Look, Gerald Kern77, don't take it personally. I value experience, truly, but I just can't stand that gatekeeping mentality—that whole "if you haven't given birth, you can't understand" vibe. Or the "if you aren't a doctor, your opinion doesn't count" attitude.
You’ve shared an interesting post because of your personal experience, but honestly, I’m not really interested in whether you're a saint who handles pain perfectly, if you passed all your exams on time, or what your husband is like—I really couldn't care less about the domestic details.
In my view, using an episiotomy might make sense as a tool to speed things up in specific emergencies—say, if a baby is struggling for air mid-delivery and an express exit becomes necessary to prevent distress.
My take is that those who end up tearing will tear regardless, and perhaps they'll actually fare better without the incision; without an episiotomy, there might be less tearing and a smoother recovery. Of course, we can't say with absolute certainty if my theory holds water. If we compare two women, one who had an incision and one who didn't, there are so many variables people overlook: tissue quality, the speed of labor, age, preterm delivery, pelvic floor exercises, or how the perineum was supported during birth. My opinion is just a mix of what I've read in studies and what feels logically sound to me. I’m happy to admit I could be completely wrong, and I’d love to see that same level of openness from those who argue for the necessity of episiotomies. If only we could discuss this online without everyone getting their feelings hurt. 😢
I appreciate the concern, but there's no baby on the way here. I'm just gathering information and having a discussion—thankfully.
It’s always the same story when doctors make a call and there’s absolutely zero room for debate. Maybe some big-shot surgeon was rushing off to a gala in Manhattan and just snapped, "Look, I'm done here—deal with it yourself."
If you're actually planning on going to medical school, please: don't ever start treating patients like they're just pieces of meat. Don't forget for a single second that you're dealing with intelligent human beings—people with souls who feel pain, humiliation, and suffering just as deeply as anyone else.
I suppose people eventually start looking at the reality of the market and realize a few things: - Medical school is brutal. It’s an endless grind of rote memorization; it isn't something just anyone can pull off. You have to be willing to bleed for it. - It’s an incredibly long road. Between the degree itself and the years of residency and unpaid rotations, you’re looking at roughly twice the time commitment of a "standard" college degree. - The job market is pretty grim. There are way too many doctors and dentists out there right now. If you don't have the right connections, you're basically destined to end up working in some tiny, obscure town halfway across the country—assuming you even find a job at all. - Working conditions in healthcare are often subpar. We're talking outdated facilities, ancient equipment, a lack of basic supplies, and very little room to actually advance your skills. - Medicine is deeply hierarchical. There is always a director, a chief, or a supervisor hovering over you, ready to lean on you whenever they feel like it. - The whole system is disorganized. You can't just assume that finishing your studies means you'll make decent money or eventually have the capital to open your own private practice. - The best opportunities and locations usually go to the "nepo babies"—those with the right family ties. Even if you're actually talented, it doesn't help much. And even if your patients love you? That barely moves the needle. - Many practicing physicians find themselves squeezed between the rigid regulations of Medicare and the demands of their patients. Honestly, the whole situation can feel quite absurd. - Medical professions are extremely restrictive when it comes to mobility. Just because you finished school in one country doesn't mean you can just pack up and move to another. You have to master a new language and face massive exams—like spending years preparing for the USMLE here in the US—just to prove you actually know what you're doing. - The public image of doctors and the healthcare system in America is pretty poor. People see underfunded clinics, apathy, corruption, and a certain level of arrogance. It’s enough to make potential students think twice before even considering this career.
Gerald Kern77 As requested: You weren't there in the shop—but we were.
How can you possibly know whether I was there or not? And who exactly are you to judge? You had one single experience, and now you think you’re some kind of ultimate authority on everything.
Gerald Kern77 said:Decisions happen in an instant. You don't exactly have the luxury of sitting someone down to debate whether they need a procedure or not—especially when we're talking about just a few stitches. It’s one of those moments where you just act.
I have to disagree. You can easily have Doctor A coming to one conclusion while Doctor B lands on something else entirely. When that happens, the patient’s own wishes should carry the weight. Reality isn't some binary choice between black and white; most of the time, the truth is buried somewhere in the gray areas.
Gerald Kern77 Asks: If you go running to a lawyer before you even talk to your doctor, you're basically throwing precious time down the drain. Every minute counts in these situations. And honestly, for a young mother, the fallout can be so much more intense than just dealing with an episiotomy. It’s about the long-term impact, too.
