On Sun, 7 Sep 2008 08:12:32 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

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

Or not even within miles, as in the case here.

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.

Having missed a few posts in this thread I'm not sure I get the point
about the NHS. You can have NHS midwives at a homebirth. We did for
two of our children.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

John Rumm wrote:
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.

I just don't get why that experience wouldn't turn you into a rabid
anti-home-birth campaigner, though.

"Fortunately" the baby was OK, you say - what would have happened if it
hadn't been, and you'd been stuck at home waiting for the ambulance
rather than SWMBO being whisked in for a rapid section?

In our case, my wife was in labour in hospital (there was never any
intention to do otherwise); she was hooked up to a foetal monitor and
being watched routinely by the midwife when there was an obvious 'oh,
****' moment and the midwife rushed off for help: within 2 minutes the
room was filled with all manner of scrubs-clad staff and within a couple
more minutes - the scariest of both our lives - a very blue baby arrived
and was whipped off to the incubator by the neonatal paediatrician.
Fortunately the baby was absolutely fine, but I genuinely don't believe
that would have been the case had SWMBO not been right there in the
hospital when the baby suddenly went 'off'.

All anecdotal I know; but then there's the friend of SWMBO who wanted
her baby to be born at home and tragically ended up with a stillbirth.
Then a wife of a former work colleague of mine had a massive haemorrhage
during birth at home and was scant minutes away from the final curtain
when the ambulance finally got her to the hospital. In both cases, the
women went on to have uneventful births for their subsequent children...
and were very happy to do so in hospital.

David

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 09:49:06 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

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.

Similar here except no c section (ventouse). Baby & mother badly
batterred. Mother in severe pain throughout in spite of using every
form of pain relief known to (wo)man. The room she was in was so
small I had to leave every time the midwife arrived. There was no
continuity of care since he was delivered on Sunday (where the shifts
are very short). I even missed the actual birth since the cafe was
closed and I had gone to find something to eat!

Second and third births at home with relaxed mother with far less
pain. She used no pain relief at all (except breathing if you count
this) on one birth.

The added benefit of a homebirth is that you have exclusive access to
the midwife. In hospital they seem to disappear without trace for
long periods of time.

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 22:45:24 GMT, John Stumbles
wrote:

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.

How about this one:
Anderson R E, Anderson D A. The cost-effectiveness of home birth.
Journal of Nurse-Midwifery, 1999; 44(1): 30-35

"The average uncomplicated natural birth costs 68% less in a home
setting than in a hospital, and births initiated in the home offer a
lower combined rate of intrapartum and neonatal mortality and a lower
incidence of cesarean delivery."

(One word edited to get around dumb filters).

--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Owing to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking most articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
See http://improve-usenet.org

wrote in message
...
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.

That depends on what 'goes wrong'. Very little does go wrong which can't be
dealt with by the attending midwife or doctor, unless you're thinking of
mechanical intervention.

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.

That's been tried, pretty curtains and soft furnishings do NOT replicate the
home situation, there's a lot more to it than that.

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!)

And how many O2 deprivations happen in hospitals? And how many babies and
mothers are damaged either physically or emotionally or both from hospital
intervention?

Mary

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.net...
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.

That's beginning to be the case with elective induction and CSs.

He had no concept of the woman being in control!

The woman isn't in control the baby is via hormones IIRC.

The woman should feel that she's more in control than the obstetrician in an
ideal delivery. It shouldn't be assumed that anything can happen at the
direction of the medic, explanation and agreement should be sought and
gained.

Mary

"Lobster" wrote in message
...
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.

Voluntarily?

How many pregnancies are planned?

Mary

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...


The woman should feel that she's more in control than the obstetrician in
an ideal delivery. It shouldn't be assumed that anything can happen at the
direction of the medic, explanation and agreement should be sought and
gained.

Rubbish, the baby is in control not the mother.

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"Lobster" wrote in message
...
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.

Voluntarily?

How many pregnancies are planned?

How many are responsible parents?

