Sad story

This is a newsgroup. Everyone here is entitled to their opinion.



You can disagree with me but please try to use a few more brain cells while
composing your rebuttal.



"Buzzy Bee" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004 08:50:37 -0400, "Jenny D"
wrote:
but then again I might just have mucked up the snipping as usual!
She killed her child; she's a murderer.

You ****ing bitch.

Megan
--
Seoras David Montgomery, 7 May 2003, 17 hours: sunrise to sunset
(homebirth)

To e-mail use: megan at farr-montgomery dot com

You are right: I am also assuming things, albeit I will say again that you
put words in my mouth.

However, I live by the standard of "not guilty until proven otherwise".
Whatever happened, I would simply never accuse someone of being a murderer
based on a few facts and opinion. I prefer to lean on clemency whenever in
doubt.


"Jenny D" wrote in message
...
"Now, that you could not have. You called that woman a murderer, without
even having all the facts at hand (see later, the newspaper article on the
story mentions she was fooled by a woman who misrepresented herself as a
real midwife). My point on the religious issue was that no, there is no
excuse for murder, but I want it made clear that *I do not agree with your
condemnation of this woman as a murderer".

~ You're just as guilty. Everyone assumes just as much as I do. You
assume
that she is a smart, educated woman who was mislead by an unregistered
midwife. (Despite the fact that she spoke to God knows how many other
misdwives who clearly did not want her as a patient due to the risk of her
pregnancy) You're assuming that she was mistreated or traumatized in the
hospital with her first birth which is the great excuse you all use for
her
rediculus decision. I do not agree with your unwaranted pity for this
woman.
All our opinions of her are based on assumptions.



"We don't know what there was to do or not, again, and I've heard of
deaths
in hospitals, where not everything was done for a baby. Lack of personnel,
malpractice, etc."

~ You can't use the statement " I've heard of deaths in hospitals, where"
such and such a baby died. The ratio of babies born in the hospital
compared to the amount of deaths due to the reasons you described; is
miniscule. If you wish to blame lack of personnel or malpractice, then I
must remind you that this type of tragety is not due to a bad decision
from
the parent.



"You never accept any advice from anyone else? What if her entourage was
very pro-home birth? What of the people who recommended that false
midwife?
The list could go on... Choices are made from what we know, from what we
are
told, from what we accept or reject. Nothing is ever that black and
white."

~ All these "what if's, what if's, what if's" again, you're assuming all
these things about her. Perhaps I can assume even more like, what if she
did not really want this baby and was looking for an excuse for it to die?
The pendulum swings both ways.



"It would have been your bad choice to hold 5 bags in one hand and a silly
nephew in the other."

~ If half a dozen registered midwives told me not to hold 5 bags and a
toddler because my son might die, then I certainy would NEVER do that.
You
gotta put things in perspective a little!



"You don't have to be mentally retarded to get confused with all the
contradictory information going around about pregnancy. Doctors don't
always
hold the truth. You can see that, re pregnancy, with all the controversies
over epidural injection (does it or doesn't it hurt the baby?), about
gestational diabetes (is it a real fliction? can it be treated with the
proper diet?), about inducing (when? how? no doctor agree), and in
general,
they are finding more and more that you have more chances
of catching bacterial viruses at the hospital than by staying at home...
Where do you stop? How can you be sure you are making a right decision?"

~ These are all valid points and of course, decisions that effect all of
us
however, the fact remains that it is too dangerous to give birth to a
breach
baby at home. She did not have to decide about gestational diebetes, she
did not have to decide whether or not to have an epidural and she did not
have to decide about induction, all she had to decide was wether to risk
her
unborn child's life or not.



"You're very lucky your world is that clear. Mine isn't."

My world is not any clearer than yours. Tell me, having read the original
post from "Plissken" and without assuming ANYTHING. What would you have
"chosen" to do if you were that women?

Ok... I respect your opnion. )


"Zaz" wrote in message
...
You are right: I am also assuming things, albeit I will say again that you
put words in my mouth.

However, I live by the standard of "not guilty until proven otherwise".
Whatever happened, I would simply never accuse someone of being a murderer
based on a few facts and opinion. I prefer to lean on clemency whenever in
doubt.


"Jenny D" wrote in message
...
"Now, that you could not have. You called that woman a murderer, without
even having all the facts at hand (see later, the newspaper article on
the
story mentions she was fooled by a woman who misrepresented herself as a
real midwife). My point on the religious issue was that no, there is no
excuse for murder, but I want it made clear that *I do not agree with
your
condemnation of this woman as a murderer".