Unless we’re talking about a true medical emergency—which, let's be honest, is rarely the case—there really is no need to rush. I’ve always felt that it's much better to let a woman labor at her own natural pace. If you try to force things to speed up, you’re just asking for trouble. In my experience, pushing for speed is exactly how unnecessary injuries happen. Slow and steady wins the race, especially in something this intense.
Gerald Kern77 said:I’m fully aware of how dangerous it is to cherry-pick facts. It’s a slippery slope. You start with one half-truth, and before you know it, you’ve built an entire reality that doesn't actually exist. I remember reading a study back in college—it was a long, tedious thing about cognitive bias—and it really drove home how easy it is to ignore anything that contradicts what we already believe. We all do it, whether we like to admit it or not. It's just human nature to look for confirmation rather than the truth.
I agree. At the end of the day, it’s only human for everyone to make their own calls based on what they feel is right. If someone is giving professional advice, sure, they ought to be objective. But you and I? We aren't professional consultants. We're just people trading thoughts on the internet.
Gerald Kern77 said:Someone who would toss their professional ethics out the window just for a bit of money... that’s not a doctor I’d ever trust with my life.
Can you not see that professional standards are often left completely undefined? Medicine isn't God; more often than not, it’s just someone fumbling around in the dark. Standard protocols vary wildly from one country to the next—doesn't that prove, at least occasionally, that they contradict themselves? Would you ever actually trust someone who makes decisions just because it’s convenient for them? Honestly, I find myself wondering about that more often than I should. It’s one thing to make a mistake—we all do, even me when I tried to fix my own plumbing last summer (let's just say I won't be winning any awards there)—but choosing the easy path over the right one? That’s a different breed entirely. It erodes everything. Once you realize someone is prioritizing their own comfort over the actual mission, the trust is pretty much gone. There's no coming back from that.
Gerald Kern77 said:It’s true—money can buy just about any kind of nonsense you can dream up. People spend fortunes on everything from massive cosmetic surgeries to those desperate attempts at "restoring innocence." But just because someone has the cash doesn't mean they're making a smart move. Money doesn't equal common sense.
I agree that most people aren't looking for that, but we’re talking about the desires of free individuals here. If someone truly wants larger breasts and is fully prepared to foot the bill and undergo the surgery, who exactly has the right to tell them they can't buy it?
Gerald Kern77 Asks: As for that "Dream Clinic" business... it’s giving me major Republican Party vibes.
It sounds pretty good on the surface. If the Republican Party actually wants to get somewhere, they’d probably want to hear some specifics about what exactly isn't working over there. At least this way, someone is out there making a promise like, "We’re going to look out for you." To me, that feels a lot more inviting than hearing, "We’re going to starve you out, treat you poorly, and just do whatever the hell we feel like doing."
Gerald Kern77 said:I was sitting for my board exams once a week before giving birth, and then had to go right back at it three weeks after. I passed, by the way.
I assume you had your kids quite young. You have to realize that some women wait until they’re 30, 35, or even 40 to start a family, and for them, it isn't exactly the same experience as it is for a twenty-year-old. For those women, we’re talking about genuine health risks and a massive life event. Some people simply don't give a damn about the exams or tests; maybe they passed them fifteen years ago and now they just want to have a baby and come out of it in one piece. Whether the recovery takes three days or fifteen might be a minor detail to them—what actually matters is being able to function normally in a month, being able to walk and sit without being in constant pain. 😢
Gerald Kern77 said:I really put my faith in the doctors. I truly believed they had everything under control.
There’s a certain kind of bliss in ignorance. At least when everything turns out alright in the end.🙂
Susan Martin24 said:Sure, I’m "some kind of" doctor... but you, Justin Fox, are an incurable paranoid—potentially dangerous to yourself and everyone around you. Honestly, I just feel for the poor woman who ends up having your kids. My heart goes out to her.
It seems Susan Martin24 has developed this habit where she just can't stand anyone disagreeing with her. The moment someone offers a different perspective, she snaps and starts throwing insults around. It’s a rather poor reflection on her professionalism, especially regarding how she carries herself and her supposed level of decorum. I suppose everyone is respected as long as there are fewer than two doctors in the room—otherwise, the math of being "the best" gets a bit fuzzy, doesn't it? I can't recall ever seeing her actually admit to being wrong. I won't descend to her level by trading insults directly, but honestly, I feel for her patients if this is how she treats people in private. She promised she wouldn't weigh in on this topic anymore, didn't she? If you don't have anything constructive to add, it's probably best to just stay quiet.