Mary Fisher wrote:

And how many O2 deprivations happen in hospitals? And how many babies and
mothers are damaged either physically or emotionally or both from hospital
intervention?


Well that's the real nitty gritty.

Why don't you research the statistics BEFORE say WWII when hospital
birth was the exception, and recently, when its the rule.

I think you might find it a shade shocking.

Obviously of nothing bad goes wrong, home is ideal.

If something bad does go wrong, its a very ill equipped place for
surgical or mechanical intervention.

I am fully in favour of having the choice, provided that the home
birther signs a waiver of indemnity against any or all medical staff
involved in the birth.


Mary

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

Voluntarily?

How many pregnancies are planned?


Well Mary, if you haven't heard, contraception exists and therefore
involuntary pregnancies can only be ascribed to men or women having less
brains in their heads than between their legs.

Is this an accurate description of you?


Mary

wrote:

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.


I was lucky enough to have my second child in such a maternity ward.
I was considered at high risk, due to age and a previous Caesarean, so
home birth was out of the question, but the facilities provided were the
next best thing. We had the use of two rooms - one was a small, nicely
decorated sitting room, with rocking chairs, TV, and reading material;
the other looked like a very nice bedroom, with a brass bedstead,
patterned sheets, art on the walls, another rocking chair, etc. It had
its own shower room, too. But - behind the cupboard doors, was every
piece of equipment that might be needed in an emergency, the end of the
bed could swing away, and leg supports could be fitted.
As it happened, I had a normal, unmedicated birth - and I think the
stress-free environment had something to do with it.

Mark wrote:
I even missed the actual birth since the cafe was
closed and I had gone to find something to eat!

And I'll bet you'll never, ever, ever be allowed to forget that!

The birth of our last one was a bit like that. Nothing at all was
happening in the delivery room so SWMBO dispatched me home at lunchtime
to check all was well there; the two grannies(*) having been imported to
look after the elder two toddlers. So I'd just got home and was eating
a swift sandwich whereupon I had a phone call from the midwife
suggesting in a
WTF-do-you-think-you're-doing-swanning-off-for-lunch-while-your-poor-wife-is
-here-in-the-latter-stages-of-labour sort-of voice, that NOW would be a
rather a good time to get my butt back to the hospital. In the ensuing
excitement, one of the grannies 'saved' my two-year-old from falling
over by yanking his hand, and in doing so managed to dislocate his elbow
(it had happened similarly very recently so the joint was rather weak).

Oh Christ...

So I zoomed back to the hospital, one granny and whimpering son in the
back of the car and into A&E. I thrust my son at a surprised nurse
'sorry, can't stop my wife's about to give birth upstairs - here's
granny' and rushed up in time to welcome my next son into the world.
God, we guys have it tough.

(There were more shenanigans down in A&E, since because we'd just moved
house days before, granny was completely unable to provide an address or
phone number for this injured child in her care. We got it all sorted
eventually though, including the elbow. But hey - maybe a home birth
would have been easier?!)

David

*yes, both of them - long story

Mark wrote:

How about this one:
Anderson R E, Anderson D A. The cost-effectiveness of home birth.
Journal of Nurse-Midwifery, 1999; 44(1): 30-35

"The average uncomplicated natural birth costs 68% less in a home
setting than in a hospital, and births initiated in the home offer a
lower combined rate of intrapartum and neonatal mortality and a lower
incidence of cesarean delivery."

If that's the case, then given that costs are sadly but unarguably the
be-all and end-all when it comes to NHS patient care these days, I
wonder why home births aren't made compulsory for uncomplicated pregnancies?

David

"Lobster" wrote in message
...
Mark wrote:

How about this one:
Anderson R E, Anderson D A. The cost-effectiveness of home birth.
Journal of Nurse-Midwifery, 1999; 44(1): 30-35

"The average uncomplicated natural birth costs 68% less in a home
setting than in a hospital, and births initiated in the home offer a
lower combined rate of intrapartum and neonatal mortality and a lower
incidence of cesarean delivery."

If that's the case, then given that costs are sadly but unarguably the
be-all and end-all when it comes to NHS patient care these days, I wonder
why home births aren't made compulsory for uncomplicated pregnancies?

