Posts by Justin Fox

Susan Martin24 said:I honestly think you’ve got some serious psychological issues to work through. If your girlfriend wants a child—which is perfectly normal—she'll likely have the sense to choose a stable, well-adjusted father for them.
May God help you... though honestly, a good psychiatrist might be a better bet.

Susan Martin24 is personally insulting me now, which is completely off-topic. It’s pretty obvious she can't actually beat me with a solid argument, so she’s resorted to attacking my character instead. Go ahead, keep coming at Fiumanka if you want—it just proves you don't have a leg to stand on. 😵

Take a look at the recent threads. It’s becoming a pattern: the veteran doctors are still out here running full epidemiological studies, while the younger specialists won't touch them. Why? Because the old guard is stuck in their ways, clinging to outdated methods instead of evolving. Honestly, how can they even justify making clinical decisions when they aren't getting any buy-in from the patient? Today's patients are more informed than those old-school practitioners give them credit for. They know what's going on.

Regarding her question about the Jehovah's Witness patient: if he refuses a transfusion, there's no surgery. It’s his right to decline treatment; a doctor isn't allowed to just force an operation on someone. You have to make sure he understands that he will die without the procedure—though, honestly, can anyone be 100% certain of that outcome? If he says no, you cannot perform the surgery against his will, provided he is legally competent. Are surgeons all-powerful? Not even close. Can anyone actually guarantee a 100% success rate? Of course not. You simply cannot operate against a person's wishes. Doctors aren't the masters of life and death.

That’s exactly why it works this way. People aren't perfect, and because of that imperfection, we have to be the masters of our own lives. We should have the final say over our own bodies. A doctor is a specialist, sure—an advisor, a guide—but they aren't God, and they certainly shouldn't be acting like a drill sergeant. A medical opinion shouldn't carry more weight than a person's own wishes. Take a Jehovah's Witness, for example. If they sit down, sign a legal document, and swear they don't want a blood transfusion, then that's the law. If they get into an accident and end up in a coma, you can't just override them. You respect their choice, even if it leads to death. In an emergency where there's no paperwork, then yeah, the doctor does what they think is best to save a life. But you can't force your will on a conscious patient. It's just not right.

Surgeons shouldn't be allowed to just stone people, but that idiot who thinks he’s God—deciding what to do with a patient against their express will—really belongs behind bars. It's basic autonomy. History shows us how dangerous that ego can get. Take Mengele, for instance. He was a doctor, and back then, the local laws and the surrounding environment gave him a free pass to run his horrific experiments on people. But does that make what he did right? Not even close. No amount of legal permission changes the fact that some actions are just plain evil.

History is full of medical treatments that were once standard practice before being tossed aside as complete failures. Given that track record, how can anyone justify forcing today's "correct" methods on people? It’s a dangerous precedent. Besides, the doctors always seem to walk away from their mistakes without ever facing any consequences.

Regarding Susan Martin24’s story about that woman who worked right up until her due date and then jumped back into the office just days after giving birth—look, it’s her choice. It’s her right. But that doesn't mean women who want to take more time off are somehow "gaming the system" or being lazy. That’s a total reach. The whole "returning in a few days" thing is just extreme. I mean, where is the connection to the baby? What about actually recovering from childbirth? Who is even watching the infant after forty-eight hours? It feels like she’s chasing a paycheck or a promotion at the expense of her own health and her child's well-being. Honestly, it's her life, but the whole situation leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I truly wish our laws allowed for much longer maternity leave.

Bottom line: I want my doctor to provide advice, guidance, and execution—but only on the things that I have personally signed off on.
So, let me be clear: it isn't exactly "lie down on the table and let me do whatever I want." 👎
"The diagnosis is this... here are our options... my advice to you is... do we have an agreement? Don't worry, I've been through this before. Now, just lie back and relax; I'm going to get started on exactly what we discussed." 👍

A little bit of time goes a long way when it comes to how a patient actually feels. Does Susan Martin24 honestly think people are just mindless cattle, or does she view them as conscious beings with their own fears and emotions? I wonder if she even realizes who is footing the bill for her salary—it's the very same people she refuses to actually consult about what they want from their treatment. Even regarding things like routine episiotomies, the medical consensus is clear: it isn't necessary as a standard practice. There should absolutely be room to respect a patient's wishes there.