Susan Martin24 said:As for your little theory about heading back home to Feldbach and letting patients dictate their own surgical incisions because they supposedly know best... honestly, man, pull yourself together.
Right, because clearly, patients are just mindless cattle. Brilliant insight, Doctor! I’ve got an idea: let's add a label next to the physician's name for those who think patients are nothing more than livestock. We could split insurance into two tiers—human and cattle—with entirely separate funding pools. That way, everyone can choose whichever plan suits them, and doctors could be paid strictly based on which pool they draw from and how well they perform.
How could they even attempt this without anesthesia? She’d be in such agony she'd start thrashing around, and then they'd end up cutting something they shouldn't have... it's just impossible.😕
Kate Garcia2, of course we’re just exchanging ideas here. I’m writing about this because I want to raise awareness about the issue. My stance has always been that everyone has to make their own call—based on solid, unbiased information. I would never dream of imposing a decision on someone else, especially not someone dear to me. You present the facts, you offer whatever help is needed, but the final choice belongs to the mother. It’s her body, her health, and her life.
As for doctors, they’ll do whatever you ask; it really just comes down to what you’re willing to pay. In some places, you can even opt for an elective C-section—you simply state your preference and arrange it. Medically speaking, there isn't definitive proof that one way is inherently better than the other. When I look at the statistics, they often feel heavily biased, clearly written to support the author's specific agenda.
There is a very insightful article regarding episiotomies available here:
I am firmly convinced that routine episiotomies are a mistake, except in extreme emergencies where a birth needs to be accelerated immediately. A routine incision is nothing more than an unnecessary procedure, carrying all the usual surgical risks and trauma.
In the US, you have options too, provided you coordinate with your medical team: you can request a water birth, ask to avoid incisions, opt for a C-section, or request a private room—all of course, for a price. Some hospitals aren't equipped for everything, but if you put in the effort to find the right facility with the right staff, you can get almost anything you want.
That works fine if things are calm. But if it’s an emergency and you’re stuck with whoever is on call, you might try to appeal to them quickly, waving cash around or even mentioning a lawyer. If they remain uncooperative or stubborn, though, they’ll simply do exactly what they please.
That’s the part that truly haunts me: imagine a woman who means everything to you screaming in agony, while some grumpy nurse yells at her to shut up, or a doctor refuses pain medication and tells the nurse to cut her anyway, despite her protests. What is a husband supposed to do then? Just sit there and weep? 😢 Should he pull out a gun? 🙂 To me, the scene feels akin to passively watching someone assault your wife. And if you walk away, it’s as if you’re letting it happen behind closed doors while you stand by doing nothing.
When I think about it that way, it seems much better to go somewhere where pregnant women are actually respected. On certain forums, they mention that places like Feldbach in Austria are incredibly humane and allow for real negotiation. I’ve heard great things about experiences in Germany, too. Kindness, humanity, and actual freedom of choice. Even if the end result is the same, why go through the unnecessary suffering? How much is it worth to be treated like a human being—an intelligent, emotional person—rather than just a piece of meat?
Just look at the posts from Susan Martin24, who seems to be some kind of doctor—for her, there is only one "correct" path, dictated solely by the letter of the law and her own interpretation of it. She usually makes good points, but occasionally, unfortunately, she ignores the patient's humanity and overlooks the reality that doctors can sometimes be lazy or simply unwilling to go the extra mile.
Read the post about Feldbach over at The woman there describes beautifully what she disliked about the system here and why she’ll head to that location next time. To me, that sounds more than reasonable. I’m not an advocate for C-sections; I’m an advocate for whatever is best for the woman. If some want a C-section, let them. If others want a natural birth, let them have that too. 👍 Patient rights and dignity 👍 👎 Incompetence and the sheer arrogance of medical staff 👎
Well, Susan Martin24 is back. My absolute favorite, my dear 😘 It’s a real blessing that Susan Martin24 writes for the greater good of the community rather than just for her own amusement.
If only she could grasp the fact that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. We don't all have to think alike; if we did, we’d be an anthill instead of a society. Just because we disagree doesn't mean the best way to settle things is to grab a bison femur and see who survives the brawl. 😉
Susan Martin24 said:Justin Fox, the law is quite clear: maternity leave kicks in four weeks before the expected due date. There’s no room for sentimentality here. No employer is going to gift you eight months of psychological preparation and downtime for motherhood.
