If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   Texas woman induces labor two weeks early so her dying husband could hold the baby. Get ready cause the dust is thick in this one   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 154
    More: Sad, Texas, Downton Abbey, diane, Texas woman, baby  
•       •       •

15482 clicks; posted to Main » on 12 Feb 2012 at 4:29 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



154 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-12 01:07:05 PM
A 4% risk is actually pretty significant, and it wasn't their first child so it wasn't "symbolically" necessary as much as it was medically risky. Also, many MDs aren't all that bright. I'm with medius and wademh on this one.
 
2012-02-12 01:29:38 PM
Anytime my NoScript catches a cross-post attempt to Facebook, no good will come of it.

As for the demi-orphan, I have no opinion. Guy was 21 years older than his wife. Must've had game well into overtime.
 
2012-02-12 01:30:08 PM
Poor guy.


/Don't ask which one i am referring to.
 
2012-02-12 01:30:51 PM
It's 2012. Shouldn't we have lung replacing machines by now?

/I have no idea what is actually involved
//just asking
 
2012-02-12 01:44:07 PM

Urinal Cake Mix: Of course by that time, the cancer had popped up in other organs. Cancer treatment is still pretty much "try to kill both the patient and the cancer, and hope the cancer dies first".


A friend of mine who had a very aggressive form of breast cancer was told exactly this. She was told that she'd probably be dead in a couple of months, then they told her "we're going to do everything short of killing you, and hope that it kills the cancer."

She got a brain tumor from the chemo. It was treated. She has permanent damage in one of her arms from where they removed her breast and some lymph nodes. But she lived.
 
2012-02-12 01:48:20 PM

Lsherm: medius: Yes, let's risk complications and the future health of the kid so that some selfish asshole who is going to die anyway can post one last picture to Facebook.

Yeah, two whole weeks. Did you even read the article, or are you just an asshole?

I'd guess asshole, to be around Fark for as long as you have. You don't have any friends, so this is your outlet. Good for you. What's funny is that no one is going to even care when you die, so there's that.


I'll care.

/us assholes have to stick together
//metaphorically speaking
 
2012-02-12 02:00:43 PM

wademh: You sir, are an idiot. You are an example of failed reading comprehension who leveraged your failure to press your ignorant opinions. Repeating: there is a documented risk at 36 weeks. Yes the risk is less at 38 weeks. Detecting said risk is problematic statistically given the large number of observations required and the confounding factors (socio-economic, additional medical complications, uncertainties in determining date of conceptioin etc.) However, everything we know about developmental biology suggests that there is a continuum through to full term birth including measures of late term effects of glucocorticoid and thyrotropin-releasing hormone as studied in animal models.


So basically what you're saying is it's really hard to find statistical significance to prove your point but you're still super sure you are correct and the risk at 38 weeks is worse than at 40? I mean, sure, I guess.

Everything we know about dev bio, sure. But there's more to factor in than developmental biology. If the placenta gives out early or the baby stays in too long pooping and then inhaling its poop, well it's going to have major issues.

And finally, what exactly is the point of having kids and life itself? It seems you believe survival is the point. I, presumably along with many others here, disagree. Did you know kids have a slightly higher risk of injury and death if you allow them to play on the playground? Or play baseball? Holy farking shiat, this was the dad and kids only chance to see each other alive. I'm pretty sure that's worth whatever teenie risk you have imagined in your head that you're sure exists if only we have a larger sample size next study.
 
2012-02-12 03:08:52 PM

cryinoutloud: Urinal Cake Mix: Of course by that time, the cancer had popped up in other organs. Cancer treatment is still pretty much "try to kill both the patient and the cancer, and hope the cancer dies first".

A friend of mine who had a very aggressive form of breast cancer was told exactly this. She was told that she'd probably be dead in a couple of months, then they told her "we're going to do everything short of killing you, and hope that it kills the cancer."

She got a brain tumor from the chemo. It was treated. She has permanent damage in one of her arms from where they removed her breast and some lymph nodes. But she lived.


The odd thing was that the breast cancer was kind of a mixed blessing. If she hadn't done the chemo for that, they wouldn't have discovered her colon cancer until it was too late. The chemo had somehow agitated the tumor/cancer cells in her intestine to the point that she went to the hospital in a lot of stomach pain. It was scary, because she had a relatively large tumor in her stomach that wasn't there when they did the full body scans back in August. What are the goddamn odds that a 48 year old woman gets two cancers at the same time?

I'm glad the breast cancer isn't genetic, but the colon cancer most likely is. I'm not looking forward to having my butthole plundered starting at age 40 or whatever.
 
2012-02-12 03:24:23 PM
Note to haters: have you ever held a newborn? That was yours? Yeah, if the answer is no, then who the hell are you to judge these people?

Baby is fine, doesn't matter how old Dad would have been in her later life. He got to hold his daughter before he died. That's incredible and awesome and all that shiat.

/ 3rd kid is on the way and I can't wait to see him.
 
2012-02-12 04:32:16 PM

loaba: Note to haters: have you ever held a newborn? That was yours? Yeah, if the answer is no, then who the hell are you to judge these people?