Susan Martin24, look, you’re a pro, but this law is just plain ambiguous. It boils down to this: the doctor makes the call, they’re supposed to give the patient the facts, but if they don't? There are zero consequences. I can't get behind a law like that. It needs an overhaul.

I personally refuse to accept a system where some doctor decides to amputate my leg just because I have a toothache, and then gets off scot-free simply because his colleague covers for him.

Just imagine how a woman feels when she says, "I don't want an epidural," only for the doctor to snap back, "It's not your decision to make." She ends up feeling like nothing more than a slab of meat on an operating table. Is that really how things should be?

Here’s another helpful link to a citizens' advocacy group fighting to fix these issues:

The Hippocratic Oath? Please, don't make me laugh. It’s a joke. According to that oath, doctors are meant to help, but most of the time, they couldn't care less about the patients.

Grace Jackson11, I’m honestly relieved we managed to steer this whole argument toward something actually productive. 🙂 I think we can all agree that a personalized approach is non-negotiable here. As for the arguments regarding hospital bed availability or a doctor's busy schedule—I just can't buy it. Those aren't valid reasons to rush a labor and risk someone's safety.

I’ve been thinking quite a bit about this lately—mostly because I find myself weighing whether I truly want to have a child with my partner. It started as a simple curiosity, but I’ve really begun digging into how the whole process actually works, moving from casual conversations with my parents to some much deeper discussions with my significant other. To be blunt, my biggest concern is her well-being. I can't stand the thought of her going through unnecessary pain or dealing with long-term physical consequences. Honestly? The idea of childbirth itself is pretty terrifying to me, especially when you factor in complications. I think about things like an episiotomy and how those injuries don't always heal smoothly—unlike the experience Grace Jackson11 had. That kind of thing keeps me up at night.

I’m glad I did my homework on this. Now I know that if we ever decide to go that route, my wife is going straight to the Chief of Medicine to insist on skipping the episiotomy altogether. Private care isn't cheap, obviously, but if it saves us from unnecessary complications or lasting trauma, it’ll be worth every single penny. Honestly, when I’m under the weather, a little bit of empathy and a kind smile can do just as much good as any prescription.

Grace Jackson11 said:I’m not entirely convinced that we always have to let a woman have the final say on everything she wants. It's a complicated thought, I know. Sometimes, you just have to wonder if total autonomy is always the most practical path forward.

😲 I have to disagree here. A woman is the sole master of her own body, and at the end of the day, her decisions are the only ones that should carry weight. You might argue, "But what if everyone starts demanding elective surgeries?" My response is simple: then they should be fully informed about the pros and cons of every available option. If she truly wants it, can afford it, and knows exactly what she’s getting into, then she should be able to access high-quality care without anyone else playing judge.

Like Grace Jackson11 said, I really hope we haven't scared anyone off. Sometimes the facts are just plain unsettling, but honestly, it’s better to face the truth now than to be blindsided later. I have to admit, whenever I picture some guy in a white coat performing unnecessary procedures on my wife—just hacking away at sensitive areas without cause—it makes my blood boil. It’s an instinctive thing. My adrenaline spikes, and suddenly that protective urge turns into this raw, aggressive need to step in and defend her. I hope nobody takes offense at me being so blunt about it.

Grace Jackson11 said:That’s going to cost a million stitches and a whole lot of scarring.

That’s the defining moment, isn't it? Once someone decides that a path is worth taking, I genuinely wish them nothing but the best. But my hope is that they look beyond just the emotional impulse. It’s easy to follow your heart, but you really ought to weigh the practicalities—everything from the gritty, messy details to the actual finances and long-term responsibilities. If you can balance the passion with some cold, hard logic, you're much more likely to find lasting happiness and stability. As for me, I’m still standing by my own decision. Still working on it every single day.

If anyone else happens to have some intel or a similar experience to share, please feel free to chime in. I’m all ears.