~ You're just as guilty. Everyone assumes just as much as I do. You
assume
that she is a smart, educated woman who was mislead by an unregistered
midwife. (Despite the fact that she spoke to God knows how many other
misdwives who clearly did not want her as a patient due to the risk of
her
pregnancy) You're assuming that she was mistreated or traumatized in the
hospital with her first birth which is the great excuse you all use for
her
rediculus decision. I do not agree with your unwaranted pity for this
woman.
All our opinions of her are based on assumptions.



"We don't know what there was to do or not, again, and I've heard of
deaths
in hospitals, where not everything was done for a baby. Lack of
personnel,
malpractice, etc."

~ You can't use the statement " I've heard of deaths in hospitals,
where"
such and such a baby died. The ratio of babies born in the hospital
compared to the amount of deaths due to the reasons you described; is
miniscule. If you wish to blame lack of personnel or malpractice, then
I
must remind you that this type of tragety is not due to a bad decision
from
the parent.



"You never accept any advice from anyone else? What if her entourage was
very pro-home birth? What of the people who recommended that false
midwife?
The list could go on... Choices are made from what we know, from what we
are
told, from what we accept or reject. Nothing is ever that black and
white."

~ All these "what if's, what if's, what if's" again, you're assuming all
these things about her. Perhaps I can assume even more like, what if
she
did not really want this baby and was looking for an excuse for it to
die?
The pendulum swings both ways.



"It would have been your bad choice to hold 5 bags in one hand and a
silly
nephew in the other."

~ If half a dozen registered midwives told me not to hold 5 bags and a
toddler because my son might die, then I certainy would NEVER do that.
You
gotta put things in perspective a little!



"You don't have to be mentally retarded to get confused with all the
contradictory information going around about pregnancy. Doctors don't
always
hold the truth. You can see that, re pregnancy, with all the
controversies
over epidural injection (does it or doesn't it hurt the baby?), about
gestational diabetes (is it a real fliction? can it be treated with the
proper diet?), about inducing (when? how? no doctor agree), and in
general,
they are finding more and more that you have more chances
of catching bacterial viruses at the hospital than by staying at
home...
Where do you stop? How can you be sure you are making a right decision?"

~ These are all valid points and of course, decisions that effect all of
us
however, the fact remains that it is too dangerous to give birth to a
breach
baby at home. She did not have to decide about gestational diebetes,
she
did not have to decide whether or not to have an epidural and she did
not
have to decide about induction, all she had to decide was wether to risk
her
unborn child's life or not.



"You're very lucky your world is that clear. Mine isn't."

My world is not any clearer than yours. Tell me, having read the
original
post from "Plissken" and without assuming ANYTHING. What would you have
"chosen" to do if you were that women?

"Chotii" wrote in message
.. .

You know, my primary cesarean was so awful for me that five years later I
still flipped off the hospital every time I drove past it, and my anger
was
eating me up. I eventually wrote to my former OB and told him about how
his
treatment of me left me feeling. He didn't bother to reply. And then I let
it go....I thought. And then I got pregnant again and discovered I hadn't
let it go after all. It was only after I managed an (assisted) vaginal
birth
with my last child that I really felt healed from the birth of my first.
Yet
all my children are healthy, so the hard data would tell you that
everything
was just fine....right?

I like to think my feelings mattered.

Emotionally, of course they matter. But from a research standpoint...
there isn't a whole lot that can be done with anecdotal data. Your
experience was negative for reasons X, Y and Z, mine was positve for reasons
Q, R and S, but the two can't be compared in a manner that would give any
kind of useful scientific evidence.

Donna

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 11:10:50 -0400, Jenny D wrote:

You can disagree with me but please try to use a few more brain cells while
composing your rebuttal.

Only if you use a few more to compose your response to the OP. If you
would be familiar with some of the posters here, you'd understand her
reply. She's as entitled to her opinion as you are to yours.

--
-- I
mommy to DS (July '02)
mommy to three tiny angels (28 Oct'03, 17 Feb'04 & 20 May'04)
guardian of DH (33)

Vicky Bilaniuk writes:
: Larry McMahan wrote:

: Vicky Bilaniuk writes:
:
: : One problem I have with some data presented in midwifery sites and
: : documents is that it is sometimes taken out of context to the point
: : where the meaning is changed.
:
: Excuse me? And you don't thing that ACOG and other Obstetric
: orgainzations are not engaged in the same game, and even more
: so?