As they were in Leeds at lest fifty years ago.

Mary

David

Lobster wrote:
Mark wrote:

How about this one:
Anderson R E, Anderson D A. The cost-effectiveness of home birth.
Journal of Nurse-Midwifery, 1999; 44(1): 30-35

"The average uncomplicated natural birth costs 68% less in a home
setting than in a hospital, and births initiated in the home offer a
lower combined rate of intrapartum and neonatal mortality and a lower
incidence of cesarean delivery."

If that's the case, then given that costs are sadly but unarguably the
be-all and end-all when it comes to NHS patient care these days, I
wonder why home births aren't made compulsory for uncomplicated
pregnancies?

because one complication and the resultant litigation would completely
outweigh any cost-benefit.

David

Lobster wrote:
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.


The current figure is somewhere between 5-8 maternal deaths per 100000.
The figure for road deaths is between 5-6 per 100000, so it could be
considered about as dangerous as going out in your car or crossing the road.

While giving birth is not to be taken lightly and can indeed have many
complications calling it the most dangerous things a woman will voluntarily
do is pushing it.

wrote:
On 6 Sep, 20:54, Owain wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:


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

Alternatively you'll put an enormous strain on the local midwifery service
by having a team of midwives on call 24 hours a day (at something like 50p
per hour for the time they are at home and on call for you)

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)

go to a decent hospital where you may well have a bath in your room

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

You can get up and do what you want in a well managed labour ward

e) I'll avoid not-needed interventions (experienced twice)

f) It'll be a great experience as opposed to a mildly traumatic one.

My wife's had three great experiences delivering in hospital.

As a midwife she has also been out and delivered many babies successfully at
home. But the vast majority of the public simply do not realise what a
strain home births place on an understaffed service.


Having had three children, I've heard lots of women's experiences of
birth and I've rarely (actually maybe even never, I can't think of
one) heard a positive account of a **normal** hospital birth and have

My wife had three very good experiences, but she will be the first to admit
that she had an easy time in comparison to the majority of women.

1. went into hospital about 11.00, had a bath delivered around 3 went home
at 6.00. Pain relief gas and air
2. pretty similar to number 1. Dropped our 2 year old into nursery about
12.00, delivery at about 4. home by 7
3. in at 8.00 in the evening delivered at 3 in the morning. Stayed in until
the next evening.

All were normal births, gas and air for pain relief and delivery by the midwife.

At least now you've heard a positive account.

best wishes for your own delivery this time around and I hope all goes well.

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 11:29:31 +0100 Mark wrote :
"The average uncomplicated natural birth costs 68% less in a home
setting than in a hospital, and births initiated in the home offer a
lower combined rate of intrapartum and neonatal mortality and a lower
incidence of cesarean delivery."

Surely (speaking as a mere man), whilst you may know that it will be a
complicated delivery before the event, you only know that it's
uncomplicated afterwards?

--
Tony Bryer SDA UK 'Software to build on' http://www.sda.co.uk

Lobster wrote:

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.

I just don't get why that experience wouldn't turn you into a rabid
anti-home-birth campaigner, though.

Well, I have left out much of the harrowing detail of what seemed like
days of fumbled interventions that really served no purpose but caused
much distress at the time. It certainly was not an experience that made
one think, I am glad we are here.

"Fortunately" the baby was OK, you say - what would have happened if it
hadn't been, and you'd been stuck at home waiting for the ambulance
rather than SWMBO being whisked in for a rapid section?

Well we were 15 mins from the hospital, so I can't see it would make
much difference in the total time to theatre - at the time it was
decided that c section was the way forward, there was a 20 min wait
anyway[1]. Midwives doing home delivers usually carry adequate
monitoring equipment to identify problems of foetal distress.

[1] Then began the saga of the comedy anaesthetist who could not seem to
administer a spinal block without half a dozen attempts and insisting it
must be that the operating table is not level!