Baby is fine, doesn't matter how old Dad would have been in her later life. He got to hold his daughter before he died. That's incredible and awesome and all that shiat.

/ 3rd kid is on the way and I can't wait to see him.


You sound like someone who idolizes this family:
www.goodasyou.org

or these two:
blog.timesunion.com

medical choices to make a parent feel good inside,
instead of looking out for the kid's best interest 100% -- what a beautiful choice:
www.orangejuiceblog.com

It all boils down to, "I'm done, I did what I was supposed to do."
abcnews.go.com


Right?
 
2012-02-12 04:35:33 PM

ExperianScaresCthulhu: Right?


You are so farking stupid, it hurts me to even think that you exist. Quick, go find your Mom and Dad and tell them you want to be aborted.
 
2012-02-12 04:53:44 PM

ExperianScaresCthulhu: loaba: Note to haters: have you ever held a newborn? That was yours? Yeah, if the answer is no, then who the hell are you to judge these people?

Baby is fine, doesn't matter how old Dad would have been in her later life. He got to hold his daughter before he died. That's incredible and awesome and all that shiat.

/ 3rd kid is on the way and I can't wait to see him.

You sound like someone who idolizes this family:
[www.goodasyou.org image 296x222]

or these two:
[blog.timesunion.com image 325x325]

medical choices to make a parent feel good inside,
instead of looking out for the kid's best interest 100% -- what a beautiful choice:
[www.orangejuiceblog.com image 290x350]

It all boils down to, "I'm done, I did what I was supposed to do."
[abcnews.go.com image 478x269]


Right?


You have to feel sorry for the people who feel that their only purpose is to pump out a litter and call it a day.
 
2012-02-12 05:00:02 PM

Exception Collection: One has to wonder: Fully formed or not, would the local prosecutor have charged her with manslaughter or murder if the child had died as a result of the induced labor? If not, why not?

Not that this isn't very heartwarming, mind.


They would not. It would have been a horrible, unpreventable tragedy, just as ALL neonatal deaths in hospitals are. Only when babies are born at home is it manslaughter.

As for the nonsense about "38 weeks is just fine to be born":

A Campaign to Carry Pregnancies to Term (new window)

With each decreasing week of gestation below 39 to 40 weeks, there is an increased risk of complications like respiratory distress, jaundice, infection, low blood sugar, extra days in the hospital (including time in the neonatal intensive care unit), and even deaths of newborn babies and older infants.

Risk for babies born ONE WEEK early: Serious health problems more likely, warn British researchers (new window)

Those born at 37 weeks were 36 per cent more likely to have learning difficulties, while for those born at 38 weeks the figure stood at 19 per cent.

Baby Steps: Hospitals Reducing Early Elective Births. Slowly. (new window)

Babies born at 37 and 38 weeks are at greater risk for serious health problems compared to babies born at 39 and 40 weeks. They have a higher chance of being admitted into neonatal intensive care units, they have more difficulty breathing and they have a higher chance of bloodstream infections.
 
2012-02-12 05:24:39 PM

cryinoutloud: Urinal Cake Mix: Of course by that time, the cancer had popped up in other organs. Cancer treatment is still pretty much "try to kill both the patient and the cancer, and hope the cancer dies first".

A friend of mine who had a very aggressive form of breast cancer was told exactly this. She was told that she'd probably be dead in a couple of months, then they told her "we're going to do everything short of killing you, and hope that it kills the cancer."

She got a brain tumor from the chemo. It was treated. She has permanent damage in one of her arms from where they removed her breast and some lymph nodes. But she lived.


Why did she have breasts on her arms?
 
2012-02-12 05:25:04 PM

lennavan: wademh: You sir, are an idiot. You are an example of failed reading comprehension who leveraged your failure to press your ignorant opinions. Repeating: there is a documented risk at 36 weeks. Yes the risk is less at 38 weeks. Detecting said risk is problematic statistically given the large number of observations required and the confounding factors (socio-economic, additional medical complications, uncertainties in determining date of conceptioin etc.) However, everything we know about developmental biology suggests that there is a continuum through to full term birth including measures of late term effects of glucocorticoid and thyrotropin-releasing hormone as studied in animal models.

So basically what you're saying is it's really hard to find statistical significance to prove your point but you're still super sure you are correct and the risk at 38 weeks is worse than at 40? I mean, sure, I guess.

Everything we know about dev bio, sure. But there's more to factor in than developmental biology. If the placenta gives out early or the baby stays in too long pooping and then inhaling its poop, well it's going to have major issues.

And finally, what exactly is the point of having kids and life itself? It seems you believe survival is the point. I, presumably along with many others here, disagree. Did you know kids have a slightly higher risk of injury and death if you allow them to play on the playground? Or play baseball? Holy farking shiat, this was the dad and kids only chance to see each other alive. I'm pretty sure that's worth whatever teenie risk you have imagined in your head that you're sure exists if only we have a larger sample size next study.


