On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:36:51 +0000, The Medway Handyman wrote:

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

Indeed: the truth, but not the whole truth. Apart from costs to the NHS
illness and disabilities in general, including smoking-related illness
and disabilities in particular, cost society in other ways: time lost off
work by the afflicted, and those looking after them, costs to local
authority social services, and so on.

--
John Stumbles

I forgot to take my amnesia medecine again

Mark Spice wrote:


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journals for a few years now so I could be out of date but if there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.

Thank you for a reasoned & intelligent post Mark.

I agree that smoke can be unpleasant to non smokers, I would also agree that
there should be legally enforceable non smoking areas - equally there should
be smoking areas.

Dennis appears to be arguing that I am deliberately ignoring the cost to
social services. I'm not, I simply don't have the information, only the NHS
figures. As the proponent of the argument Dennis should be able to put a
figure on this, but he can't, so typically he avoids the issue & behaves
like a cross schoolboy.


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

John Stumbles wrote:
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:36:51 +0000, The Medway Handyman wrote:

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

Indeed: the truth, but not the whole truth. Apart from costs to the
NHS illness and disabilities in general, including smoking-related
illness and disabilities in particular, cost society in other ways:
time lost off work by the afflicted, and those looking after them,
costs to local authority social services, and so on.

Quite possibly John, all I'm asking is for Dennis to tell me how much this
cost is. I doubt that it is £5.5 billion a year.

On the other side we should deduct the pension & elderly care costs because
smokers die younger in general, and we should deduct the cost of dementure
care - smokers rarely suffer from Alzheimer's or Parkinsons - facts that
have been suppressed.


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

Kevin wrote:
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

Sounds more like "I lost the argument because I was talking out of my arse"
to me.


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

On Sun, 07 Sep 2008 23:01:48 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:


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.

Yeah, Brimstone and treacle, wire brush and Dettol. That's the stuff.

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.

Yes, maternity care is good. I always assumed that was because if
anything went wrong they could end up paying damages to an individual
for the rest of it's life starting at time zero. I remember when my
daughter was born in the local maternity hospital fathers attending
weren't allowed to buy a meal in the staff canteen without a chitty
signed by the ward sister in person, understandably she tended to go
missing at meal times. Seemingly she didn't have any more important
calls upon her time. LOL

Emergency, (as in heart attack) care is also very good. Episodes in
intensive care are not very long and an avoidable bad outcome would be
very expensive.

The GP service is very good (around here at any rate) most (all ?)
countries don't even attempt to emulate it.

*******************

OTOH a high proportion of their hospitals are literally ****ty filthy
dumps, and I can not understand the mentality of a person that can
just turn up every day and keep on working in such utter squalor.

Derek

dennis@home wrote:
"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..

Smoking has been proven to harm active smokers, but not passive smokers.


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.

That assumes there were any problems to inflict.


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.

I think you will find clear evidence that the manipulation of figures is the
perogative of the anti smoking lobby Dennis. The USA claim 35,000 deaths in
a population of 305, 000,000, the EU claim 16,000 deaths in a population of
728,000,000. Both cannot be correct.


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.

So, for the umpteenth time, tell me how much this costs? We have £5.5
billion to play with after all.


The consultants and doctors know which patients are smokers without
asking.. they are the ones with bits missing.

So, you are now claiming that smoking causes limbs to fall off on a massive
scale? No doubt you have scientific evidence to support that claim?


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

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
om...
John Stumbles wrote:
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:36:51 +0000, The Medway Handyman wrote:

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

Indeed: the truth, but not the whole truth. Apart from costs to the
NHS illness and disabilities in general, including smoking-related
illness and disabilities in particular, cost society in other ways:
time lost off work by the afflicted, and those looking after them,
costs to local authority social services, and so on.

Quite possibly John, all I'm asking is for Dennis to tell me how much this
cost is. I doubt that it is £5.5 billion a year.

No you aren't, you are being an arsehole.
If you wanted to know you could have asked without the abuse.
However being an arsehole you just couldn't manage it.


On the other side we should deduct the pension & elderly care costs
because smokers die younger in general, and we should deduct the cost of
dementure care - smokers rarely suffer from Alzheimer's or Parkinsons -
facts that have been suppressed.

Even that is also only a half truth.. dementia , etc. sufferers tend to stop
smoking after they have it due to them being unable to continue.

You really do grasp at any straw to justify your own addiction.

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

Smoking has been proven to harm active smokers, but not passive smokers.


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.

That assumes there were any problems to inflict.


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.

I think you will find clear evidence that the manipulation of figures is
the perogative of the anti smoking lobby Dennis. The USA claim 35,000
deaths in a population of 305, 000,000, the EU claim 16,000 deaths in a
population of 728,000,000. Both cannot be correct.

Why can't they?
Just show me one reason why the deaths from a particular cause don't vary
from population to population?
The genetic makeup of the population of Europe is not the same as America,
the fags they smoke aren't the same, the levels of obesity aren't the same.
You just don't have a clue about the subject but you think you are right.

