6 ms·

When it comes to having a baby, things can go from "perfectly normal" to "spectacularly wrong" in a (literal) heartbeat. The vast majority of the time, that doe

When it comes to having a baby, things can go from "perfectly normal" to "spectacularly wrong" in a (literal) heartbeat. The vast majority of the time, that doesn't happen, but when it does, I'd rather be down the hall from an OR, rather than a 20 minute ambulance ride away...

epoxyhockey 10y ago
Agreed! Even in the article, the woman needed an emergency c-section.
hackbinary 10y ago
Pre modern medical times, like before the 1930's or so, something like 1 in 10 women died in child birth.
- stcredzero 10y ago
  I've heard the same statistic. I wonder where it comes from. Also, the overall chance of pregnancy with unprotected sex involving a man and a woman of childbearing age is 1 in 4. So, would you engage in such sex knowing that there was a 1 in 40 chance it would lead directly to your own death? (Or your partners? Bees be Krayton!) I wonder if that's where some of our cognitive biases around risk come from? It benefits our genes that we're cavalier about certain kinds of risk.
  - JshWright 10y ago
    I don't know that the numbers in this thread have any basis in reality, but even if they did... sex is fun?
  - MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
    The first number you give is wildly inaccurate. It rises to about 35% in the +/-1 day window around ovulation, with lower probability during a wider weeklong window, and very near 0 for the rest of the menstrual cycle. I'm fairly sure the actual compounded odds of conception from procreative sex at a random point in the woman's cycle is much closer to 1 in 1000. Also unprotected sex does not necessarily equal procreative sex, which I realize is a somewhat controversial statement, but nonetheless true.
    - hackbinary 10y ago
      Really? Controversial, yes. Do you have any science to back that up?
      - MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
        It's really a matter of semantics, not science. Either party could be incapable of providing the needed input. But also yes, to address the controversiality, the withdrawal method, used perfectly, is a 96% effective [0] contraceptive method vs. 98% for condoms used perfectly [1]. Obviously the prerequisites for perfect use are different and YMMV. [0] https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/withdrawal-pull-out-method https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/withdr... (there's no fragment, it's under the effectiveness section of the accordion) [1] https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom/how-effective-are-condoms https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom...
    - stcredzero 10y ago
      The first number you give is wildly inaccurate. I knew that when I posted it. When I posted it, I thought I had clearly indicated it, but looking at it again, that must have been forgotten before it could be enacted. My intention was to play with the two wildly inaccurate figures together.
  - hackbinary 10y ago
    Between in 1 in 7 and 1 in 8 in countries where women do not have any real access to modern healthcare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death 1 in 20 (~50 in 1000) in the UK until 1940/1950. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1633559/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1633559/ and lots of interesting reading here: https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=history%20of%20death%20in%20childbirth https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1...
brianwawok 10y ago
So what if 1/200 times your baby was saved by being closer to the doctors... but 1/180 times your baby got a Staph Infection they would not have gotten at home and died? The numbers are obviously bogus, but there are dangers to anyplace you choose to give birth... As long as people are well informed, seems they should be able to choose their own adventure.
- Vraxx 10y ago
  Except the numbers that aren't bogus seem to suggest that birthing at home can be much more dangerous for mothers and children. I'm not saying that there's no room for improvement at the hospital, there always will be, but when we don't use fake numbers your point doesn't hold water. I'll refer to another user's comment in this article's thread for the citation. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11724332 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11724332
  - brianwawok 10y ago
    Walking is much more dangerous than being carried in a litter, yet we let people do it all the time. Drinking a hot beverage is much more dangerous than drinking a cold beverage. Life is full of dangers and risks. Why should birth be any different? I could post many stories of people who had their first kid in a hospital and had a horrible experience, ends up getting a C section when not really needed, etc (See american C-section rates vs European for example). Then they chose to have a kid at home and had a 100x better experience and a more healthy baby (due to lack of C section and all the problems that leads to).
    - carc 10y ago
      I've heard the exact same argument from an anti-vaccer :)
      - stcredzero 10y ago
        What's bad about anti-vaxxers isn't that they weigh relative risks and make a decision. What's bad is that they spread wildly inaccurate information about what those risks are, which causes people to make faulty decisions that increase the risks for others in the community. What you are doing here, is glossing over the underlying logic and falsely reasoning by resemblances. I find this sort of false reasoning flat-out stupid. It needs to be called out so others do not imitate it. (Which is a more meaningful resemblance to anti-vaxxers your comment is exhibiting.)