In our case, my wife was in labour in hospital (there was never any
intention to do otherwise); she was hooked up to a foetal monitor and
being watched routinely by the midwife when there was an obvious 'oh,
****' moment and the midwife rushed off for help: within 2 minutes the
room was filled with all manner of scrubs-clad staff and within a couple
more minutes - the scariest of both our lives - a very blue baby arrived
and was whipped off to the incubator by the neonatal paediatrician.
Fortunately the baby was absolutely fine, but I genuinely don't believe
that would have been the case had SWMBO not been right there in the
hospital when the baby suddenly went 'off'.

IIUC, that sort of turnaround is relatively rare... obviously one can
never know if had circumstances been different, the outcome would
change. It is worth bearing in mind though that usually once labour is
established they only monitor for 10 - 15 mins out of the hour or so to
allow mum to move about a bit - so even in hospital you could have gone
40 mins or more prior to an event like that being noticed.

All anecdotal I know; but then there's the friend of SWMBO who wanted
her baby to be born at home and tragically ended up with a stillbirth.
Then a wife of a former work colleague of mine had a massive haemorrhage
during birth at home and was scant minutes away from the final curtain
when the ambulance finally got her to the hospital. In both cases, the
women went on to have uneventful births for their subsequent children...
and were very happy to do so in hospital.

Indeed - if there have been complications in the past, then it is not
worth the risk.

Typically in this area they don't recommend home birth for a first one.
They often offer the "DomINO" system (Domestic In Out) when at the onset
of labour the midwife comes round to your house, then accompanies you to
hospital for the actual delivery and then assuming all is well brings
you back again. That keeps total hospital time down to as little as a
couple of hours.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...

Typically in this area they don't recommend home birth for a first one.
They often offer the "DomINO" system (Domestic In Out) when at the onset
of labour the midwife comes round to your house, then accompanies you to
hospital for the actual delivery and then assuming all is well brings you
back again. That keeps total hospital time down to as little as a couple
of hours.

I can't think of anything worse for the mother.

But what does she count ...

Mary

dennis@home wrote:

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.

I'll type this slowly Dennis, so you can understand. The figure of £1.5
billion isn't mine, its the figure quoted by the NHS for treating 'smoking
related disease's' so they include everything smoking related.

I haven't refused to add in anything, I'm just quoting the official NHS
figures.


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

Kevin wrote:
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

Typical anti smoking fascist. Repeats parrot fashion whatever he is told
because he is unable to think for himself. When faced with clear evidence
that refutes his beliefs he becomes abusive.

I have no intention of giving up thank you. Why would I wish to give up
something I regard as a great pleasure?

BTW, I don't intend to live forever. Oh, and non smokers die every day.


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

Rod wrote:


Similar applies to smoking. There are the 'obvious' cases in which
lung cancer (for example) is held to be the direct consequence of
smoking.

Which is supported by clear scientific evidence.

But there are probably far more cases in which smoking has had
consequnces which contributed to demise.

For which there is no credible evidence whatsoever. I could make the claim
that "there are probably far more cases in which eating marmite sandwiches
has had consequences which contributed to demise" on that basis.


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

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Kevin wrote:
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

Typical anti smoking fascist. Repeats parrot fashion whatever he is told
because he is unable to think for himself. When faced with clear evidence
that refutes his beliefs he becomes abusive.

I have no intention of giving up thank you. Why would I wish to give up
something I regard as a great pleasure?

BTW, I don't intend to live forever. Oh, and non smokers die every day.


not a fascist at all, I just don't need to justify not smoking the same
way as smokers try and justify it, and as for "abuse" your having a
laugh, if that was abuse you need to get out more.
Any way this is way of topic and as your a die hard smoker that want to
see his way and I am a non smoker and proud of it and that's all that
matters, I quite like going in to a pub/building and not sharing yours
or any one else smoke, I just wish all the smokers would dispose of
their cigarette ends in a bin rather than chuck them wherever they
happen to be at the time whether it be a church or beach they just dont care

--
Kevin R
Reply address works

"Owain" wrote in message
news
Mary Fisher wrote:
Voluntarily?
How many pregnancies are planned?