So, why didn't you just report that sadistic director to the hospital board or the Department of Health? Why not file a lawsuit? Honestly, why didn't you track down his car and scratch the paint job? I mean, once your brother is back on his feet, why wouldn't he gather a few buddies and have a little chat with him—you know, a "hey, this isn't going to hurt a bit" kind of conversation? I’m not suggesting anything violent, obviously, but if you just corner him in a dark hallway and ask him very pointedly why he skipped the anesthesia, he might actually learn a lesson. Seriously, why is there no accountability here?

Grace Jackson11 said:Justin Fox, are you actually a guy?

Yes, I’m a man. Isn't that fairly obvious from my previous posts?

Grace Jackson11 said:It seems like you think an episiotomy is just setting the stage for tearing. I have to disagree. With my first baby—who was quite large, by the way—I had an incision, yet I didn't tear a single millimeter. Then, with my second, we skipped the incision entirely, and I ended up needing seventeen stitches and dealing with scars that I can still feel today. Experience is a funny thing, isn't it?

I’m not saying that an incision necessarily leads to tearing, but I do think it can make the tearing much worse. In your case, it's possible those initial cuts were totally unnecessary, though I am encouraged to hear you didn't suffer any lasting damage—that suggests an episiotomy doesn't always result in permanent injury. Still, just because your first experience was a positive one doesn't mean every cut goes smoothly. I've seen plenty of people deal with exactly the kind of issues you're describing specifically after an episiotomy.

In that second case, if things tore that badly, something clearly went sideways. Honestly, who’s to say if an episiotomy would have actually helped you? To me, it sounds like the tissue just wasn't ready—like the hormones hadn't quite done their job yet to prep everything. But your situation is different because you were dealing with a preterm labor, which is a whole different ballgame entirely. Looking back, do you think they should have just gone straight to a C-section? And I have to ask—did you end up filing any kind of lawsuit against the hospital or the doctor who handled your delivery?

Grace Jackson11 said:The incision from the surgery healed almost instantly. But that gunshot wound? That was a different story entirely. It hurt for weeks. I couldn't sit down for anything, so I ended up having to pee standing up just to get through it. Even now, eleven years later, I can still feel the scar "acting up" depending on where I am in my hormonal cycle. It’s strange how the body remembers.

Could you walk me through how that scar feels now, even after eleven years? I'm curious about when you hit that peak period of healing—was it around the two-year mark? Does it actually get in the way of your day-to-day life, or does it still cause you any real pain? Also, did you ever try any specific treatments for it? If so, what kind of methods did you go with?

Grace Jackson11 said:Ask my husband if he’d want to do that to his "dear wife."

I’d honestly rather ask him—just like I’d ask you—what exactly you did once that injury was inflicted. Did you actually make some noise about it, or did you just quietly take it on the chin?

Grace Jackson11 said:Let’s go back to basics here. An episiotomy is performed routinely specifically to prevent exactly what I went through. It just makes the whole delivery process smoother for everyone involved.

I couldn't disagree more. Your situation was a case of preterm labor, which changes the math entirely. Most medical studies actually contradict what you’re saying here. I get that you're hurting and dealing with an injury—that's heavy, and I'm sorry—but I really don't think an episiotomy would have changed the outcome for you. Don't you agree that we should let every woman decide what’s best for her own body? Wouldn't it be better if every expectant mother was fully briefed on the situation? We should show them the clinical photos, lay out the potential consequences objectively without pushing them toward or away from an episiotomy, and then just let them make the call during a standard delivery—based on the doctor's assessment, of course. It should be their choice.

Grace Jackson11 said:Given the way things are currently set up, I’d say routine procedures for everyone are better than doing nothing at all.

Absolutely not. You simply cannot take one single instance of preterm labor and use it as the foundation for an argument like that. 😠🙂

Grace Jackson11 said:And one more thing, those massages that are supposed to help you... for your dear...

I truly hope you're mistaken here. It feels less like you're trying to grasp the actual issue and more like you're judging based on a personal misfortune—which, for what it's worth, I am sorry you had to endure—but you're conflating two completely different things. Personally, as a man, I’d much rather undergo a massage several times over a procedure like cervical ripening. What if the massage doesn't work? Nothing happens. It isn't painful, it isn't invasive, and it certainly doesn't cause injury. If it does work? Then it's a win, and she avoids the complications you dealt with.