I’m just now getting through your post. I suppose if it's written in the law, you have a right to it. Regardless, I know from experience that in the real world, women often go on medical leave much earlier. It’s highly individual—a woman says she’s pregnant and feeling unwell, and a doctor will generally write her a note. Personally, I’m fine with that. It’s a unique life event that happens once or twice for most people. From a social standpoint, it makes sense too. Just because the law defines things strictly doesn't mean I have to believe the law is perfect. Laws are frequently flawed and subject to change; if this one is overly rigid, then I’m all for changing it. Changing it so that pregnant women have more rights.
Following your logic, you could argue: he went skiing, broke his leg—well, that's his own fault, so he should pay for his own treatment and receive zero disability benefits, because if he hadn't picked such a risky sport, he wouldn't have been injured. If we follow that path, we might as well scrap insurance altogether and move to a pure cash-and-carry system where nobody cares about anyone else. Look, I'm a proponent of the market and capitalism, but not a totally wild, unchecked version where absolutely everything is up for sale—including human life and health.
Susan Martin24 said:Work is a necessity and an obligation.
I really don't care for that view. Work is something people do to earn a living. For the vast majority, it is a necessity—a fundamental need to put food on the table. As for being an "obligation," no one is forced; if someone doesn't want to work, they don't have to, just as you said. I see why payments would be made: because she is pregnant, to support the birth of a child. The same applies to postpartum support and healthcare coverage. Not everything is driven by the market; there is also a social element—solidarity, helping those who are vulnerable.
Susan Martin24 said:Public daycare, which is already drained by various thefts and a shadow economy that fails to fill the federal treasury, simply can't afford it here.
I would much rather see theft and embezzlement reduced than see aid to those in need cut. Why does the American system have to be so broken? Why is it acceptable for us to say, "There's too much corruption, so we can't help the poor"? Let's stop the theft first, and then let the funds be used for their intended purposes. This is a perversion: allowing massive amounts of money to be stolen or embezzled while the vulnerable suffer.👎
granitebadger25 said:Lettuce, what kind of edge do medical professionals actually have at the bank? 🙂 I honestly haven't a clue. 😕 Shoot me a DM and walk me through it. 😁
They get assigned a private banker. It’s basically just a persistent pest who calls you constantly to push credit cards and loans you never asked for. Anyone the bank deems "wealthy enough" gets one of these people. I used to have one myself, and frankly, I'm glad that chapter is closed.
It’s like walking into a grocery store: customer: "Can I just get a gallon of milk?" private banker: "Well, it's not quite that simple, but for someone of your stature, we can make an exception. Just give me fifteen minutes to check on that—in the meantime, would you be interested in 40 pounds of bread? Oh, and some cat food?" 😬
I’ve known quite a few doctors since my college days, and I think you hit the nail on the head: those who commit to that grueling, marathon stretch of schooling basically know what they're signing up for. They understand from day one that landing a decent job will be an uphill battle, especially in a major hub like Washington, D.C. Getting into a residency—specifically the specialty you actually care about—is a nightmare because most of the prime spots are essentially grandfathered in for the children of various hospital directors. They know they’ll have to play the political game, kissing up to the higher-ups and occasionally stabbing colleagues in the back just to get ahead. In about 90% of the cases I've seen, what keeps them going is the allure of becoming part of that inner circle—those prestigious, powerful, untouchable types.
As for the patients? Most of these doctors couldn't care less. Some would happily use people as lab rats; it's rare to see any actual empathy. You really have to sit there in silence while they recount stories over coffee, laughing about the ridiculous things patients have done. To them, a patient isn't a person anymore—they're just... well, some sort of lower life form. Just annoying pests from a desperate crowd looking for something from the "distinguished" doctors.
When you hear the stories—surgeons grabbing drinks right before an operation, or patients lying wide open on the operating table for ages because some director is stuck in administrative limbo, or even how they keep people hospitalized longer than necessary just to bill the Social Security Administration for extra bed days... honestly, it's revolting. 👎
I’ve been there myself, honestly. It usually hits when the stress levels peak. I’ll take a week off—maybe head out to a quiet spot in the Rockies—and once I finally settle down, the whole thing just dissipates. Or sometimes, if I just manage to catch my breath, it passes on its own after a little while.