You don't read too good. Meconium aspiration isn't the issue here. One can identify risk clearly pre 37 weeks. The equation shifts the other way post 41. The risks pre 37 are explicit long term outcomes. At 38 weeks one can identify significant risk of things like extended hospital stays for the newborn (which is a risk in and of itself) but identification of a few percentage points increase in risk for long term complications is statistically difficult and has not been attempted, at least as reported as recently as 2009. The reason it hasn't been attempted is that the size of such a study would be very large and there are more useful things to spend time and money on.

If you understand that, and it's questionable given your responses so far, you know how to interpolate with the current results. However, people seem to be interpolating that not proving specific risks means inducing two weeks early is safe. That's mind-numbingly idiotic. And further, when there are identifiable risk factors such as any stress seen in the neonate, the equation is entirely different. But this is a case that, by all accounts we have, was a fully health pregnancy being rushed forward for the asserted emotional benefit.

People who are citing specific MDs to rationalize their assessment of no risk should consider the following. It has grown route to induce right at the due date. However, studies that compared inducing at 40 weeks, 41 weeks and 42 weeks show an interesting result. There's no discernible benefit to inducing prior to 42 weeks. That's an odd result as we know that there are increasing risk factors so the only logical reasoning for the result is that there's also a risk to inducing rather than letting the pregnancy go naturally to term. Many MDs and currently many prospective parents want to engineer their pregnancy according to a clock despite the obvious fact that there is a natural variation to the length of gestation, and the observation that late term changes that occur naturally help prepare the neonate for living outside the womb. Luckily, there's a profound resiliency that limits severe complications from interference with natural timing to small percentages but that is distinct from there being no risk to messing about with an otherwise healthy pregnancy. If we find real signs of complications, by all means, intervene and get the kid out. But there are too many cases where people are inducing to fit to a calendar of convenience and it's being done based on bad medical opinion.
 
2012-02-12 06:15:29 PM

medius: Yes, let's risk complications and the future health of the kid so that some selfish asshole who is going to die anyway can post one last picture to Facebook.


Came here for this, leaving satisfied.

/agree
 
2012-02-12 06:17:52 PM
I'm getting tired of reading all the reports of people beating X but then they get ABC because the treatment destroyed their body...and they went through hell 6months to a year for what? You supposedly beat one thing but your body is so f'd up that you can't resist everything else and then die from something else related to the chemo treatment.

I'm starting to wonder really if most of these treatments for cancer even work for the most of them.

I was just watching TV today and saw this ad for a drug that helped with Psoriasis but yet you had a chance of getting cancer from it.

W-T-F.

I think years from now, they are going to look back at these last 30 years or so and view our cancer treatments as barbaric and nothing more then a money grab from Big Pharma.
 
2012-02-12 06:23:10 PM

medius: Yes, let's risk complications and the future health of the kid so that some selfish asshole who is going to die anyway can post one last picture to Facebook.


I wouldn't have put it quite that way, but yes. As someone who was born preemie myself, I don't particularly appreciate people who induce it on purpose.
 
2012-02-12 06:26:40 PM
Unless you've ever had to make the EXACT choice that this family had to make...shut the fark up. You have no idea or right to judge. That is all.
 
2012-02-12 06:29:33 PM
Just wanted to add that I was born in the early 80s at 23 weeks. Weighed less than one pound.
Besides being nearsighted and having a high IQ score, I'm normal, as much as normal can be anyway.
 
2012-02-12 06:32:29 PM
6 weeks premature. RH negative. 50 years old with no birth or pre-natal related health issues. Athlete. Mensan.
 
2012-02-12 07:04:24 PM

ugarte: http://health.usnews.com/health-news/family-health/womens-health/arti c les/2009/03/30/babies-born-only-2-to-3-weeks-early-may-face

Even two weeks, while considered normal, carries an increased risk of developmental problems.


Read the article carefully, as the headline is misleading. Delivery at 34-36weeks, which has the higher incidence of problems weeks is 4 -6 weeks early. It clearly states babies born only 2-3 weeks early only have a 4% increase in developmental problems.
 
2012-02-12 07:16:51 PM

Nastenka: Just wanted to add that I was born in the early 80s at 23 weeks. Weighed less than one pound.
Besides being nearsighted and having a high IQ score, I'm normal, as much as normal can be anyway.


You're lucky. The survival rate of babies born at 23 weeks is practically none even now. Back in the 80's, it would have been a miracle.
 
2012-02-12 07:26:18 PM

ExperianScaresCthulhu: SharkTrager: There are hospitals where over 50% of the births are inductions, often for such vital reasons as travel plans and holiday. I'm not all that concerned about this one.

That doesn't bother you?


Inductions, no. Inductions for travel plans, yes.

If a doctor suggests an induction because he believes the baby is ready to be born and decides it's better to induce and have the birth planned and scheduled, I have no problem with that.
 
2012-02-12 07:44:02 PM

SharkTrager: ExperianScaresCthulhu: SharkTrager: There are hospitals where over 50% of the births are inductions, often for such vital reasons as travel plans and holiday. I'm not all that concerned about this one.

That doesn't bother you?

Inductions, no. Inductions for travel plans, yes.

If a doctor suggests an induction because he believes the baby is ready to be born and decides it's better to induce and have the birth planned and scheduled, I have no problem with that.


