespoons of flour over the vegetables and cook, stirring constantly, 2-3 minutes longer or until the flour begins to color. Pour in 2 cups of the reserved marinade and 1/2 cup of water and bring to boil over high heat. Return the meat to the pot, cover tightly, and simmer over low heat for 2 hours, or until the meat shows no resistance when pierced with the tip of a sharp knife. Alternatively, bake in 350 degree oven for 2 hours. Transfer the roast to a heated platter and cover with foil to keep warm while sauce is made. Pour the liquid left in the pot into a large measuring cup and skim fat from surface. You will need at least 2 1/2 cups for the sauce. If additional liquid is needed, add some of the reserved marinade. Combine the liquid and the gingersnap crumbs in a saucepan and cook over moderate heat, stirring frequently for approx. 10 minutes, allowing the cookie crumbs to dissolve completely and thicken the sauce to the desired consistency. Depending upon the amount of liquid, you may need to add additional cookie crumbs. Strain the sauce through a fine sieve, pressing down hard with wooden spoon to force as much of the vegetables and crumbs through as possible. Return the sauce to the pan, adjust seasoning and allow to simmer over low heat until ready to serve. Slice the roast, pour some sauce over slices on platter and pass remaining sauce separately.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Gee, let's look at the facts... <a href="http://www.lawsuitsearch.com/malpractice/c-section.aspx" target="_blank">http://www.lawsuitsearch.com/m...ion.aspx</a> >>Caesarean section births have been on the rise for a number of years. As of 2004 they comprised approximately 29% of live births in the U.S. Many believe the increase is a result of malpractice lawsuits for complications from vaginal births...<< <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story?id=3290631&page=1" target="_blank">http://abcnews.go.com/WN/story...1&page=1</a> >>And, for doctors, the threat of lawsuits also comes into play. Obstetricians are among the most vulnerable to litigation if something goes wrong in the delivery room. Choosing to perform a c-section, in some cases, can help reduce the possibility of being sued. "They're never faulted for doing a c-section," said Faith Frieden, chief of obstetrics and gynecology at Englewood Hospital and Medical Center in New Jersey. "It's never the wrong decision to do a c-section. No one's ever going to say to them, 'why were you so quick to do the cesarean section?' "Usually what happens is, if anything goes wrong, then they're questioned later on, 'wouldn't it have been better if you did the cesarean section a little sooner?' 'Why didn't you do the c-section?' 'Wouldn't that have been the easiest way to deliver this baby — the less traumatic way to deliver this baby?'" Frieden explained.<< Off topic, but an interesting point from the ABC News article... >>But in the end, the NIH and every expert we spoke with said each mother needs to make her own informed decision in consultation with her doctor. "The bottom line is that we want to have healthy mother, healthy baby," said Frieden. "And if we're achieving that, then I don't think we have to apologize for our c-section rate." <<
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>How many times have a thread in WE been taken off-topic on purpose?<< You're doing it now. You didn't answer my question. Do you actually believe that the reason the US has more c-sections is because doctors are worried about malpractice, so they perform a surgery that increases the likelihood of complications, infection, etc?
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan Had you turned to page two, you'd have discovered.... >>Another part of the rise in numbers has to do with advances in medicine and changing norms for parenthood, as more older women are having babies. They are at greater risk for complications that can lead to emergency c-sections. Fertility advances mean more multiple births, which are often delivered by c-section. And Americans have just generally become more comfortable with the idea of surgery.<<