Frank Alvarez8 said:Don't get me wrong, I'm against routine episiotomies too, but if one becomes absolutely necessary, I won't be the one making the final call on whether it happens or not.
So, we both agree that routine episiotomies should be out of the question.
Where we diverge is the issue of patient rights. In my view, a patient should authorize their doctor regarding specific procedures before any surgery takes place.
The real headache with an episiotomy is the lack of consensus. You'll have one doctor insisting it's vital while another argues it's actually harmful in certain scenarios. It leaves you wondering who to trust—is it something you want, or not? It’s fundamentally wrong for a woman's decision to hinge entirely on which doctor happens to be on shift. If the medical experts aren't 100% certain about the best course of action, then the patient's wishes ought to take precedence. We have older studies suggesting they're beneficial, yet more recent research indicates they're largely detrimental.
If a woman makes it clear before the procedure that she doesn't want an episiotomy, that choice should be respected. Of course, if a doctor determines during labor that it’s an emergency, they can seek permission from her or, if she's unable to communicate, from her husband afterward.
jadesailor14 said:I think you've wandered quite far off the mark with some of the nonsense you've posted here.
To me, your post sounds like nothing more than an intolerant, shapeless mess.
jadesailor14 said:I’m choosing to stay on the sidelines here. I really don't have the energy to debate someone who clearly hasn't done the homework, nor do you actually have any expertise in this field. Besides, you aren't a mother, and you never will be.
Fine, just go ahead and call me an idiot. It’s a classic move when you can't actually dismantle my points with anything resembling logic. If you don't have a counterargument, why bother? I know this isn't my specific field of expertise, but that doesn't mean my reasoning is flawed—it's like saying a male surgeon couldn't understand how a heart works just because he hasn't had one opened himself. If you've got nothing substantive to add, feel free to just sit this one out.
jadesailor14 said:Honestly, this is one of those massive, glaring idiocies. Pain is pretty much a universal constant—it hits everyone the same way. But I suppose some people just have a higher baseline for tolerance than others. It’s a matter of upbringing, culture, or maybe just a bit of common sense. Some folks actually possess enough restraint to keep from screaming at everyone else, and they don't go around playing the martyr just because they had a rough patch in their past.
Pain is subjective. It’s one of those things where everyone seems to have their own internal thermostat for discomfort. Some people can shrug off a broken bone like it was nothing, while others might be sidelined by a headache. We all just have different thresholds. I fail to see how culture has anything to do with physical pain. If someone is hurting, they should seek help. Period. Are you actually suggesting that people ought to just suffer in silence—suppressing their own agony just so they don't become an inconvenience to everyone else around them?
jadesailor14 said:You're going for it! Let's go! That’s some heavy-duty data right there. Quite a bit to wrap one's head around. Even the most out-of-touch old lady in the middle of nowhere knows that.
What was the author actually getting at there? Are we just throwing around profanity for no reason, just to try and look tougher than we actually are?
jadesailor14 said:I’m having a bit of trouble following your train of thought here. I don't quite grasp the logic you're using. I suppose I should have mentioned this earlier, though I tend to dwell on things longer than necessary. Regarding the epi... well, it’s a bit of a mess, isn't it? I was sitting in my study yesterday, staring at a stack of papers, thinking about how much easier life would be if we just had some clear direction for once. It reminds me of that old lecture I attended back in college—nothing fancy, just a quiet afternoon in a dusty hall—where they talked about the unpredictability of systems. We often think we can map everything out, but then reality hits. It's like trying to predict the weather in Chicago; you think you're prepared, and then the wind shifts and ruins your entire afternoon. Anyway, I digress. My point is, we need to look closer at the data before we jump to any sweeping conclusions. Let's be methodical about this. 👎 But man, it’s absolutely top-tier. 👍 A minor intervention? Honestly, I wouldn't bother. It feels like a lot of fuss for very little payoff. But if you're looking at the larger scale—the bigger move—now that’s where the real value lies. It's just better that way. 😕
On the contrary, you haven't just taken my posts the wrong way—you’ve completely missed the point entirely. It seems like you’ve already built up these rigid, preconceived notions about everything, so actual facts don't really seem to interest you. Go ahead, tell me that my points about patient dignity and basic rights are invalid, just because you think I'm an idiot or because you're feeling frustrated.