If a doctor decides to induce because it's Wed. and he has plans for the weekend, do you have problems with that? I know of birthing centers that plan inductions to avoid weekends and having what they consider to be too many mothers in labor at the same time. They are asserting that there's no risk in inducing within a week of the due date. Medical science does not support that.
 
2012-02-12 09:03:20 PM
ExperianScaresCthulhu * * Smartest * * Funniest * [ ] Smartest [ ] Funniest 2012-02-12 05:00:04 AM medius: Yes, let's risk complications and the future health of the kid so that some selfish asshole who is going to die anyway can post one last picture to Facebook. A heapin' helpin' of THIS. This news is retarded, not sob-worthy. People really do have kids for all the wrong reasons. If he loved her and the kid, he would NEVER have agreed to an induced labor. Just fking selfish. And she's a moron
=================================================================

Well, the story is all kinds of stupid/weird. From what I could tell, he had the cancer before the baby, so he knew what he was probably getting into here.

Secondly, the whole 'Oh, yeah, we totally missed the fact that the chemo drugs were raping your lungs for months on end, you're gonna die in a couple weeks because of our stupidity' just doesn't make any sense to me.

I'm thinking some details were changed or were transcribed wrong to make it seem like a more 'happy-go-lucky' thing.

On the other hand, there is no harm to the baby for inducing a couple weeks early. Don't be a moron.
 
2012-02-12 09:21:16 PM

wademh: The reason it hasn't been attempted is that the size of such a study would be very large and there are more useful things to spend time and money on.


Are you shiatting me? You put zero thought into this, right? That was rhetorical, it's clear.

wademh: but identification of a few percentage points increase in risk for long term complications


There are 4 million kids born every year. ONE percentage point is 40,000 kids. Long term complications for 40,000 kids per year. And you think marking down what week a babies were born and following them for a few years is too costly? No, that's incredibly stupid, what's the real reason?

wademh: is statistically difficult


Statistically difficult. That's the real reason. Because when you do it, when you compare 38 weeks to 40 weeks, it is "statistically difficult" to differentiate the two. You know what that is also known as in statistics? They are the same. There's a reason why doctors consider 38 weeks full term. It's not for shiats and giggles, it's not because some dude just threw out there "meh, close enough."

wademh: people seem to be interpolating that not proving specific risks means inducing two weeks early is safe


No, I'm saying if they are not statistically different, then they are the equal in safety. That's how statistics actually works.

wademh: But this is a case that, by all accounts we have, was a fully health pregnancy being rushed forward for the asserted emotional benefit.


Have you done the statistics on the long term effects of a kid being born a week after their father died versus a day before? Someday that kid will grow up and see a picture of a dad who loved it versus being told the story they just missed it. What about the statistics of the emotional effects on the mother just missing it? I'm gonna guess that's statistically difficult to show. But above you loved statistically difficult stuff, how about here? You're totally sure there was a statistical difference even though none has been shown for the above, I bet you'll just dismiss my suggestion here because... there are no statistics!

wademh: But there are too many cases where people are inducing to fit to a calendar of convenience and it's being done based on bad medical opinion.


Seriously, you're equating this single specific situation with a trend of fitting to a calendar of convenience? You're a dick. I get it, I actually agree with you on this convenience thing though I'm sure we disagree on how widespread it actually is. You should put down the movie star tabloids, this stuff doesn't happen so often in the real world.
 
2012-02-12 09:43:07 PM

lennavan: wademh: The reason it hasn't been attempted is that the size of such a study would be very large and there are more useful things to spend time and money on.

Are you shiatting me? You put zero thought into this, right? That was rhetorical, it's clear.

wademh: but identification of a few percentage points increase in risk for long term complications

There are 4 million kids born every year. ONE percentage point is 40,000 kids. Long term complications for 40,000 kids per year. And you think marking down what week a babies were born and following them for a few years is too costly? No, that's incredibly stupid, what's the real reason?

wademh: is statistically difficult

Statistically difficult. That's the real reason. Because when you do it, when you compare 38 weeks to 40 weeks, it is "statistically difficult" to differentiate the two. You know what that is also known as in statistics? They are the same. There's a reason why doctors consider 38 weeks full term. It's not for shiats and giggles, it's not because some dude just threw out there "meh, close enough."

wademh: people seem to be interpolating that not proving specific risks means inducing two weeks early is safe

No, I'm saying if they are not statistically different, then they are the equal in safety. That's how statistics actually works.

wademh: But this is a case that, by all accounts we have, was a fully health pregnancy being rushed forward for the asserted emotional benefit.

Have you done the statistics on the long term effects of a kid being born a week after their father died versus a day before? Someday that kid will grow up and see a picture of a dad who loved it versus being told the story they just missed it. What about the statistics of the emotional effects on the mother just missing it? I'm gonna guess that's statistically difficult to show. But above you loved statistically difficult stuff, how about here? You're totally sure there was a statistical difference even thou ...


Your lack of understanding of statistical testing is clear.
To do such a study, you need to have very well controlled sample sets, you need to know many factors about the mothers to correct for factors like income, size of family, community they live in, alcohol use, smoking, weight gain etc. You need to know all sorts of things about the history of the pregnancy, what were the reasons for inducing.

