Tanner-'op wrote:

Regarding home birth.. I can't let some of the comments go un-
answered! Homebirth is as safe as hospital birth for normal
low-risk births based on the statistics, this is with trasfers to
hospital taken into account.

Bollox of course it isnt, you have no access to back up facilities.
You are simply a potencial burden to the ambulance service.

What about you then Dave - a die hard smoker? There are more
deaths/problems from lung cancer caused by smoking than home births -
so that make you a "potencial (sic) burden" not only to ambulance
service, but also to the various departments of the local hospital
for many years!

But my early death will save a fortune on pensions & care.

Obviously hospital is needed in some situations
but these things rarely happen suddenly without warning. This is my
fourth baby but first home birth. First three very straight-forward
but hospital was just a really unpleasant experience for me, I
really want the full attention of a midwife and to be in my own
relaxing surroundings. The only differences for me will be...

That you are getting the extra attention you crave. Never mind the
extra cost to all of us via the NHS.

What about you and that filthy smoking habit you have getting the
attention that you crave of the NHS? - Not to mention your kids
passive smoking as well!

I don't crave the attention of the NHS, in fact I'd like them to leave me
alone & stop lecturing me. My kids don't passive smoke, they don't live at
home.

a) I'll have the full attention of a midwife throughout

But not the attention of a fully staffed NHS unit with access to
every possible resoursce you might need.

But surely the lady is saving the NHS some cash?

Unless a problem occurs.

b) I'll be able to use the pool for relaxation and pain relief (have
used before but not allowed last time due to hospital staff issues -
def. does give pain relief, at least it did to me)

And its 'trendy'. You have endless material to bore the arse off
people at dinner parties when you talk about your 'birthing
experience'.

A bit like you and the not so subliminal span in this group for the
Medway Handyman "look how good *I* am, after all I'm "recommended" by
trading standards" - now whose a "boring" *and* arrogant b****rd?

Why would I want to spam a DIY group, most of whom live well away from my
operating area.? And I don't use the sig that mentions trading standards
anymore.

c) I won't have to travel in the middle of labour and then possibly
wait around and argue to be allowed into the delivery suite.

But if anything goes toes up you cause the NHS sh*t loads of extra
time & expense.

Lets see what extra time and expense you are going to cause in the
future with that smoking habit of yours.

Smokers are less of a burden, we contribute between 5 & 7 times what it
costs the NHS to treat us. One of the highest tobacco taxes in the world


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"John Stumbles" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 20:08:14 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:

My first delivery - face to pubes, stirrups, 23 hours - was awful but
once the agony has gone you really do forget it.

If what you said HAD been true there would be far more one-child
families
:-)))

I thought it was almost a truism that it was only the "once the agony has
gone you really do forget it" phenomenon that accounted for families of
more than one child!

It is.

There are other reasons for multi-child families.

Lust is a powerful urge ...

Mary

wrote in message
...


... Obviously the hospital stuff is
crucial when things go wrong and we're lucky to have all that too -
wouldn't want to be without it.

Two of our grandchildren were born very quickly at home after daughter in
law had been booked into hospital - she had very quick and easy births. One
was during a violent snow storm when the ambulance couldn't get to her, the
other was when she was already in Stage 2 when the ambulance arrived.

On both occasions it was insisted that she went to hospital - after the
process was complete - and stay for a couple of hours.

Of course it was an unnecessary interruption of the first hours with the
babies and a waste of NHS money and services, we all thought, but their
records had to be straight, it seemed.

Mary

"Tanner-'op" wrote in message
...

Regarding home birth.. I can't let some of the comments go un-
answered! Homebirth is as safe as hospital birth for normal low-risk
births based on the statistics, this is with trasfers to hospital
taken into account.

Bollox of course it isnt,

He's an expert?

Mary

Mary Fisher wrote:
wrote in message
...


... Obviously the hospital stuff is
crucial when things go wrong and we're lucky to have all that too -
wouldn't want to be without it.

Two of our grandchildren were born very quickly at home after
daughter in law had been booked into hospital - she had very quick
and easy births. One was during a violent snow storm when the
ambulance couldn't get to her, the other was when she was already in
Stage 2 when the ambulance arrived.
On both occasions it was insisted that she went to hospital - after
the process was complete - and stay for a couple of hours.

Of course it was an unnecessary interruption of the first hours with
the babies and a waste of NHS money and services, we all thought, but
their records had to be straight, it seemed.

Simply the crew covering their backs Mary. Had anything gone wrong, however
unlikely, they would have been in big trouble. Management don't back up the
staff.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...


There are other reasons for multi-child families.

Its about time the benefits system was changed.

On 7 Sep, 00:02, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:
wrote:
On 6 Sep, 20:54, Owain wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
oblong wrote:
I'm planning a home birth
Why don't you just go to hospital like normal people?

Well, this is a DIY group.

Owain

(I am the OP, I posted using wrong account before)

lol! *Yes, all you uk-diy-ers ought to be well into home births!

Thanks for the (relevant) responses, I'm reassured, I'll put the pool
over the load-bearing wall as it's a reasonable place to put it
anyway.

Regarding home birth.. I can't let some of the comments go un-
answered! *Homebirth is as safe as hospital birth for normal low-risk
births based on the statistics, this is with trasfers to hospital
taken into account.

Bollox of course it isnt, you have no access to back up facilities. *You are
simply a potencial burden to the ambulance service.

I know it seems counter-intuitive but it is a fact. In hospital
intervention often leads to further intervention which can sometimes
lead to problems that wouldn't have arisen otherwise, this is often
due to trying to 'hurry things up'.