My logic is pretty straightforward: I look for what works best, dive into the statistics, and listen to people’s actual experiences to see if there's anything worth learning. You see cases where C-sections go incredibly smoothly, and then you have vaginal births that turn into absolute nightmares. Personally, I’m definitely against routine episiotomies. To me, they just seem harmful and completely unnecessary. routine application. In my view, if anyone should be making that call, it’s the patient. It feels wrong for a doctor to decide whether to cut or not if they've been preemptively restricted from doing so. I'm honestly not convinced an episiotomy ever actually helps unless we're talking about a life-or-death emergency where birth needs to be accelerated immediately. If it isn't an emergency, I think an episiotomy is just unnecessary mutilation. It would be much better to prepare with massage, using an Epi-No device, supporting the perineum combined with gentle pushing—which requires actual cooperation from the medical staff—and a slower delivery process. I don't think it's right to hook up an IV drip, slice things open, and rush through it just because it's more convenient for the hospital staff. Patients aren't in the hospital for the doctors; doctors are there for the patients.
I am certain there isn't a single "best" solution for everyone, precisely because people vary so much from one person to the next. We aren't just talking about pain thresholds, either; you have to consider fetal positioning, age, tissue elasticity, personal preferences, and a whole host of other factors.
My stance is that every laboring woman deserves, first and foremost, dignified treatment, unbiased information, and a choice in their birthing method. She should be the master of her own body, and she absolutely has the right to support from society both before and after pregnancy (through maternity leave, disability, and so on).
The whole hospital situation is such a mess. You have one right, then you negotiate another, and suddenly you’re being treated like a third party who just has to suck it up. It feels like they suddenly grow vampire fangs when they realize protecting their own interests—or the interests of some VIP patient—is more important than yours.
I came across some interesting data from Switzerland: apparently, the ideal way to handle childbirth (balancing maternal recovery and infant risk) is a smooth vaginal birth followed immediately by a planned C-section, which avoids many long-term complications. In Switzerland, they actually respect a woman's wish for an elective C-section; if she asks, the hospital is obligated to provide it.
It seems like an elective C-section is actually a smart move to bypass unnecessary pain and trauma. They say it essentially trades unknown risks for known ones. Here in the States, doctors act like they hold the ultimate veto on whether a C-section happens, though I suspect if you’re persistent enough, you can get it. You just cycle through a few different Doctors until you find one with enough empathy to write *sectio caesarea* on your chart.
Of course, it’s surgery, and it costs twice as much as a standard delivery. That’s why doctors try to pull the decision away from the patient and keep it in their own hands. I think that’s wrong. A patient is a conscious human being capable of making informed choices, not just cattle to be processed. As for the cost, if the woman hadn't decided to get pregnant, there wouldn't be any delivery costs at all. The C-section should be part of that overall package covered by Medicare; it's what social solidarity is supposed to be about.
Now, everyone is going to come for me again, but for those of you attacking my view, think about this: if a woman is genuinely afraid, and if a C-section is a proven, safe method, where is your authority to deny her a procedure that protects her health? Why force her through dozens of hours of Pitocin, agony, tearing, and risks to the baby, like potential bone fractures?
Regarding maternity leave: sure, strictly speaking, people might call it an abuse of the system, but the criteria for determining if a pregnancy requires medical leave are incredibly vague. How much vomiting or pain do you really have to endure before it qualifies? To me, letting a pregnant woman take leave immediately is both sensible and humane.
If we’re really going to hunt for "abuses," let’s look elsewhere first. Let's focus on the directors of local clinics buying bizarre, useless equipment, or the mismanagement within Medicare. Let's talk about the massive spending on veteran affairs, or the corporate privatizations that gutted the American economy, or the bureaucracy that keeps this country from standing on its feet. Or better yet, let's look at our tragic legal system, where lawsuits drag on for years and certain criminals walk free because of technicalities in how the law defines anatomy. 😲 Sorry, I went on a bit of a tangent there, but those are the real issues. Just because a law is flawed doesn't mean we should support treating people inhumanely in the name of following it.