As to doing stats on the effect of the supposed emotional effect of being able to be touch by daddy once, yeah, right. What I do know is that it will have no direct physical benefit from direct memory. Any emotional effect could likely be had by telling the kid nice stories or having daddy having written a letter to the kid.

Oh, and when you say "
No, I'm saying if they are not statistically different, then they are the equal in safety. That's how statistics actually works.", you show you understand NOTHING about statistical testing and the NULL hypothesis. Failure to find a statistical difference is not a statement that two things are the same. That is taught to anybody who bothers to take a course in statistics. Maybe you should.
 
2012-02-12 10:54:54 PM
So do the couple share 4 blood children? Because that would mean the woman gave birth to her first child when she was 16 and when the father was 37.
 
2012-02-13 03:11:40 AM

medius: Yes, let's risk complications and the future health of the kid so that some selfish asshole who is going to die anyway can post one last picture to Facebook.


i understand you're trolling, but im pretty sure the newborn will forgive the "selfishness"
 
2012-02-13 06:59:25 AM
Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling: Unless you've ever had to make the EXACT choice that this family had to make...shut the fark up. You have no idea or right to judge. That is all.

How dare people be bothered about an ethically questionable medical procedure that placed the newborn at risk. They're just dicks for thinking what they do! Uncaring bastards!

I'm not going to give my Type I diabetic child insulin. Sure, he's diabetic, but we believe in PRAYER in our house, mister. How dare you question my decision. God will heal him! Unless you're having to make my decision, you have NO right to judge.

/Logic: You're flawing it.

Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling: 6 weeks premature. RH negative. 50 years old with no birth or pre-natal related health issues. Athlete. Mensan.

Nastenka: Just wanted to add that I was born in the early 80s at 23 weeks. Weighed less than one pound.
Besides being nearsighted and having a high IQ score, I'm normal, as much as normal can be anyway.


Congradulations. You are the 1%, quite literally.

I can walk you across the street to the Newborn Center in Memphis and introduce you to plenty of ex 23/24 weekers with a Trach, home ventilator and A G-Tube. Even today, with the use of High Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation and Surfactant, the survival rates of these infants is very, very low - around 18%. The rate of survival to discharge WITH Neurological normalcy is even lower.

Yeah. There's always a small chance you'll be fine. There's an even greater chance you'll end up gorked, with the mental capacity of a garden variety vegetable.

/Anecdote is a poor excuse for data in practice.
 
2012-02-13 08:47:01 AM

BronyMedic: Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling: Unless you've ever had to make the EXACT choice that this family had to make...shut the fark up. You have no idea or right to judge. That is all.

How dare people be bothered about an ethically questionable medical procedure that placed the newborn at risk. They're just dicks for thinking what they do! Uncaring bastards!

I'm not going to give my Type I diabetic child insulin. Sure, he's diabetic, but we believe in PRAYER in our house, mister. How dare you question my decision. God will heal him! Unless you're having to make my decision, you have NO right to judge.

/Logic: You're flawing it.

Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling: 6 weeks premature. RH negative. 50 years old with no birth or pre-natal related health issues. Athlete. Mensan.

Nastenka: Just wanted to add that I was born in the early 80s at 23 weeks. Weighed less than one pound.
Besides being nearsighted and having a high IQ score, I'm normal, as much as normal can be anyway.

Congradulations. You are the 1%, quite literally.

I can walk you across the street to the Newborn Center in Memphis and introduce you to plenty of ex 23/24 weekers with a Trach, home ventilator and A G-Tube. Even today, with the use of High Frequency Oscillatory Ventilation and Surfactant, the survival rates of these infants is very, very low - around 18%. The rate of survival to discharge WITH Neurological normalcy is even lower.

Yeah. There's always a small chance you'll be fine. There's an even greater chance you'll end up gorked, with the mental capacity of a garden variety vegetable.

/Anecdote is a poor excuse for data in practice.


Of course anecdotal evidence is not statistical. We aren't retarded. The examples were provided to show that even much worse can end up much better. Doesn't always, but it can.

Also, you are questioning MY precision and then stating "I can show you blah blah blah 23/24 weekers with blah blah"...read the article. The baby wasn't a "23/24 weeker". 36 weeks. I would doubt that you could tell the difference between 99 percent of full termers and two week preemies.

\Exxageration for argument's sake = You're a dumbass.

And, I had to tell my daughter at seven years old that her mother was never going to wake up again. If I had it to do again, I would've told her before her mother lost consciousness so they could have had a "final conversation". Issues of abandonment, confusion, etc. might've been ameliorated. You don't know...the picture/video of her as a baby in her father's arms might be the most therapuetic thing in this girl's life when she gets older and has questions. So, the family made a low-risk (VERY low risk) judgement call cause they thought it was right. You and I aren't their judge and jury.

\So take your self-righteous prosthelitizing and sit on it hard.
 