Obviously hospital is needed in some situations
but these things rarely happen suddenly without warning. *This is my
fourth baby but first home birth. *First three very straight-forward
but hospital was just a really unpleasant experience for me, I really
want the full attention of a midwife and to be in my own relaxing
surroundings. *The only differences for me will be...

That you are getting the extra attention you crave. *Never mind the extra
cost to all of us via the NHS.

If you think having the attention of a midwife while in established
labour is 'attention-seeking', then yes, I am. I think every woman
should be able to have this.

a) I'll have the full attention of a midwife throughout

But not the attention of a fully staffed NHS unit with access to every
possible resoursce you might need.

There are plenty of hospital maternity units that don't have
pediatrics / anaesthestatists / obstetricians, the NHS advocates this
type of non-medical environment for normal births. Access to those
things is available, just not in the same building.

b) I'll be able to use the pool for relaxation and pain relief (have
used before but not allowed last time due to hospital staff issues -
def. does give pain relief, at least it did to me)

And its 'trendy'. *You have endless material to bore the arse off people at
dinner parties when you talk about your 'birthing experience'.

You couldn't be more wrong about that. Maybe elsewhere in the
country.. where I live it's not popular or 'trendy' at all (about one
home birth a month in the county), I've not discussed it at all with
most of my friends and virtually all of the people I work with day-to-
day have no idea where I plan to have my baby.

c) I won't have to travel in the middle of labour and then possibly
wait around and argue to be allowed into the delivery suite.

But if anything goes toes up you cause the NHS sh*t loads of extra time &
expense.

I don't really understand that, why would anything go wrong at home
that wouldn't have gone wrong in hospital.. causing exactly the same
expense apart from maybe an ambulance journey. It's still cheaper for
the NHS overall. Home births are cheaper to the NHS than hospital
births http://www.homebirth.org.uk/homebirt...average%20cost

d) I'll be able to move around and not forced to lie on a bed being
monitored
e) I'll avoid not-needed interventions (experienced twice)
f) It'll be a great experience as opposed to a mildly traumatic one.

Grow up & get used to it FFS. *Our NHS isn't perfect but it's probably the
best in the world. *The nature of the *beast is that you become a number.

I have nothing against the NHS. The NHS is very supportive of home
births and midwives are part of the NHS too. Giving birth is very
different to other hospital procedures, your body does it itself, the
hospital doesn't (and shouldn't) 'make it happen' unless there's a
serious problem.

jb.

--
Dave - The Medway Handymanwww.medwayhandyman.co.uk

John Rumm wrote:
oblong wrote:

Reading around, it seems like the main risk is rotten joists / beans
which is not a problem here due to newness of the house.

With a modern house the floor will be designed to meet current building
regs or something close to them. These tend to assume a floor load of
something like 100kg/m^2 of floor. So in a large room this is quite a
substantial total load.

Most floors would be designed to the TRADA tables, which use loads of
1.5kN/m² or 150kg/m² plus a point load of 1.4kN (140kg) acting together.
They also don't take account of flooring acting as a diaphram.

Note also that this load is not the point at which the floor will fail,
but is spec that it must exceed or equal and not deflect by more than a
small amount (14mm on long spans, or 0.003 times the length of the joist
(in mm) on shorter ones). The failure point may well be significantly
(probably more than double) the max load for building regs purposes.

Correct. On longer joists, the limiting factor is deflection, so just
over the limit the floor may appear to bounce & there may be some
hairline cracks in the ceiling below, but the floor won't fall through.

So in summary, nothing to worry about unless you have huge amounts of
heavy equipment in the room already. By all means set it up over the
supporting wall - that should eliminate any remaining doubt.

And as someone else said, lay some plywood sheets down to spread the
load across a wider area (and also to stop any water getting through).

--
Hugo Nebula
"If no-one on the internet wants a piece of this,
just how far from the pack have you strayed?"

wrote in message
...
On 7 Sep, 00:02, "The Medway Handyman"

....


And its 'trendy'. You have endless material to bore the arse off people at
dinner parties when you talk about your 'birthing experience'.

You couldn't be more wrong about that. Maybe elsewhere in the
country.. where I live it's not popular or 'trendy' at all (about one
home birth a month in the county),

....

It used to be fashionable but isn't these days. It's a bit inconvenient
after all. New methods are developed and promoted but most of them don't
last long. I remember a sort of decompression device which the mother wore
during labour and which was said to relieve the pain of contractions. It
didn't last. What happened to 'birthing chairs'?

I once heard a male obstetrician saying that stirrups must be comfortable
for a woman in labour because she was in the same position as she would be
if squatting. What he didn't understand is that gravity makes a lot of
difference to the organs inside the body. I wish I'd been able to suggest
that he were tied to stirrups while he defecated.

There's little agreement among obstetricians and among midwives. Once, in
agony, I asked if I could turn on my side. The Sister said no, the nurse
said yes. Luckily the Sister went off duty soon afterwards and her
replacement preferred to deliver the mother while she was lying on her side.

I was appalled by a friend's son, a very senior obstetrician at a famous
hospital, who said that he wanted women to do what he wanted because he
wanted to be in control. He had no concept of the woman being in control!
After all, what part did she play in the process?

He got short shrift from

Mary

John Stumbles wrote:
On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:15:58 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:

"John Stumbles" wrote in message
...

Enjoy your birth. After giving birth most women say they never want to
do it again:
Evidence?

Hearsay, I have to confess. Certainly the SO's first delivery (blue & 2s to
hospital, stirrups, forceps) wasn't something she looked back on fondly.