Thanks for sharing your own experience; I think it provides some useful context for everyone else reading this thread.

You say it tears, but honestly, it’s just whoever has bad luck whose tissue gives way. Besides, third and fourth-degree tears can still happen even after a medial episiotomy, right? Do you actually have statistics showing that massage helps? Do you agree that most people find relief from it? Personally, I think some folks definitely need the incision, but it shouldn't be treated as standard procedure for everyone.

Check out this article:
http://www.efn.org/~djz/birth/obmyth/epis.html
Right at the start, it says: "There is no evidence . . . that routine episiotomy reduces the risk of severe perineal trauma, improves perineal healing, prevents fetal trauma or reduces the risk of urinary stress incontinence." Sleep, Roberts, and Chalmers 1989

Bromberg MH writes in "Presumptive maternal benefits of routine episiotomy. J Nurse Midwifery 1986;31(3):121-127" that: "What little evidence exists in favor of episiotomy is over 60 years old and of poor methodology...some studies show an association between episiotomy and deep tears"

Take a look at this diagram for third-degree tears:
http://catalog.nucleusinc.com/enlarg...t.php?ID=10808
To me, a medial cut looks like an invitation for a tear. If things are going to rip, the incision just makes it go deeper.

Here is a photo of a mediolateral incision in vivo. Does this look like a bright idea to you?
http://www.sciencebasedbirth.com/Ima...2003/epis2.jpg
It looks like damage that will cause months of pain, infection, scarring, and maybe never fully heal. It could lead to lifelong discomfort during sex or even just sitting down—interfering with someone's life and career. In a word: a disaster.
Emotionally speaking, I would rather not have children at all than see someone I love go through that. A cut like that should never be performed by a doctor without explicit consent from the patient.

Grace Jackson11 said:Oh, come here, Justin Fox, please—let’s trade places. I ended up with seventeen stitches because I tore so badly, and the baby was tiny, barely even a pound or two. I was only seven and a half months along with my second child. Believe me, I would give anything for just one routine delivery and those few simple stitches I had after my first one.

It sounds like you went through a nightmare. Being seven and a half months along feels like a premature delivery; was it an emergency situation where things just moved too fast? Did you do any prep work, like prenatal massage? And how did you feel after your first birth, where you mentioned having an episiotomy (if I'm reading you right)?

I honestly believe routine episiotomies aren't just unnecessary—they’re actually harmful.

Look, if a baby is exceptionally large, there’s going to be some trauma regardless, and in those specific instances, maybe an incision makes sense. I can't say for sure.

But you can support the perineum manually; you can help guide the baby's head through

the process. A straight surgical cut might actually end up being deeper than a natural tear. I don't buy the argument that it’s easier to stitch up; it's just a clean line. If that cut goes deep into the muscle tissue, it’s arguably much worse than a superficial skin tear.

You have a point regarding our level of expertise here. I’m just offering my perspective, but I consider myself well-informed—perhaps even more so than certain doctors who haven't touched a piece of modern medical literature since they finished med school twenty years ago.

It seems to me that the medical establishment tends to ignore studies proving how damaging routine episiotomies can be. They ignore them because the system is notoriously slow to adopt new protocols.

I disagree with the idea that the doctor's involvement is neutral. If they perform the incision, they feel essential—they’re the center of the action. If they don't cut, they feel less needed. Some want to stay busy to maintain that sense of importance and, frankly, to ensure they get paid, since those procedures are billed heavily to Medicare.

rustymoose54 said:you didn't really offer any counterarguments: what happens if there's a tear (without proper stitches)? You're left with scars, wounds, and I assume, quite a bit of pain.

I honestly can't decide which is better—a routine episiotomy or just letting things happen "naturally." I'd love to hear from someone with more hands-on experience here.