: Larry, I think you need to go back and read my post again.

Yep. I fixated on that first statement.

Donna wrote:


Are you really arguing that the only reason that the midwifery journals are
not the New England Journal Of Medicine (for example) is gender bias?

Are you arguing that they are lower quality?

Best wishes,
Ericka

On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 13:28:01 -0400, Ericka Kammerer
wrote:
but then again I might just have mucked up the snipping as usual!
Donna wrote:


Are you really arguing that the only reason that the midwifery journals are
not the New England Journal Of Medicine (for example) is gender bias?

Are you arguing that they are lower quality?

Thank you Ericka! Thats what I wanted to counter with had I not had
more important things on my mind.

I'm much more likely to believe something from MIDIRS, for example,
myself...

Megan
--
Seoras David Montgomery, 7 May 2003, 17 hours: sunrise to sunset (homebirth)

To e-mail use: megan at farr-montgomery dot com

Donna wrote:

"Ericka Kammerer" wrote in message
...

(Of course, it's harder to do good
qualitative research than to do good quantitative research,
and most research of either flavor is crap or nearly so.)

That might be a little harsh, at least from the qualitative side. It's easy
to compare viral loads, for example, to figure out how a drug is working to
reduce the amount of virus in a patient's blood, and it's easy to measure
tumour size to determine how a chemotherapy is impacting a particular
cancer. We have drugs for these diseases *because* we can determine very
well, how/if they work.

There are some particular kinds of quantitative
research that are a bit easier to do; however, much of
it is still crap. Statistical methods are routinely
misused and poor study designs are abundant.

When you're talking about end-stage disease (what are called "salvage
treatments"), I would agree. If I had a choice between a life that could be
extended for a few more months with uncomfortable treatment, and a
comfortable, but somewhat shorter lifespan... I don't know what I would
choose. But "effective" in cancer, is defined in *years*, and at this
point, there aren't any chemotherapeutics which are taken consistently for
years. They're taken in cycles, and generally discontinued with response,
or the development of drug resistance. So the situation you describe above,
to my (incomplete, I'm certain) knowledge, doesn't exist.

I suppose I'd need a specific example to know
precisely what you're talking about, as I'm a little
confused.

I agree - that's why I don't specifically reference industry journals at
all. In another post I mention to Megan that my industry's journal isn't
comparable to NEJM et al, for a number of reasons, one of which is that it's
an industry journal, and not intended to be more than what it is.

But the fact that most midwifery journals have
fewer hard core research articles than, say, JAMA or
NEJM or BMJ or Lancet doesn't mean that the articles they *do*
have are of lesser quality, so I guess I don't understand
the point of avoiding them.

Certainly. I'm not intending to knock industry journals, or midwifery
journals. But I do believe that in general, there is a qualitative
difference between the research published in industry journals, and the
research published in the gold standard non-industry specific journals. If
I have two studies which give conflicting results (gasp! imagine that!
wink), and one is published in a NEJM/Lancet, etc, and the other is in an
industry journal, then my initial reaction would be to weight the former
more heavily. Me, I think that is a reasonable reaction, but naturally, I
can understand that you may not feel the same way.

I don't feel that way at all. It sounds like you are
putting those journals on a pedestal that I'm not sure they
deserve. On the one hand, it is very competitive to get
published in those journals, partly *because* they aren't
specialized. Nevertheless, they have also demonstrated
that they have some biases that exclude some perfectly
good research that conflicts and includes some downright
crappy research that furthers their agendas (at least
in the case of JAMA and NEJM--I'm less familiar with the
track record of BMJ and Lancet).
So, for certain *types* of research, yeah,
the competition alone tends to put those journals
at the top of the heap. On the other hand, the fact
that something was published there in no way guarantees
the results. (And believe me, some peer reviewers are
better than others...)
Anyway, I think ultimately you have to go to
the source and look at the study itself, or at least
get a good look at the study design.

Best wishes,
Ericka

Donna wrote:


Actually, let me restate the above. I had to re-read my posts from last
night to realize that I *did*, in fact, compare OB journals to midwifery
journals. And Ericka, you're right - the two generally address different
questions. So once again I will confess my personal bias towards empirical
studies, rather than the "how do you feel" types, which would lead me to
place a higher trust factor on the former, rather than the latter, industry
journal.

I'll pick one nit here--qualitative research is just
as empirical as quantitative ;-)

Having thought that through, however, I will concede that (astonishingly)
not everyone shares my own biases.

Naw, really? ;-)

Best wishes,
Ericka