You're saying she went on to have a (presumably intentional) home
delivery *after* that experience...???

David

wrote:

a) I'll have the full attention of a midwife throughout
b) I'll be able to use the pool for relaxation and pain relief (have
used before but not allowed last time due to hospital staff issues -
def. does give pain relief, at least it did to me)
c) I won't have to travel in the middle of labour and then possibly
wait around and argue to be allowed into the delivery suite.
d) I'll be able to move around and not forced to lie on a bed being
monitored
e) I'll avoid not-needed interventions (experienced twice)
f) It'll be a great experience as opposed to a mildly traumatic one.

But the thing is, all the above (except possibly 'a' and 'e', if valid)
are about the mother's feelings/emotions/happiness etc; and nothing to
do with the prime aim, which IMHO should be to end up with a healthy and
undamaged mother and baby. On balance, I can't accept that this is more
likely to happen with a homebirth than a hospital-based one.

As I have heard an obstetrician say (not to an impending mother, I have
to add), "what does she want from this, a wonderful experience or a
healthy baby?"

David

In message , The Medway
Handyman writes
You often get women gazing lovingly at babies & wishing they had one. You
never hear "Oh I wish I had a tenager" do you?
Having been present at both of my children's births I can honestly say I
really don't think it would be possible to have a teenager. At least not
naturally.

They grow up!
If you're lucky.



--
Clint Sharp

In message , Mary Fisher
writes
There are other reasons for multi-child families.

Lust is a powerful urge ...
Child benefit is probably a bigger one, 'specially if you can get a
couple or more kids diagnosed ADHD or autistic. About £2500 a month,
rent and council tax paid IIRC.

Mary




Cynical.

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Tanner-'op wrote:

Regarding home birth.. I can't let some of the comments go un-
answered! Homebirth is as safe as hospital birth for normal
low-risk births based on the statistics, this is with trasfers to
hospital taken into account.

Bollox of course it isnt, you have no access to back up facilities.
You are simply a potencial burden to the ambulance service.

What about you then Dave - a die hard smoker? There are more
deaths/problems from lung cancer caused by smoking than home births -
so that make you a "potencial (sic) burden" not only to ambulance
service, but also to the various departments of the local hospital
for many years!

But my early death will save a fortune on pensions & care.

Oh goody, when will that be?


Obviously hospital is needed in some situations
but these things rarely happen suddenly without warning. This is
my fourth baby but first home birth. First three very
straight-forward but hospital was just a really unpleasant
experience for me, I really want the full attention of a midwife
and to be in my own relaxing surroundings. The only differences
for me will be...

That you are getting the extra attention you crave. Never mind the
extra cost to all of us via the NHS.

What about you and that filthy smoking habit you have getting the
attention that you crave of the NHS? - Not to mention your kids
passive smoking as well!

I don't crave the attention of the NHS, in fact I'd like them to
leave me alone & stop lecturing me. My kids don't passive smoke, they
don't live at home.

If you smoke, then you crave the attention of the NHS - and did you smoke
when the kids were at home?

a) I'll have the full attention of a midwife throughout

But not the attention of a fully staffed NHS unit with access to
every possible resoursce you might need.

But surely the lady is saving the NHS some cash?

Unless a problem occurs.

Just like you and your smoking then!

b) I'll be able to use the pool for relaxation and pain relief
(have used before but not allowed last time due to hospital staff
issues - def. does give pain relief, at least it did to me)

And its 'trendy'. You have endless material to bore the arse off
people at dinner parties when you talk about your 'birthing
experience'.

A bit like you and the not so subliminal span in this group for the
Medway Handyman "look how good *I* am, after all I'm "recommended" by
trading standards" - now whose a "boring" *and* arrogant b****rd?

Why would I want to spam a DIY group, most of whom live well away
from my operating area.? And I don't use the sig that mentions
trading standards anymore.

Well stop using the Medway Handyman signature then - which just happens to
be the name of your 'firm'. Now was that an accident or subliminal
spamming? ;-)

c) I won't have to travel in the middle of labour and then possibly
wait around and argue to be allowed into the delivery suite.

But if anything goes toes up you cause the NHS sh*t loads of extra
time & expense.

Lets see what extra time and expense you are going to cause in the
future with that smoking habit of yours.

Smokers are less of a burden, we contribute between 5 & 7 times what
it costs the NHS to treat us. One of the highest tobacco taxes in
the world

"Smokers are less of a burden" - now that must be the daftest thing I've
read from you in ages. Take a wander into the "chest clinic" of your local
hospital and ask the patients how many are non-smokers.

And would you say that the average female of today doesn't contibute to the
National Insurance Scheme or Income Tax fund?

I bet there are many females out there who earn far more than you do, and
who pay a damn site more than you ever you will to the government - whether
they use the services or not!

Tanner-'op

"Lobster" wrote in message
...

....

As I have heard an obstetrician say (not to an impending mother, I have to
add), "what does she want from this, a wonderful experience or a healthy
baby?"

What's wrong with both?

Mary

Mary Fisher wrote:
"Lobster" wrote in message
...

...
As I have heard an obstetrician say (not to an impending mother, I have to
add), "what does she want from this, a wonderful experience or a healthy
baby?"

What's wrong with both?


Nothing at all of course - providing one's not at the expense of the
other...

David

Tanner-'op wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

But my early death will save a fortune on pensions & care.

Oh goody, when will that be?

Hopefuly in time to return & haunt you :-)


I don't crave the attention of the NHS, in fact I'd like them to
leave me alone & stop lecturing me. My kids don't passive smoke, they
don't live at home.