Planned or unplanned, the majority are voluntary. Very few pregnancies
result from coercion or assault.

I take your point but I think that 'voluntary' denotes assent.

Mary

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...
dennis@home wrote:

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.

I'll type this slowly Dennis, so you can understand. The figure of £1.5
billion isn't mine, its the figure quoted by the NHS for treating 'smoking
related disease's' so they include everything smoking related.

I haven't refused to add in anything, I'm just quoting the official NHS
figures.

See, just as I said.
refuses to add in the true costs because he wants to believe smokers
contribute more than they cost even when it is clearly untrue.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
...
Rod wrote:


Similar applies to smoking. There are the 'obvious' cases in which
lung cancer (for example) is held to be the direct consequence of
smoking.

Which is supported by clear scientific evidence.

But there are probably far more cases in which smoking has had
consequnces which contributed to demise.

For which there is no credible evidence whatsoever. I could make the
claim that "there are probably far more cases in which eating marmite
sandwiches has had consequences which contributed to demise" on that
basis.

However as you clearly have no idea about the subject it wouldn't stand up
to examination by experts unlike the smoking links.

dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...
dennis@home wrote:

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.

I'll type this slowly Dennis, so you can understand. The figure of
£1.5 billion isn't mine, its the figure quoted by the NHS for
treating 'smoking related disease's' so they include everything
smoking related. I haven't refused to add in anything, I'm just quoting
the official
NHS figures.

See, just as I said.
refuses to add in the true costs because he wants to believe smokers
contribute more than they cost even when it is clearly untrue.

Sigh OK Dennis, font of all knowledge & wisdom, how much does all the
other stuff the NHS has forgotton cost then?

I can't refuse to add in the true costs you ****wit because the NHS don't
say there are any.

So, tell us what it all costs Dennis. You must know surely?


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

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...
dennis@home wrote:

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.

I'll type this slowly Dennis, so you can understand. The figure of
£1.5 billion isn't mine, its the figure quoted by the NHS for
treating 'smoking related disease's' so they include everything
smoking related. I haven't refused to add in anything, I'm just quoting
the official
NHS figures.

See, just as I said.
refuses to add in the true costs because he wants to believe smokers
contribute more than they cost even when it is clearly untrue.

Sigh OK Dennis, font of all knowledge & wisdom, how much does all the
other stuff the NHS has forgotton cost then?

I can't refuse to add in the true costs you ****wit because the NHS don't
say there are any.

So, tell us what it all costs Dennis. You must know surely?

What did you post earlier about another poster getting personal and chucking
insults because he was losing the argument?
You really are an arsehole.
I have been civil with you but an arsehole like you just doesn't like it
when you are shown to be wrong.
Why don't you book a one way ticket to Switzerland and put us all out of
your misery.

Kevin wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:


SNIP I quite like going in to a pub/building and not sharing yours
or any one else smoke,

We could have had 'choice' but anti smokers don't want that, they wanted
punative legislation to punish smokers.

I just wish all the smokers would dispose of
their cigarette ends in a bin rather than chuck them wherever they
happen to be at the time whether it be a church or beach they just
dont care

'All' smokers? Bit of a sweeping (no pun intended) statement isn't it?
Typical of the anti smoking lobby, make up the facts to suit your cause.
'All' smokers are litter louts now are they?

Of course the anti smoking fascists were so keen to ban smoking indoors,
they didn't plan on providing bins for smokers outside - now they are
whinging about the litter FFS. Comes under the heading of 'No ****
Sherlock'.


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

dennis@home wrote:


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message ...
Rod wrote:


Similar applies to smoking. There are the 'obvious' cases in which
lung cancer (for example) is held to be the direct consequence of
smoking.

Which is supported by clear scientific evidence.

But there are probably far more cases in which smoking has had
consequnces which contributed to demise.

For which there is no credible evidence whatsoever. I could make the
claim that "there are probably far more cases in which eating marmite
sandwiches has had consequences which contributed to demise" on that
basis.