Arguments? Fair enough. If you dig through some medical links or just do a quick Google search, you'll find roughly this:
- Tearing at the perineum during birth is actually quite rare. The body is incredibly elastic there, especially once those pregnancy hormones kick in.
- Most tears aren't catastrophic. They’re usually minor injuries that heal up just fine on their own, or maybe with one or two quick stitches.
- Tearing tends to happen more often when labor is being rushed. If things move at a slower pace, following the woman's rhythm, and if the perineum is supported and massaged properly, the chances of tearing drop significantly.
- Doing perineal massages during pregnancy can help increase tissue elasticity, which helps minimize the risk of tearing.
- Think of it like a piece of fabric. If you grab both ends and pull, it holds steady. But if you make a tiny snip in the middle and then pull? It rips right open. Human tissue works similarly: a cut acts as a stress point that encourages further tearing.
- Stitches can sometimes lead to further tearing that extends toward the anus, which can cause months of discomfort and complications.
- The idea that a clean incision heals better than a natural tear isn't necessarily true, especially if the stitching job itself isn't perfect.
- A tear might happen, but an incision is a guaranteed injury.
- In many cases, an episiotomy is unnecessary. It's better to prepare with massage and let labor progress naturally rather than cutting and dealing with the fallout.
- Unfortunately, much of the medical literature still frames the incision as a positive thing, but several clinical studies suggest otherwise. It seems like research findings don't always make it back into the textbooks—it takes forever in the medical world, probably a hundred years. Besides, if they don't perform the procedure, they have nothing to bill for.

Is that enough for you?

I was scrolling through some parenting forums recently, and honestly, it’s infuriating. You see these so-called "medical professionals" acting like routine episiotomies are just standard, unavoidable practice. When women come forward months later complaining about scarring, chronic pain, or other complications, these doctors just shrug it off with a dismissive, "Oh, that's perfectly normal."

How much longer are we supposed to tolerate this kind of incompetence? We have modern medical technology now, yet we're still dealing with practitioners who refuse to evolve and end up performing unnecessary procedures on women in labor. Why are we footing the bill for their outdated methods through our health insurance premiums? How do we actually hold them accountable? How do we stop this cycle?

The former minister from Hebrang just pointed out where he goes for private prostate surgery. If a guy like him doesn't know where the quality care is—or if he simply doesn't trust Medicare—then I think we all know exactly what that says about the system, don't we?

I remember one time I caught a nasty bout of the flu. It lasted about two days, but man, the fever was brutal. I could barely drag myself out of bed just to boil some water for tea. I actually kept my phone right next to the pillow, thinking if I couldn't even stand up, I’d need to call 911 immediately.

Since that scare, I've made it a point to get my shot every year. On the off chance I still catch something, it’s usually nothing major—just a mild temperature around 99 or 100 degrees. I just stay home, surf the web for a bit, and it passes quickly without any drama.

What kind of question is that? Of course you need to wash up a few times a day, otherwise you’re going to start smelling pretty bad.

You can always take a quick rinse—just hit the essentials with a light liquid soap and call it a day. But taking a proper, relaxing shower with nice warm water? You can do that as often as you like, provided you don't have skin issues, like a nasty sunburn or something.

Of course I got my flu shot this year. It’s become a bit of a ritual for me. Let the self-proclaimed geniuses who swear they have "superior immune systems" enjoy riding out high fevers and chills; I'll pass. It’s just a quick little poke in the arm—hardly worth the drama, and honestly, I haven't had any issues with it.

Regarding bird flu: getting the standard seasonal shot probably wouldn't hurt, though how much it actually helps depends entirely on how closely a mutated strain mimics the version we're vaccinated against.

If everyone actually stepped up and got vaccinated, we could probably wipe the flu off the map entirely. But then again, there’s always that certain type of person who thinks they’ve cracked the code on why they don't need medical science. 👎

What an absolute disaster of a mindset—thinking it’s somehow "normal" to bribe a surgeon just to get an operation done.

The guy is a hospital employee. He’s using hospital equipment and working within hospital facilities. If he takes cash under the table, he isn't just playing the naive person who hands it over; he’s straight-up stealing from the system. He’s essentially selling off something we all pay for through our health insurance. I honestly wonder why the police don't just send up undercover agents with envelopes to bust corrupt doctors in the act. That would wipe this out overnight. Of course, that assumes the judicial system actually works... otherwise, they either get a slap on the wrist or end up back on the streets immediately.