If you smoke, then you crave the attention of the NHS - and did you
smoke when the kids were at home?

We only smoked in the kitchen, because they 'didn't like the smell'.
However, since passive smoking doesn't represent a health hazzard its not a
problem.

Why would I want to spam a DIY group, most of whom live well away
from my operating area.? And I don't use the sig that mentions
trading standards anymore.

Well stop using the Medway Handyman signature then - which just
happens to be the name of your 'firm'. Now was that an accident or
subliminal spamming? ;-)

Read the FAQ numb nuts. I quote; "Company representatives may mention their
products, services or websites in the signature of their replies to
questions but signatures longer than four 75-character lines will be
considered abuse".

And consider what possible benefit I could accrue by spamming a DIY group.
It would be a bit like advertisng meat to a vegetarian society.


Smokers are less of a burden, we contribute between 5 & 7 times what
it costs the NHS to treat us. One of the highest tobacco taxes in
the world

"Smokers are less of a burden" - now that must be the daftest thing
I've read from you in ages. Take a wander into the "chest clinic" of
your local hospital and ask the patients how many are non-smokers.

Not the point. Smokers pay over £7 billion to the tresury, far in excess of
the cost (estimated to be £1.5 billion) of treating so-called
'smoking-related diseases' on the NHS. I should have priority over non
smokers like you. Bloody parasites you are, getting treatment while smokers
pay for it.


And would you say that the average female of today doesn't contibute
to the National Insurance Scheme or Income Tax fund?

Why would I say that? It would obviously depend on her employment history.

I bet there are many females out there who earn far more than you do,
and who pay a damn site more than you ever you will to the government
- whether they use the services or not!

And?



--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Tanner-'op wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

But my early death will save a fortune on pensions & care.
Oh goody, when will that be?

Hopefuly in time to return & haunt you :-)

I don't crave the attention of the NHS, in fact I'd like them to
leave me alone & stop lecturing me. My kids don't passive smoke, they
don't live at home.
If you smoke, then you crave the attention of the NHS - and did you
smoke when the kids were at home?

We only smoked in the kitchen, because they 'didn't like the smell'.
However, since passive smoking doesn't represent a health hazzard its not a
problem.

typical smokers attitude, sure any smoker can find information to back
up this claim but I can find just as many to prove it is a health risk

heres one
Secondhand smoke accounts for at least 35,000 deaths in the U.S. each
year. Though passive smoking delivers only 1 percent as much toxins as
active smoking, it has a surprisingly large effect on coronary risk: a
30 percent increase in risk, on average, compared to 80 percent for
active smoking. Research reveals some of the coronary effects occur with
even brief exposures (minutes to hours) to secondhand smoke. The
researchers found the cardiovascular system is “exquisitely sensitive”
to the toxins in secondhand smoke. There are at least a dozen effects,
which interact to endanger the heart, including:

-The smoke rapidly increases the tendency of blood to clot.

-The smoke impairs the functioning of blood vessels.

-The smoke increases atherosclerosis, party by lowering HDL (good)
cholesterol and oxidizing LDL (bad) cholesterol.

-The smoke increases chronic inflammation.

-The smoke creates cell-damaging free radicals.

-The smoke decreases the body’s levels of antioxidants (such as vitamin
C), which help protect against free radicals.

-The smoke increases insulin resistance, which may increase the risk of
Type 2 diabetes.

The smoke also increases the risk of lung cancer, respiratory disorders,
and adverse effects during pregnancy. University of California Berkeley
Wellness Letter 9/05.




Why would I want to spam a DIY group, most of whom live well away
from my operating area.? And I don't use the sig that mentions
trading standards anymore.
Well stop using the Medway Handyman signature then - which just
happens to be the name of your 'firm'. Now was that an accident or
subliminal spamming? ;-)

Read the FAQ numb nuts. I quote; "Company representatives may mention their
products, services or websites in the signature of their replies to
questions but signatures longer than four 75-character lines will be
considered abuse".

and your doing such a wonderful job representing your firm ;-)
and your next job is to repair the gunshot wound to your foot

--
Kevin R
Reply address works

On 7 Sep, 17:22, Lobster wrote:
wrote:
a) I'll have the full attention of a midwife throughout
b) I'll be able to use the pool for relaxation and pain relief (have
used before but not allowed last time due to hospital staff issues -
def. does give pain relief, at least it did to me)
c) I won't have to travel in the middle of labour and then possibly
wait around and argue to be allowed into the delivery suite.
d) I'll be able to move around and not forced to lie on a bed being
monitored
e) I'll avoid not-needed interventions (experienced twice)
f) It'll be a great experience as opposed to a mildly traumatic one.

But the thing is, all the above (except possibly 'a' and 'e', if valid)
are about the mother's feelings/emotions/happiness etc; and nothing to
do with the prime aim, which IMHO should be to end up with a healthy and
undamaged mother and baby. *On balance, I can't accept that this is more
likely to happen with a homebirth than a hospital-based one.

As I have heard an obstetrician say (not to an impending mother, I have
to add), "what does she want from this, a wonderful experience or a
healthy baby?"

David

I'll let the "if valid" comment pass!