However as you clearly have no idea about the subject it wouldn't stand
up to examination by experts unlike the smoking links.
your wasting your time Dennis, he sees the world as he wants to

--
Kevin R
Reply address works

"Kevin" wrote in message
...

However as you clearly have no idea about the subject it wouldn't stand
up to examination by experts unlike the smoking links.
your wasting your time Dennis, he sees the world as he wants to

I know that, he is a typical addict.

dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...
dennis@home wrote:

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.

I'll type this slowly Dennis, so you can understand. The figure of
£1.5 billion isn't mine, its the figure quoted by the NHS for
treating 'smoking related disease's' so they include everything
smoking related. I haven't refused to add in anything, I'm just
quoting the official
NHS figures.

See, just as I said.
refuses to add in the true costs because he wants to believe smokers
contribute more than they cost even when it is clearly untrue.

Sigh OK Dennis, font of all knowledge & wisdom, how much does all
the other stuff the NHS has forgotton cost then?

I can't refuse to add in the true costs you ****wit because the NHS
don't say there are any.

So, tell us what it all costs Dennis. You must know surely?

What did you post earlier about another poster getting personal and
chucking insults because he was losing the argument?
You really are an arsehole.
I have been civil with you but an arsehole like you just doesn't like
it when you are shown to be wrong.
Why don't you book a one way ticket to Switzerland and put us all out
of your misery.

So you have no idea what the extra costs you claim I'm refusing to add in to
the NHS figures than?

I thought not. Do tell.


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

Kevin wrote:
dennis@home wrote:


"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message ...
Rod wrote:


Similar applies to smoking. There are the 'obvious' cases in which
lung cancer (for example) is held to be the direct consequence of
smoking.

Which is supported by clear scientific evidence.

But there are probably far more cases in which smoking has had
consequnces which contributed to demise.

For which there is no credible evidence whatsoever. I could make
the claim that "there are probably far more cases in which eating
marmite sandwiches has had consequences which contributed to
demise" on that basis.

However as you clearly have no idea about the subject it wouldn't
stand up to examination by experts unlike the smoking links.
your wasting your time Dennis, he sees the world as he wants to

Oh? And you & Dennis don't? You believed the figures about 35,000 Americans
dieing without considering the maths. Dennis won't answer questions about
extra costs he appears to have made up.

Perhaps I'm just not a gullible as you are.


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

dennis@home wrote:
"Kevin" wrote in message
...

However as you clearly have no idea about the subject it wouldn't
stand up to examination by experts unlike the smoking links.
your wasting your time Dennis, he sees the world as he wants to

I know that, he is a typical addict.

Why don't you juast answer the question about the amount of the extra costs
you claim I refuse to consider?


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

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Kevin wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

SNIP I quite like going in to a pub/building and not sharing yours
or any one else smoke,

We could have had 'choice' but anti smokers don't want that, they wanted
punative legislation to punish smokers.

I just wish all the smokers would dispose of
their cigarette ends in a bin rather than chuck them wherever they
happen to be at the time whether it be a church or beach they just
dont care

'All' smokers? Bit of a sweeping (no pun intended) statement isn't it?
Typical of the anti smoking lobby, make up the facts to suit your cause.
'All' smokers are litter louts now are they?

Of course the anti smoking fascists were so keen to ban smoking indoors,
they didn't plan on providing bins for smokers outside -
even if there is a bin its not used

now they are
whinging about the litter FFS. Comes under the heading of 'No ****
Sherlock'.


this is just wasting bandwidth, I'm out as the Dragons would say

--
Kevin R
Reply address works

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Kevin wrote:
dennis@home wrote:

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message ...
Rod wrote:

Similar applies to smoking. There are the 'obvious' cases in which
lung cancer (for example) is held to be the direct consequence of
smoking.
Which is supported by clear scientific evidence.

But there are probably far more cases in which smoking has had
consequnces which contributed to demise.
For which there is no credible evidence whatsoever. I could make
the claim that "there are probably far more cases in which eating
marmite sandwiches has had consequences which contributed to
demise" on that basis.
However as you clearly have no idea about the subject it wouldn't
stand up to examination by experts unlike the smoking links.
your wasting your time Dennis, he sees the world as he wants to

Oh? And you & Dennis don't? You believed the figures about 35,000 Americans
dieing without considering the maths. Dennis won't answer questions about
extra costs he appears to have made up.