Jokes aside: you have to stand your ground and demand the medical care you're entitled to. I know plenty of people who needed surgery and got it without paying a dime extra. I also know cases where things went perfectly fine without any shady deals, as well as horror stories where someone paid a premium only to have everything go horribly wrong during the procedure. A bribe doesn't guarantee anything. It just lines the doctor's pockets.

Haha, there isn't any alcohol in Coca-Cola.
Besides, what exactly are you trying to blow up in a cop's face? 🙂

Cycling is solid, light walking helps, and hitting the gym is definitely a good idea—just don't go overboard. You shouldn't be pushing heavy weights if your knee isn't feeling 100%, and you want exercises that engage the whole leg at once. For example, a leg press is fine, but stay far away from leg extensions. Those isolate the quads too much and put way too much direct stress on the knee joint itself.

It’s been over a year since my surgery, and even with a steady workout routine, things still feel... off. It isn't exactly pain, per se, just a strange sensation that I can't quite shake. 😢

VILKO said:...And there you have it. The beautiful intersection of democracy and capitalism.

Look, things aren't exactly perfect in Australia, but it’s hardly a wasteland either. I honestly don't get why people love to bash Australia. It operates much like the US, and frankly, the way people treat one another is just as crappy here as it is in the States. Sure, the money isn't as massive as what you see in the US, but at least the beaches are decent.🙂

As for the bribery involving doctors in America, it’s absolutely disgusting. You have surgeons controlling the schedules for operating rooms and diagnostic equipment—equipment that was bought using the collective pool of our health insurance premiums. Then, these doctors conveniently carve out slots for "special cases"—you know, the ones with connections or those willing to grease a few palms. Essentially, they're stealing from everyone who pays into the system.👎

I suppose they argue that a certain amount of time has to be set aside for emergencies. So, naturally, they just label their "preferred" patients as emergencies. Who is going to police them? They all look out for each other; nobody is going to rat out a colleague. There needs to be a massive overhaul of the healthcare system...

If they don't ask for money upfront for a surgery, and if they haven't dropped any hints, I wouldn't give them a dime. I personally know of instances where procedures ended poorly because they were botched. This idea that they'll just perform a flawless surgery because they feel like it doesn't hold water for me. It’s a total lottery. In principle, they do what they can, which sometimes means they do it well, and sometimes it's a disaster.

The ones who actually demand cash should be reported immediately after the procedure.🙂

Trying to catch a fish with just a knife and some toothpicks isn't going to work. 😛
Killing a Cow with a knife is just as unrealistic.
The only thing you can actually grab without any gear at all is fruit.

So, here's the thing: your hypothetical scenario isn't really a choice, because two out of the three options are physically impossible.

Try looking at it this way: imagine you have a hand grenade (fishing), a rifle (the Cow), and an apple picker. No matter what you pick, you won't have trouble finding food. What do you choose? You’ll probably start with the fruit, move on to fishing, and once you get sick of fruit and fish, you'll go for the steak.

At the end of the day, by the time someone brings a steak to your plate, the Cow is long gone—and neither the cow nor the potatoes that keep it company would even exist if someone wasn't farming them for food.

The pro-life crowd is just a bunch of zealots who think they have a right to dictate how everyone else lives their lives. If they want to start having kids at eighteen, fine by me—biologically speaking, that’s peak fertility for women—but it’s a bit much to force that extreme on the rest of the population.

This specific breed of people, the ones lecturing others about abortion today, will be the same ones demanding censorship tomorrow, and before you know it, they'll be arguing that the FBI should have wiretaps on everyone.

To me, the whole thing feels dirty—this idea of meddling in someone else's business. Especially when a woman is already looking for information on how and where to go; she’s clearly already made up her mind.

Besides, no matter how uncomfortable an abortion might be, I’m fairly certain it’s less traumatic than being pregnant or dealing with the sheer intensity of childbirth, even if everything goes perfectly according to plan.