I think the point is that it is difficult to distinguish between the
two and medical intervention doesn't always end up with a healthier
'undamaged' mum and baby, the decisions made during labour often
aren't clear-cut. The "mother's feelings/emotions/happiness etc"
inseperable from the desired result of "a healthy and
undamaged mother and baby". There are physiological / hormonal factors
that affect the birth process (and therefore the end result of health
mother and baby) as well as ability to successfully feed, bond etc.
For example, travelling to hospital and going through the admission
process does sometimes cause labour to slow or even stop, maybe due to
stress - not sure but it's a fact, so labour stopping / slowing could
lead to induction which could lead to epidural / forceps / ventouse /
episiotomy / distressed baby. I'm not saying that would always happen
but it can and does and it's a good example of a scenario where things
are likely to have gone much better at home if that's what the mother
preferred.

Also, are you implying that if pain relief doesn't contribute to a
heathy mum or baby, women shouldn't be offered it? All pain relief
comes with risks (ironically, apart from the use of water!).

I'm not looking for a 'fun experience' here, of course I want a
healthy baby, it's my belief that this is the right way for me.

jb.

On 7 Sep, 19:45, "Mary Fisher" wrote:
"Lobster" wrote in message

...

...



As I have heard an obstetrician say (not to an impending mother, I have to
add), "what does she want from this, a wonderful experience or a healthy
baby?"

What's wrong with both?

Mary

exactly!

The Medway Handyman wrote:

Regarding home birth.. I can't let some of the comments go un-
answered! Homebirth is as safe as hospital birth for normal low-risk
births based on the statistics, this is with trasfers to hospital
taken into account.

Bollox of course it isnt, you have no access to back up facilities. You are
simply a potencial burden to the ambulance service.

Its odd that the (modern) countries that have the lowest incidence of
interventions (of any type), seem to also have the lowest rates of
infant mortality. So access to hospital services does not seem to be
that much of a benefit.

Grow up & get used to it FFS. Our NHS isn't perfect but it's probably the
best in the world. The nature of the beast is that you become a number.

Given it is the only one of its type in the world that would not be
difficult. To give it its due, maternity care is often one of its better
abilities amongst the sea of mediocrity that is much of the remainder.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 17:07:38 +0100, Lobster wrote:

You're saying she went on to have a (presumably intentional) home
delivery *after* that experience...???

Yup. We'd planned a home water birth for the first but between
inexperience of the medical system and lack of midwifery support ended up
in the hospital as described. Second time round SO was even less keen on
the hospital option and we'd found a couple of excellent midwives
specialising in doing homebirths who supported us to the hilt and
helped make it a stress-free and (for SO, relatively) painless experience
(no doubt contributed to by it being stress-free).

--
John Stumbles

I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous

"Kevin" wrote in message
...
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Tanner-'op wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

But my early death will save a fortune on pensions & care.
Oh goody, when will that be?

Hopefuly in time to return & haunt you :-)

I don't crave the attention of the NHS, in fact I'd like them to
leave me alone & stop lecturing me. My kids don't passive smoke, they
don't live at home.
If you smoke, then you crave the attention of the NHS - and did you
smoke when the kids were at home?

We only smoked in the kitchen, because they 'didn't like the smell'.
However, since passive smoking doesn't represent a health hazzard its not
a problem.

typical smokers attitude, sure any smoker can find information to back up
this claim but I can find just as many to prove it is a health risk

You are wasting your time.. he doesn't want to believe and he wont.
The same as he always ignores the costs of smoking related illnesses that
aren't a part of the NHS budgets, things like disability payments, etc. All
of which make the pathetic amount paid in smoking tax look rather, well,
pathetic.

On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 23:02:05 +0000, The Medway Handyman wrote:

wrote:

Regarding home birth.. I can't let some of the comments go un-
answered! Homebirth is as safe as hospital birth for normal low-risk
births based on the statistics, this is with trasfers to hospital
taken into account.

Bollox of course it isnt, you have no access to back up facilities. You are
simply a potencial burden to the ambulance service.

She said "based on statistics". Challenge her to produce the statistics,
and produce some of your own if you like, but please don't swear at her and
wave around your unsubstantiated saloon-bar "obvious innit" type excuse
for an argument.

It's quite possible that for those who choose home births the experience
is less stressful than hospital based delivery and that the reduced stress
results in fewer complications and therefore reduced burden to the NHS,
and that this more than compensates for the increased burden of
ambulancing to hospital the few that do have complications. I'm not saying
this is the case - this is, if you like, my own "obvious
innit" pseudo-argument - but I'm suggesting that it's a real possibility
that voluntary homebirths are a net benefit to the NHS in terms of
resources.

For what it's worth if we had had for our first sprog the midwives who
attended at the second we might well have had a homebirth first time round
and not needed to be blue+2ed to hospital when SO went very
suddenly into labour.


That you are getting the extra attention you crave. Never mind the
extra cost to all of us via the NHS.

Ad hominen attack.

Plonk!


--
John Stumbles

I used to think the brain was the most interesting part of the body
- until I realised what was telling me that

Kevin wrote:

typical smokers attitude, sure any smoker can find information to back
up this claim but I can find just as many to prove it is a health risk

heres one
Secondhand smoke accounts for at least 35,000 deaths in the U.S. each
year.

Name one.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

dennis@home wrote:
"Kevin" wrote in message
...
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Tanner-'op wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

But my early death will save a fortune on pensions & care.
Oh goody, when will that be?

Hopefuly in time to return & haunt you :-)

I don't crave the attention of the NHS, in fact I'd like them to
leave me alone & stop lecturing me. My kids don't passive smoke,
they don't live at home.
If you smoke, then you crave the attention of the NHS - and did you
smoke when the kids were at home?