Perhaps I'm just not a gullible as you are.


I dont care if 1 or 1000000000 die it kills period
bye

--
Kevin R
Reply address works

Mary Fisher wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
Typically in this area they don't recommend home birth for a first one.
They often offer the "DomINO" system (Domestic In Out) when at the onset
of labour the midwife comes round to your house, then accompanies you to
hospital for the actual delivery and then assuming all is well brings you
back again. That keeps total hospital time down to as little as a couple
of hours.

I can't think of anything worse for the mother.

Well can't speak for ourselves obviously, but I know some people who
went this route and thought it significantly better than traditional
hospital delivery. Mainly because of the lack of admin hassle and the
fact that you get to keep the one midwife all the way through the
process regardless of how long it takes. (this service is also usually
provided by the community midwives rather than the hospital ones...
these (in our experience) tended to be a far more agreeable lot, aided
by the fact that you had chance in the months of run up to get to know
them and build a level of trust etc)

But what does she count ...

Not as much as one would hope some of the time - again often luck of the
draw though.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...
dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...
dennis@home wrote:

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.

I'll type this slowly Dennis, so you can understand. The figure of
£1.5 billion isn't mine, its the figure quoted by the NHS for
treating 'smoking related disease's' so they include everything
smoking related. I haven't refused to add in anything, I'm just
quoting the official
NHS figures.

See, just as I said.
refuses to add in the true costs because he wants to believe smokers
contribute more than they cost even when it is clearly untrue.

Sigh OK Dennis, font of all knowledge & wisdom, how much does all
the other stuff the NHS has forgotton cost then?

I can't refuse to add in the true costs you ****wit because the NHS
don't say there are any.

So, tell us what it all costs Dennis. You must know surely?

What did you post earlier about another poster getting personal and
chucking insults because he was losing the argument?
You really are an arsehole.
I have been civil with you but an arsehole like you just doesn't like
it when you are shown to be wrong.
Why don't you book a one way ticket to Switzerland and put us all out
of your misery.

So you have no idea what the extra costs you claim I'm refusing to add in
to the NHS figures than?

I thought not. Do tell.


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



Whilst I am willing to believe your figures about the cost to the NHS (I've
read them in far more places than this) the fact remains that there are
costs that are not bourne from the NHS's budget. This will include the
costs of any non-medical equipment used in the home (eg beds and daily
living aids) and care and support packages (eg respite for any carers, home
helps and the like) these will both be paid for by Social Services. On top
of this there is the cost from the benefits system (incapacity benefit and
disability living allowance for the patient and carer's allowance) which
comes from DWP budget. Whether this combined is more or less than the tax
revenue generated I do not know.

Of course to completely analyse the figures we would need to also include
the reduced cost of pensions for smokers as an additional pay back along
with the tax generated.

As someone who has worked as a toxicologist (albeit not directly in the
field of smoking) the evidence of the harm of passive smoking is not as
clear cut as it is for direct harm to the actual smoker. That being said
there does seem to be a strong correlation with harm even if this is not
strong enough, at this moment, to prove direct causation. Much seems to
depend on how define the harm caused - for example an asthma attack may be
precipitated by exposure to tobacco smoke but it is unlikely that the
underlying asthma condition was actually caused by the smoke. I have read
any of the scientific journals for a few years now so I could be out of date
but if there are links to reputable, peer-reviewed journals feel free to
share.

As a non-smoker it appears to me that many smokers do not realise how
unpleasant their second-hand smoke is even on a purely irritating basis (ie
just the smell and general irritation of being in a smoky atmosphere rather
than any major toxicological effects it may cause) but, that being said, I
am not personally a great fan of the total ban. Personally I would have been
happy for there to continue to be smoking rooms in pubs and the like as long
as these were physicaly separate to the non-smoking areas and with decent
ventilation.

Cheers

Mark