epoxyhockey 10y ago

Agreed! Even in the article, the woman needed an emergency c-section.

hackbinary 10y ago

Pre modern medical times, like before the 1930's or so, something like 1 in 10 women died in child birth.

stcredzero 10y ago
I've heard the same statistic. I wonder where it comes from. Also, the overall chance of pregnancy with unprotected sex involving a man and a woman of childbearing age is 1 in 4. So, would you engage in such sex knowing that there was a 1 in 40 chance it would lead directly to your own death? (Or your partners? Bees be Krayton!) I wonder if that's where some of our cognitive biases around risk come from? It benefits our genes that we're cavalier about certain kinds of risk.
- JshWright 10y ago
  I don't know that the numbers in this thread have any basis in reality, but even if they did... sex is fun?
- MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
  The first number you give is wildly inaccurate. It rises to about 35% in the +/-1 day window around ovulation, with lower probability during a wider weeklong window, and very near 0 for the rest of the menstrual cycle. I'm fairly sure the actual compounded odds of conception from procreative sex at a random point in the woman's cycle is much closer to 1 in 1000. Also unprotected sex does not necessarily equal procreative sex, which I realize is a somewhat controversial statement, but nonetheless true.
  - hackbinary 10y ago
    Really? Controversial, yes. Do you have any science to back that up?
    - MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
      It's really a matter of semantics, not science. Either party could be incapable of providing the needed input. But also yes, to address the controversiality, the withdrawal method, used perfectly, is a 96% effective [0] contraceptive method vs. 98% for condoms used perfectly [1]. Obviously the prerequisites for perfect use are different and YMMV. [0] https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/withdrawal-pull-out-method https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/withdr... (there's no fragment, it's under the effectiveness section of the accordion) [1] https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom/how-effective-are-condoms https://www.plannedparenthood.org/learn/birth-control/condom...
  - stcredzero 10y ago
    The first number you give is wildly inaccurate. I knew that when I posted it. When I posted it, I thought I had clearly indicated it, but looking at it again, that must have been forgotten before it could be enacted. My intention was to play with the two wildly inaccurate figures together.
- hackbinary 10y ago
  Between in 1 in 7 and 1 in 8 in countries where women do not have any real access to modern healthcare. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_death 1 in 20 (~50 in 1000) in the UK until 1940/1950. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1633559/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1633559/ and lots of interesting reading here: https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=history%20of%20death%20in%20childbirth https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1...

brianwawok 10y ago

So what if 1/200 times your baby was saved by being closer to the doctors... but 1/180 times your baby got a Staph Infection they would not have gotten at home and died? The numbers are obviously bogus, but there are dangers to anyplace you choose to give birth... As long as people are well informed, seems they should be able to choose their own adventure.

Vraxx 10y ago
Except the numbers that aren't bogus seem to suggest that birthing at home can be much more dangerous for mothers and children. I'm not saying that there's no room for improvement at the hospital, there always will be, but when we don't use fake numbers your point doesn't hold water. I'll refer to another user's comment in this article's thread for the citation. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11724332 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11724332
- brianwawok 10y ago
  Walking is much more dangerous than being carried in a litter, yet we let people do it all the time. Drinking a hot beverage is much more dangerous than drinking a cold beverage. Life is full of dangers and risks. Why should birth be any different? I could post many stories of people who had their first kid in a hospital and had a horrible experience, ends up getting a C section when not really needed, etc (See american C-section rates vs European for example). Then they chose to have a kid at home and had a 100x better experience and a more healthy baby (due to lack of C section and all the problems that leads to).
  - carc 10y ago
    I've heard the exact same argument from an anti-vaccer :)
    - stcredzero 10y ago
      What's bad about anti-vaxxers isn't that they weigh relative risks and make a decision. What's bad is that they spread wildly inaccurate information about what those risks are, which causes people to make faulty decisions that increase the risks for others in the community. What you are doing here, is glossing over the underlying logic and falsely reasoning by resemblances. I find this sort of false reasoning flat-out stupid. It needs to be called out so others do not imitate it. (Which is a more meaningful resemblance to anti-vaxxers your comment is exhibiting.)