When it comes to taking maternity leave early in a pregnancy, I honestly think it’s the smartest move a person can make. Why? 1. You dodge all that unnecessary workplace stress right when you need peace most. 2. It gives you the space to actually focus on yourself: exercising, getting your head in the right place, eating well (personally, my job is usually just a frantic dash from one meeting to the next, a quick grab at some mediocre takeout for lunch, and then dragging myself home totally drained—leaving zero energy for a workout or even cooking a decent meal). 3. You really can't predict how a pregnancy will feel. It isn't an illness, strictly speaking, but physiologically, the symptoms can feel just as debilitating. It's only humane to allow sick leave when someone genuinely feels unwell. 4. Society should support this; giving pregnant women those nine months of paid leave is socially responsible. We're talking about the continuation of our species here. Pregnancy should be eased, not made harder. Expectant mothers shouldn't have to worry about how they'll manage while dealing with a growing belly. 5. Let's be real: nobody is indispensable. For many, their own pregnancy is far more important than the office paperwork they've been grinding through for years. If someone needs to stay home, let them take the leave.
The whole topic is technically off-topic; it belongs in Law or Politics.
Regarding the stitches, I don't quite get how it could have hurt so much around the old scar—it's as if the local anesthesia didn't even touch that specific spot. A strange phenomenon. You really could have asked for extra numbing.
Megan Patel49 said:Justin Fox, if you actually mean what you just wrote, I should remind you that we live in a nation governed by laws, and no one has the right to play judge, jury, and executioner.
Well, since I have a nagging feeling you’re just looking for a reaction, I honestly hope you—or someone close to you—finds yourself in this exact same situation one day. Then you can repeat those same lofty words to whoever is standing over you. ☕
I put it plainly: if the justice system works, use it. If it doesn't, then someone else might feel compelled to step in and deliver it. I truly hope the system holds up, but I’m saying this to make it clear that even if things fall apart, there are always two sides to every fight.
Susan Martin24 made a good point about communicating with patients, and I'm 100% on board with that. I’d just add one thing: give them a choice. Not everyone handles pain the same way; not everyone is some stoic hero. A little sedative or local anesthetic wouldn't hurt anyone. If she wants to wander around after surgery without any pain relief, that’s her prerogative, but it shouldn't have to be mine.
To whole thing about leaving the baby behind doesn't feel existential to me. It sounds more like a question of priority, like: "My career comes first, I'm making this sacrifice, blah blah." Honestly, that attitude rubs me the wrong way, but hey, if that's someone's preference, far be it from me to judge.
What does postpartum period mean here? Are you talking about the recovery time after giving birth?
Thanks for sharing such an interesting experience. Like you said, every single body is different. For some people, everything just goes smoothly and naturally, while others end up dealing with some nasty complications regardless of how careful they are. I find it interesting that the incision didn't cause you long-term issues—it seems like in most cases, a cut just heals up and leaves nothing behind but a scar.
Why was the stitching painful for you? Didn't they give you local anesthesia?
I'm glad everything went well for you. Congratulations! 🙂
Why would expert care be a bad thing? He’ll be getting his tests done by actual professionals, which means he gets real results. If something isn't adding up, the man can just carry those findings with him and present them to other specialists for follow-up diagnoses. Honestly, since he's paying out of pocket anyway, maybe the specialists will actually give him more attention than they do the patients relying on Medicare.
The only downside is the cost. He might be able to dodge some of that by having his primary care physician handle part of it, then using those specific symptoms—like that constant, pounding headache—to get referrals for the rest. I imagine navigating the referral system takes forever. If he’d rather shell out the cash $667 than spend hours (how many?) sitting in waiting rooms, well, that's his call.
Here’s a link regarding perineal support—it basically involves using your fingers to support the tissue so the baby's head doesn't cause a tear: http://www.moondragon.org/pregnancy/...homebirth.html
Or, to put it more concisely, they call it "perineal support, a type of counter pressure to the stretching from the baby's head, to help prevent a tear" over at http://www.birthingnaturally.net/bir...ions/push.html
As for the main topic: "Studies have found that episiotomy is not an effective way to prevent a tear, and may increase the likelihood of a deeper tear. On average an episiotomy takes 3 months to heal."
Do you have any recommendations regarding birth methods, how to communicate with Doctors, or choosing a facility?
Also, here is a link to a device that’s supposed to help with perineal training—essentially to prevent tearing so you can avoid an episiotomy: http://www.avoidepisiotomy.com/epi_n..._training.html
For those planning to give birth outside of the States: I’m no expert, but I suspect if women work right up until the end of their pregnancy, the babies might be smaller. If someone takes maternity leave early just to stay off their feet, the baby's size might increase, which could lead Doctors to suggest a C-section because of the weight. Physically, that's usually tougher than a natural birth, though mentally, it might actually be easier.