2012-02-13 10:09:39 AM
FTA: "A home movie on Christmas showed a pregnant Diane Aulger, 31, handing out gifts to the couple's four children, the oldest of whom is 15. Mark, 52, who had just received the news that he had beaten cancer, played the guitar, providing a soundtrack for the Christmas morning festivities. "

She first got pregnant when she was 16 and mark was 36.
 
2012-02-13 10:42:59 AM

wademh: Your lack of understanding of statistical testing is clear.
To do such a study, you need to have very well controlled sample sets


That's not statistics, that's experimental design. And I agree. Yet again, people do these sorts of experiments all the time. You make it sound impossible, it's not. The point you really wanted to make here but are too stupid to realize is that it would require an amazingly large sample size because it's incredibly hard to get statistical significance between 38 weeks and 40 weeks BECAUSE THOSE TWO DATA SETS ARE THE FARKING SAME. Duh.

wademh: you understand NOTHING about statistical testing and the NULL hypothesis. Failure to find a statistical difference is not a statement that two things are the same. That is taught to anybody who bothers to take a course in statistics. Maybe you should.


One of us needs a refresher in statistics, that's for sure.

the null hypothesis, which states that there is no significant difference between the expected and observed result.

The null hypothesis is a statement that you want to test. In general, the null hypothesis is that things are the same as each other, or the same as a theoretical expectation.


Link (new window)
 
2012-02-13 01:05:41 PM
As someone who grew up without knowing my father, I know that I would have appreciated having this picture to know that he had the chance to meet me - and I him.

/Fark cancer
 
2012-02-13 02:38:46 PM
Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling: \Exxageration for argument's sake = You're a dumbass.

It's not an exaggeration, it's reality and experience. I transport these children every day, and I see the realities of life after these children are born with extreme prematurity. It wasn't an exaggeration, it was a response to the utter stupidity of someone, including yourself, saying "Well I was born at x-amount of weeks and I turned out FINE".'

Of course, you clearly know more because you beat the odds. You're an internet neonatologist in addition to being a total douche about this, right?

Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling: Also, you are questioning MY precision and then stating "I can show you blah blah blah 23/24 weekers with blah blah"...read the article. The baby wasn't a "23/24 weeker". 36 weeks. I would doubt that you could tell the difference between 99 percent of full termers and two week preemies.

Read the quoted sections I replied to, to understand context of that comment, and get the hell off your soapbox, people want to take a shower.

And I bet I could about 9% of them. That's about how many premies at 37 weeks require aggressive intervention in the delivery room or immediately post-partum. 91% of the time they will be fine. And it sounds like this was a very low risk pregnancy for them to have even agreed to it.

Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling: And, I had to tell my daughter at seven years old that her mother was never going to wake up again. If I had it to do again, I would've told her before her mother lost consciousness so they could have had a "final conversation". Issues of abandonment, confusion, etc. might've been ameliorated. You don't know...the picture/video of her as a baby in her father's arms might be the most therapuetic thing in this girl's life when she gets older and has questions. So, the family made a low-risk (VERY low risk) judgement call cause they thought it was right. You and I aren't their judge and jury.

I had to tell a woman who was married to her husband for nearly 60 years that her husband was dead last night, and wasn't coming home like she thought when she called us to "pick him off the floor", and that we did everything we could for him, because the doctor was too busy to call her.

I'm sorry you had a horrible loss, but you're injecting yourself into a situation that HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH YOU, and making emotional decisions based on your past regrets and experiences. But at what point does that situation compare with this one, really, since you want to talk about irrelevancies? Regardless of if it was low risk, it is not cold, it is not callous, and it is not "being a dick" to question it on grounds of best practiceand biomedical ethicality. To put this in prospective, there was totally no medical need to induce, and no medical need to subject the neonate to that.

That is why people are questioning the decision.
 
2012-02-13 03:29:23 PM
@Brony...sorry. My apologies. I didn't realize that you were personally involved in this case. The woman was exhibiting pre-labor symptoms...and HER DOCTOR (you know the one that was THERE) suggested inducing. But, you clearly know more than he does.

And, keep your sympathy. I don't need it from you. The only reason I brought up my situation is to show that I have experience with very young children who've lost a parent. That's all. A picture or a video can do wonders.

Congrats for your good work. Seriously. I was not inferring anything about extreme premature babies except to say that this was NOT ONE of them. Keep up the good work. In this particular case, with the information at hand, my obviously inferior opinion is that the man getting to hold his baby before he died was a good thing for the man and the child (and probably the wife), with apparently very little risk involved.

And, if you want to biatch at someone, biatch at her doctor. He suggested it in the first place.

\not the only douche in the room. Grab a mirror.
 
2012-02-13 03:34:30 PM
Their baby was due Jan. 29, and Diane Aulger had planned a natural childbirth, but when the doctor suggested an induced labor, she immediately agreed. She was already experiencing pre-labor symptoms, and they scheduled the birth for Jan. 18.
 
2012-02-13 04:19:58 PM

BronyMedic: It's not an exaggeration, it's reality and experience. I transport these children every day, and I see the realities of life after these children are born with extreme prematurity


You're medical transport. You're neither a PhD scientist nor an M.D. Why are you pretending like your background is relevant in understanding medical science? Seriously, I get what you're saying but you're not an authority here. Put another way:

Get off your soapbox. People want to take a shower.