We only smoked in the kitchen, because they 'didn't like the
smell'. However, since passive smoking doesn't represent a health
hazzard its not a problem.

typical smokers attitude, sure any smoker can find information to
back up this claim but I can find just as many to prove it is a
health risk

You are wasting your time.. he doesn't want to believe and he wont.
The same as he always ignores the costs of smoking related illnesses
that aren't a part of the NHS budgets, things like disability
payments, etc. All of which make the pathetic amount paid in smoking
tax look rather, well, pathetic.

Not my figures Dennis. The taxation income from smokers is an indisputable
fact. Even you can't argue with that. It's in excess of £7 billion.

The figure of £1.5 billion is the 'official' NHS figure for treating
'smoking related disease'. Bearing in mnd that they include every possible
thing that could plausably be caused by smoking and are wildly exagerated.
Do the math.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 15:33:09 -0700, n0tail wrote:

If you want to know more, this site expains it much better than I ever
could: http://www.homebirth.org.uk/

Pretty good site, but I found myself twitching for the Edit button to
correct some of the plumbing-related errors!

FWIW what was useful with our home waterbirth was having a length of
garden hose to syphon out water with it and vacuum out the little Mr
Hankies that appeared in it while SO was straining (I guess it's hard to
control what comes out of one orifice when you're trying to get a baby's
head out of the one next door!). The hose should obviously be clean,
preferably sterile, so maybe a new one, or soaked in bleach before use. We
simply ran the far end out of the back door so its end was lower than the
bottom of the pool, then to use it my job was to submerge the pool end
plus an extra 3-4 feet of it into the pool, put my thumb over the end then
draw the extra length back over the edge and take my thumb off. The water
in the extra length (now outside the pool and running away from it) is
enough to start a syphon action sucking water out continuously. As I say
you can use it as a vacuum or just to take some water out if the level's
too high or to make room to top up with some more hot water. As soon as
you raise the pool end above the water the syphon stops.

Funnily enough I have no recollection at all of where I took the hot and
cold fill connections from, but if I were doing it again I might run
lengths of (sterile) garden hose from hot and cold washing machine
connections, or make temporary connections into the pipework to e.g.
washbasin taps with push-fit (e.g. Speedfit) plumbing connectors which can
be easily reconfigured back to a normal arrangement when no longer needed.
In our case I think I had them connected somehow off a washbasin and were
controlled from there, but with good quality hoses and secure connections
to fixed pipework one could always have hot and cold "taps" (e.g.
handle-operated valves) at the pool itself.

(If you're in the Reading area and want some help with these aspects drop
me a line.)

--
YAPH http://yaph.co.uk

Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus
and Pop Psychologists are from Uranus

Kevin wrote:
typical smokers attitude, sure any smoker can find information to back
up this claim but I can find just as many to prove it is a health risk

heres one
Secondhand smoke accounts for at least 35,000 deaths in the U.S. each
year.

Lets look at the amazing, dreadful, shock horror figure shall we? Lets be
generous, for they say 'at least' 35,000 deaths per year. Lets assume 'at
least' means twice that number, 70,000.

The population of the USA is around 305,000,000. That works out at 0:0229%
of the population.

By the way, the UK Govmint has published figures - printed on cigarette
packets, so it must be true - which state that 11,000 deaths per year are
caused by passive smoking. The EU claim that 16,000 Europeans die each year
due to passive smoking, again printed on cigarette packets.

Do the maths FFS. Look at the percentage of smokers in the UK & Europe
compared to the total population.

The population of Europe is around 728 million, so thats 0:0022% of
Europeans, the UK is around 60 million, so thats 0:018%.

Wildly different figures, none of which are statistically significant.

Typical anti smokers attitude, any anti smoker can find information to back
up his claim. Trouble is the information is a complete bunch of crap and
anti smokers allow their prejudice to overcome their common sense.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

The Medway Handyman wrote:

The figure of £1.5 billion is the 'official' NHS figure for treating
'smoking related disease'. Bearing in mnd that they include every possible
thing that could plausably be caused by smoking and are wildly exagerated.
Do the math.


Dennis is one of those wot don't do math

YAPH wrote:
On Sat, 06 Sep 2008 15:33:09 -0700, n0tail wrote:

If you want to know more, this site expains it much better than I
ever could: http://www.homebirth.org.uk/

Pretty good site, but I found myself twitching for the Edit button to
correct some of the plumbing-related errors!

FWIW what was useful with our home waterbirth was having a length of
garden hose to syphon out water with it and vacuum out the little Mr
Hankies that appeared in it while SO was straining (I guess it's hard
to control what comes out of one orifice when you're trying to get a
baby's head out of the one next door!). The hose should obviously be
clean, preferably sterile, so maybe a new one, or soaked in bleach
before use. We simply ran the far end out of the back door so its end
was lower than the bottom of the pool, then to use it my job was to
submerge the pool end plus an extra 3-4 feet of it into the pool, put
my thumb over the end then draw the extra length back over the edge
and take my thumb off. The water in the extra length (now outside the
pool and running away from it) is enough to start a syphon action
sucking water out continuously. As I say you can use it as a vacuum
or just to take some water out if the level's too high or to make
room to top up with some more hot water. As soon as you raise the
pool end above the water the syphon stops.

Funnily enough I have no recollection at all of where I took the hot
and cold fill connections from, but if I were doing it again I might
run lengths of (sterile) garden hose from hot and cold washing machine
connections, or make temporary connections into the pipework to e.g.
washbasin taps with push-fit (e.g. Speedfit) plumbing connectors
which can be easily reconfigured back to a normal arrangement when no
longer needed. In our case I think I had them connected somehow off a
washbasin and were controlled from there, but with good quality hoses
and secure connections to fixed pipework one could always have hot
and cold "taps" (e.g. handle-operated valves) at the pool itself.