BronyMedic: Regardless of if it was low risk, it is not cold, it is not callous, and it is not "being a dick" to question it on grounds of best practiceand biomedical ethicality.


By all means, question it. But don't pretend you're an authority because you drive an ambulance.

And as for "low risk" it was actually "statistically no risk." But keep pretending otherwise.
 
2012-02-13 04:23:05 PM

BronyMedic: Regardless of if it was low risk, it is not cold, it is not callous, and it is not "being a dick" to question it on grounds of best practiceand biomedical ethicality. To put this in prospective, there was totally no medical need to induce, and no medical need to subject the neonate to that.

That is why people are questioning the decision.


Put another way, you, an ambulance driver, are questioning the decision of this woman's doctor. A person with an M.D. intimately familiar with the medical history and issues said yes but you, internet ambulance driver guy, are overruling her. Well done, internet warrior, fight the good fight.
 
2012-02-13 05:00:40 PM
lennavan: You're medical transport.

Actually, I'm critical care neonatal and pediatric transport. But, thanks for assuming you know anything about what I do. Expecially when it's blatently obvious you don't.

lennavan: You're neither a PhD scientist nor an M.D.

I never pretended to be, nor did I claim to be one. However, one does not have to be a "PHD or MD" to question a medical decision with legitimate issues of ethicality. It's hillarious you base your arguement on something you seem to think I based my arguement on, and chide me on it.

lennavan: By all means, question it. But don't pretend you're an authority because you drive an ambulance.

I never did. I questioned it based on the ethics and known risks of inducing labor before a due date.

lennavan: And as for "low risk" it was actually "statistically no risk." But keep pretending otherwise.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22015872
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21278195
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21197885

Yep. No one disagrees with the practice of elective induction at all. HOW DARE I QUESTION THAT. THE WORD OF AN MD IS GOOOOOOODDDDDDDDDDD

/el oh el.

lennavan: Put another way, you, an ambulance driver, are questioning the decision of this woman's doctor. A person with an M.D. intimately familiar with the medical history and issues said yes but you, internet ambulance driver guy, are overruling her. Well done, internet warrior, fight the good fight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zSHz7Thvbc

Sweetie. I know it might be hard to comprehend, but the word "Ambulance Driver" went out of vogue in the 1970, and describes nothing of what I do. It's also cute you think it's an insult to me.
 
2012-02-13 05:13:05 PM

lennavan: BronyMedic: It's not an exaggeration, it's reality and experience. I transport these children every day, and I see the realities of life after these children are born with extreme prematurity

You're medical transport. You're neither a PhD scientist nor an M.D. Why are you pretending like your background is relevant in understanding medical science? Seriously, I get what you're saying but you're not an authority here. Put another way:


You rang?
Have you figured out that that the Null Hypothesis is never verified, just not refuted?
Meanwhile, you might note that the vast majority of comments that were not cheering on the decision to induce were mostly pointing to the fact that it was not a risk free decision. The best references came from Grave_girl but the points are essentially the same, there is a real if small risk.

What good was done in compensation for said risk? We have testimony from one who says that having grown up without a father, the picture would have been a valuable thing. Perhaps. But when you have nothing you think one small thing would help. When you have that one small thing, you wish for one additionally small thing. Ultimately, you want to father and no picture or video ever fills the fundamental void. So, to me, and to others, the real risk versus the questionable benefit makes this look like bad medicine. People who claim it was no risk are lying. People who claim the risk was worth the reward --- for the kid --- are making a judgement call where I might be willing to simply disagree, except I kept reading people who were claiming there was no risk at all.
 
2012-02-13 05:14:47 PM
wademh: lennavan: BronyMedic: It's not an exaggeration, it's reality and experience. I transport these children every day, and I see the realities of life after these children are born with extreme prematurity

You're medical transport. You're neither a PhD scientist nor an M.D. Why are you pretending like your background is relevant in understanding medical science? Seriously, I get what you're saying but you're not an authority here. Put another way:


You rang?
Have you figured out that that the Null Hypothesis is never verified, just not refuted?
Meanwhile, you might note that the vast majority of comments that were not cheering on the decision to induce were mostly pointing to the fact that it was not a risk free decision. The best references came from Grave_girl but the points are essentially the same, there is a real if small risk.

What good was done in compensation for said risk? We have testimony from one who says that having grown up without a father, the picture would have been a valuable thing. Perhaps. But when you have nothing you think one small thing would help. When you have that one small thing, you wish for one additionally small thing. Ultimately, you want to father and no picture or video ever fills the fundamental void. So, to me, and to others, the real risk versus the questionable benefit makes this look like bad medicine. People who claim it was no risk are lying. People who claim the risk was worth the reward --- for the kid --- are making a judgement call where I might be willing to simply disagree, except I kept reading people who were claiming there was no risk at all.


He's a pedantic troll. I wouldn't worry too much about him.

/still LOLing at being called an "Ambulance Driver."
 
2012-02-13 05:17:41 PM

BronyMedic: However, one does not have to be a "PHD or MD" to question a medical decision with legitimate issues of ethicality.