That must be the perfect example of why home births are a bad idea.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Kevin wrote:
typical smokers attitude, sure any smoker can find information to back
up this claim but I can find just as many to prove it is a health risk

heres one
Secondhand smoke accounts for at least 35,000 deaths in the U.S. each
year.

Lets look at the amazing, dreadful, shock horror figure shall we? Lets be
generous, for they say 'at least' 35,000 deaths per year. Lets assume 'at
least' means twice that number, 70,000.

The population of the USA is around 305,000,000. That works out at 0:0229%
of the population.

By the way, the UK Govmint has published figures - printed on cigarette
packets, so it must be true - which state that 11,000 deaths per year are
caused by passive smoking. The EU claim that 16,000 Europeans die each year
due to passive smoking, again printed on cigarette packets.

Do the maths FFS. Look at the percentage of smokers in the UK & Europe
compared to the total population.

The population of Europe is around 728 million, so thats 0:0022% of
Europeans, the UK is around 60 million, so thats 0:018%.

Wildly different figures, none of which are statistically significant.

Typical anti smokers attitude, any anti smoker can find information to back
up his claim. Trouble is the information is a complete bunch of crap and
anti smokers allow their prejudice to overcome their common sense.


you are just a wimping out rather than trying to give up a known
dangerous drug you chose to try and justify that its your right to "kill
you self" ********
see the light & give up the weed an prove you are a man

--
Kevin R
Reply address works

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Kevin wrote:
typical smokers attitude, sure any smoker can find information to back
up this claim but I can find just as many to prove it is a health risk

heres one
Secondhand smoke accounts for at least 35,000 deaths in the U.S. each
year.

Lets look at the amazing, dreadful, shock horror figure shall we? Lets be
generous, for they say 'at least' 35,000 deaths per year. Lets assume 'at
least' means twice that number, 70,000.

The population of the USA is around 305,000,000. That works out at 0:0229%
of the population.

By the way, the UK Govmint has published figures - printed on cigarette
packets, so it must be true - which state that 11,000 deaths per year are
caused by passive smoking. The EU claim that 16,000 Europeans die each year
due to passive smoking, again printed on cigarette packets.

Do the maths FFS. Look at the percentage of smokers in the UK & Europe
compared to the total population.

The population of Europe is around 728 million, so thats 0:0022% of
Europeans, the UK is around 60 million, so thats 0:018%.

Wildly different figures, none of which are statistically significant.

Typical anti smokers attitude, any anti smoker can find information to back
up his claim. Trouble is the information is a complete bunch of crap and
anti smokers allow their prejudice to overcome their common sense.


It is such a shame that causes of death are horribly inaccurate. Even
if, by some miracle, the doctor writes a reasonably accurate cause, by
the time that is translated into statistics, it has been grossly corrupted.

For example, a person my partner is in contact with lost her husband
fairly recently. The immediate cause was heart failure of some sort. But
there is lots of evidence that the heart condition was a direct
consequence of thyroid disease. And who knows what caused that thyroid
disease?

Unlikely, but the certificate just might mention thyroid, however the
OPCS 'cause of death' will be heart failure.

This will contribute precisely zero to our understanding of what really
caused his death. Thyroid disease is rarely cited as a cause or even a
contributory factor.

Similar applies to smoking. There are the 'obvious' cases in which lung
cancer (for example) is held to be the direct consequence of smoking.
But there are probably far more cases in which smoking has had
consequnces which contributed to demise.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...
dennis@home wrote:
"Kevin" wrote in message
...
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Tanner-'op wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

But my early death will save a fortune on pensions & care.
Oh goody, when will that be?

Hopefuly in time to return & haunt you :-)

I don't crave the attention of the NHS, in fact I'd like them to
leave me alone & stop lecturing me. My kids don't passive smoke,
they don't live at home.
If you smoke, then you crave the attention of the NHS - and did you
smoke when the kids were at home?

We only smoked in the kitchen, because they 'didn't like the
smell'. However, since passive smoking doesn't represent a health
hazzard its not a problem.

typical smokers attitude, sure any smoker can find information to
back up this claim but I can find just as many to prove it is a
health risk

You are wasting your time.. he doesn't want to believe and he wont.
The same as he always ignores the costs of smoking related illnesses
that aren't a part of the NHS budgets, things like disability
payments, etc. All of which make the pathetic amount paid in smoking
tax look rather, well, pathetic.

Not my figures Dennis. The taxation income from smokers is an
indisputable fact. Even you can't argue with that. It's in excess of £7
billion.

The figure of £1.5 billion is the 'official' NHS figure for treating
'smoking related disease'. Bearing in mnd that they include every
possible thing that could plausably be caused by smoking and are wildly
exagerated. Do the math.

As I said, refuses to add in anything not in the NHS budgets.
The NHS doesn't treat disabilities so they are not in the NHS budget.
The NHS pays to amputate a smokers legs but it doesn't pay the maintenance
costs of that smoker later, that 20 year cost comes from other sources which
we tax payers have to foot the bill for.
Do the math, if you dare.

"Rod" wrote in message
...

It is such a shame that causes of death are horribly inaccurate. Even if,
by some miracle, the doctor writes a reasonably accurate cause, by the
time that is translated into statistics, it has been grossly corrupted.

For example, a person my partner is in contact with lost her husband
fairly recently. The immediate cause was heart failure of some sort. But
there is lots of evidence that the heart condition was a direct
consequence of thyroid disease. And who knows what caused that thyroid
disease?