Well, sure in the same manner you don't need to be an M.D. to question a diagnosis. Of course, the M.D.'s opinion will be wildly more relevant and accurate but you've got access to WebMD so question away!

BronyMedic: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22015872
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21278195
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21197885

Yep. No one disagrees with the practice of elective induction at all.


If you had a PhD or an M.D. you might be able to appropriately read and interpret those. Since you drive a van, you think they supported your argument. Teehee.

Here's one of your articles (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21278195)

Pre-term delivery was defined as
a target="_blank" href="http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/4/914.long">Link (new window)

You dipshiat, they defined pre-term as before 37 weeks. We are talking about 11 days early.
 
2012-02-13 05:18:43 PM

lennavan: Pre-term delivery was defined as
a target="_blank" href="http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/40/4/914.long">Link (new window)


Copy-pasta fail. Here it is:

Definitions

Pre-term delivery was defined as and term delivery as ≥37 weeks. Mild-moderate pre-term delivery was defined as 33-36 weeks and extreme pre-term delivery 24-32 weeks of gestation.
 
2012-02-13 05:23:05 PM

wademh: You rang?
Have you figured out that that the Null Hypothesis is never verified, just not refuted?


Wait til you figure out what the next step in that argument is. You'll probably need to go to next week's statistics class to figure it out.

wademh: So, to me, and to others, the real risk versus the questionable benefit makes this look like bad medicine.


To the M.D. who was intimately involved and knew the case, there was no risk with an actual reward. But you probably know better, internet warrior.
 
2012-02-13 05:24:27 PM

BronyMedic: Sweetie. I know it might be hard to comprehend, but the word "Ambulance Driver" went out of vogue in the 1970, and describes nothing of what I do. It's also cute you think it's an insult to me.


It's not an insult, it's a fine job. But so is being a math teacher. Neither of these make you an authority on medical issues, so god only knows why you felt the desire to bring it up.
 
2012-02-13 05:33:40 PM
lennavan: Neither of these make you an authority on medical issues, so god only knows why you felt the desire to bring it up.

No, of course not. It was only an attempt at a delibrately trollish and inflammatory statement which serves no purpose in the modern Allied Health hiarchy except to insult Paramedics. It's ok. I'll forgive your faux ignorance this time.

I'd argue that being a licensed medical professional, with the same degree and length of education a Registered Nurse has, makes me a little more qualified than a math teacher to argue based on experience and evidence when backed up by actual research and evidence based medicine - such as guidance from the Agency for Healthcare Quality, Centers for Medicare/Medicaid Services, National Health Service, and neonatal/pediatric groups such as the AAP.

Again, I find it ethically questionable, with the known risks of labor induction, to do so electively. Research shows that, at 37 weeks gestation, there are demonstrated adverse outcomes, including developmental, immunological/septic, cardiac, gastrointestinal, and pulmonary issues, with elective induction. In addition to this, there is a real risk to the mother for induced labor as well, including heart disease and abruption.
 
2012-02-13 05:45:25 PM

lennavan: wademh: You rang?
Have you figured out that that the Null Hypothesis is never verified, just not refuted?

Wait til you figure out what the next step in that argument is. You'll probably need to go to next week's statistics class to figure it out.


Child, I was teaching MDs when you were in nappies.
 
2012-02-13 06:42:51 PM

BronyMedic: Research shows that, at 37 weeks gestation


Good thing this was later than 37 weeks, right?

BronyMedic: I'd argue that being a licensed medical professional, with the same degree and length of education a Registered Nurse has, makes me a little more qualified than a math teacher to argue based on experience and evidence


It doesn't. Registered Nurses, while important and very nice people, know nothing about medical science. As I'm sure you know, they get to make next to no actual decisions other than immediate emergency care as necessary.

BronyMedic: when backed up by actual research and evidence based medicine


No, we have already established you know nothing about actual research. We established this by you posting links you pretended to have read and then when I read them and pointed out your FAIL, you pretended like we never talked about them. Wanna see?

lennavan: And as for "low risk" it was actually "statistically no risk." But keep pretending otherwise.


BronyMedic: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22015872
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21278195
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21197885

Yep. No one disagrees with the practice of elective induction at all. HOW DARE I QUESTION THAT. THE WORD OF AN MD IS GOOOOOOODDDDDDDDDDD


lennavan: You dipshiat, they defined pre-term as before 37 weeks. We are talking about 11 days early.


BronyMedic: Research shows that, at 37 weeks gestation



See how you conceded at the end? I forgive you dude.

BronyMedic: It was only an attempt at a delibrately trollish and inflammatory statement which serves no purpose in the modern Allied Health hiarchy except to insult Paramedics


Paramedics are neither MDs nor PhDs. Paramedics are not qualified to speak about medical science research. Paramedics are not qualified to make medical decisions. You know this. You don't actually think you can wander into a hospital and overrule an MD. Why do you think you can do it on the internet? And why are you implying you can in real life?

Why are you embarrassed about your job dude? Be proud, you are what you are. Don't pretend to be something you're not.
 
Displayed 50 of 154 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report