Unlikely, but the certificate just might mention thyroid, however the OPCS
'cause of death' will be heart failure.

This will contribute precisely zero to our understanding of what really
caused his death. Thyroid disease is rarely cited as a cause or even a
contributory factor.

Similar applies to smoking. There are the 'obvious' cases in which lung
cancer (for example) is held to be the direct consequence of smoking. But
there are probably far more cases in which smoking has had consequnces
which contributed to demise.


You are wasting your time talking about smoking related diseases...
it has to be a lie that smoking harms anyone..

no normal person would inflict such problems on others so it must be a lie..
its the only way the addicts can get a clear conscience.

The same as they will manipulate the figures to claim they pay more tax than
it costs to treat them, usually by ignoring all the after care required (its
not treatment so they aren't lying in their opinion) which is paid by social
services and not by the NHS. The NHS will only pay for the treatment of the
illness while the social services have to pay for disability conversions,
sending in care workers, etc. all of which makes the NHS bill look cheap.
The consultants and doctors know which patients are smokers without asking..
they are the ones with bits missing.
I know someone that lost a foot a few weeks ago, he was told it would happen
if he didn't stop smoking a couple of years ago,
Now who is going to pay disability pay for the rest of his life as a result
of a self inflicted injury?
And the stupid idiot still smokes.

wrote:

I think the point is that it is difficult to distinguish between the
two and medical intervention doesn't always end up with a healthier
'undamaged' mum and baby, the decisions made during labour often
aren't clear-cut. The "mother's feelings/emotions/happiness etc"
inseperable from the desired result of "a healthy and
undamaged mother and baby". There are physiological / hormonal factors
that affect the birth process (and therefore the end result of health
mother and baby) as well as ability to successfully feed, bond etc.
For example, travelling to hospital and going through the admission
process does sometimes cause labour to slow or even stop, maybe due to
stress - not sure but it's a fact, so labour stopping / slowing could
lead to induction which could lead to epidural / forceps / ventouse /

Had exactly this chain of events with first born... 40 hours of
(intermittent) labour later, induction, and various other interventions,
we ended up with an emergency c section. Fortunately sprog was gruntled
throughout, but mum looked like she had just done a couple of rounds
with Mike Tyson. No way of knowing if the final outcome would have been
different at home, but I am sure the leadup would have been far less
distressing for all.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 6 Sep, 12:24, Kevin wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:
oblong wrote:
Please help!

I'm planning a home birth and would like to have an inflatable pool
for pain relief purposes, there are two options, they are both at the
smaller end of the birth-pool spectrum.. here are the weights of the
pools (filled):

Why don't you just go to hospital like normal people?

each to his/her own, with MRSA would you go in if you had a choice????

--
Kevin R
Reply address works

Re this "debate" of hospital v home, the obvious risk no one seems to
have cottoned onto is that if something goes wrong, either with mother
or baby, then you need to get to hospital pdq. So the answer is that
there is absolutely nothing *wrong* with home births and much to
commend them in terms of happiness of the mother and family
provided that you have....
had a competent risk assessment from the antenatal specialists for
both and baby
and
that, if there is any evidence of risk, it is assessed then you
balance the 'good feeling' *advantages* [not life-significant] of home
birth for high risk patients v the known medical and life-preserving
advantages of a quick medical response in case of an emergency. Were,
for example, the home to be 2 mins from the local hospital then the
risk is much reduced as she could get to hospital easily. If, however,
the homebirth was in the middle of the Lake District 90 mins of winter
driving from the nearest hospital the risk factors are increased and
one would question the benefits.

An intermediate solution is to make maternity wards much more like
home where you are provided with the full spectum of choice for birth
so it becomes more attractive to mothers to be.

Chris (whose 'SWIMBO' happens to be a paediatrician who takes in the
results of some ill-thought-out home births with concommitant O2
deprivation - not a good gift to impart to your baby on starting
life!)
PS put the birth pool near a wall bearing not in mid span!

On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 16:28:04 +0100, Mary Fisher wrote:

I was appalled by a friend's son, a very senior obstetrician at a famous
hospital, who said that he wanted women to do what he wanted because he
wanted to be in control.

Yep all deliveries should be M-F 9-5 so they can have the weekends off to
play golf.

He had no concept of the woman being in control!

The woman isn't in control the baby is via hormones IIRC. Our two were
both induced hospital births but that was down to the mother being rather
old 40 and suffering high blood pressure. The 1st was a long hard battle
with about the only thing not used being a cesarian. The second was much
easier, one shot of pethidine early on and gas & air for the rest.

For a young healthy mother with a normal pregnancy there is no real reason
to go to hospital, pregnancy and child birth are not an illness. FFS if it
was routinely life threatening we would have died out eons ago and there
wouldn't be the big families and huge population grown in the third world
where they don't have our "essential" medical care.

--
Cheers
Dave.

The Medway Handyman wrote:


That must be the perfect example of why home births are a bad idea.

You seem to be adopting the view of some in the medical profession that
pregnancy is a medical condition that needs treating...


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

John Rumm wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:


That must be the perfect example of why home births are a bad idea.

You seem to be adopting the view of some in the medical profession that
pregnancy is a medical condition that needs treating...


Well in todays crowded world, it probably is..

John Rumm wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:


That must be the perfect example of why home births are a bad idea.

You seem to be adopting the view of some in the medical profession that
pregnancy is a medical condition that needs treating...

But I suspect the reason some take this view is that the lay public are
blissfully unaware that becoming pregnant and giving birth is one of the
most dangerous and potentially life-threatening things most women will
voluntarily undertake during their lifetimes.

David