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.

So, for the umpteenth time, tell me how much this costs? We have £5.5
billion to play with after all.

As some other "****wit", I not going to provide an arsehole like you with
anything.

The consultants and doctors know which patients are smokers without
asking.. they are the ones with bits missing.

So, you are now claiming that smoking causes limbs to fall off on a
massive scale? No doubt you have scientific evidence to support that
claim?

Yes I do.

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Kevin wrote:
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

Sounds more like "I lost the argument because I was talking out of my arse"
to me.


nah I just beg to differ I wont change my opinion you wont change yours
so what's the point? theres info to back me up and info back you up
but it cannot be all correct, but one thing is 100% correct breathing
out just air in a room is not killing anyone, and you cannot say that
about smoking with 100% certainty and you never will

--
Kevin R
Reply address works

"Kevin" wrote in message
...

Sounds more like "I lost the argument because I was talking out of my
arse" to me.


nah I just beg to differ I wont change my opinion you wont change yours so
what's the point? theres info to back me up and info back you up but it
cannot be all correct, but one thing is 100% correct breathing out just
air in a room is not killing anyone, and you cannot say that about smoking
with 100% certainty and you never will

Even when you post stuff like http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4882686.stm

where a study specifically found that 5% of the non smoking cases developed
diabetes as a result of secondhand smoke

he will deny it.

He will also get abusive and behave like the arsehole he is.
He is an arsehole because he gets abusive and a bigger arsehole in that he
continues to want to injure others and seeks excuses for his behavior.

The Medway Handyman wrote:
John Stumbles wrote:
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:36:51 +0000, The Medway Handyman wrote:

I haven't refused to add in anything, I'm just quoting the official
NHS figures.
Indeed: the truth, but not the whole truth. Apart from costs to the
NHS illness and disabilities in general, including smoking-related
illness and disabilities in particular, cost society in other ways:
time lost off work by the afflicted, and those looking after them,
costs to local authority social services, and so on.

Quite possibly John, all I'm asking is for Dennis to tell me how much this
cost is. I doubt that it is £5.5 billion a year.

On the other side we should deduct the pension & elderly care costs because
smokers die younger in general, and we should deduct the cost of dementure
care - smokers rarely suffer from Alzheimer's or Parkinsons - facts that
have been suppressed.


Is that not 'cause they don't live long enough for them the kick in. :-)

David

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 13:49:22 +0100, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

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.

There can and has been litigation in hospital births.

--
(\__/) 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 Mon, 08 Sep 2008 07:28:47 -0400, S Viemeister
wrote:

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.

I'm glad this worked for you. IMHO a nicely decorated hospital room
is better than one that resembles a torture chamber but no substitute
for home.

--
(\__/) 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

"Mark Spice" wrote in message
...


....


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.

Same here, beause the total ban has sent the poor junkies onto the street
(what more public place is there?) where there's no escape. If one wants to
go through a shop door, an hotel door or (for goodness' sake) a hospital
door one has to go through the stink.

It's even more unpleasant when a smoker sits next to one in a waiting room,
one can't escape from the stench of his/her clothes, hair and skin without
seeming to be rude.

Mary

"John Rumm" wrote in message
et...
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.

The reason I think it's awful for the mother is because she's been through a
lot, is tired and simply wants calm and quiet - which is one of the very
best things about a home confinement.

Mary

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.




This is completely disingenuous.

The numbers used bear no relevance to each other and are a good example of
the misuse of statistics. Given that you are trying to prove a point, I'll
put it down to you being obtuse rather than completely stupid.

You cannot quote deaths as attributed to smoking as a total percentage of
the population. It is meaningless.

You want to start by doubling the given figure to make it look better from
your perspective (35000 now equals 70000)

You at least want to use compare it relating to the total deaths per year.

You need to know (not guess) what population figures the original samples
relate to. I doubt that the Europe figure takes account of a population of
728 million. At best it would only be relating to the EC which is closer to
500 million, But then do these population figures, for a recently enlarged
EC also relate to the figures given for deaths now or from some time ago?

To get any sort of real information you also need the percentage of smokers,
etc.

For the record, my own view is that you should indeed be allowed to smoke if
you want to. But don't do it around me or my kids.

cheers

David

On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 17:18:19 +0100, Tony Bryer
wrote:

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?

IIRC a lot/most risks can be assessed beforehand. Things like the
babies position, health of the mother etc are important factors.

IANAM (I am not a midwife!).

--
(\__/) 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

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
t...

"John Rumm" wrote in message
et...
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.

The reason I think it's awful for the mother is because she's been through
a lot, is tired and simply wants calm and quiet - which is one of the very
best things about a home confinement.

She doesn't have to get up to clean and cook at hospital.

On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 01:56:29 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

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.

As would going to hospital at all if it were 90 minutes away. I would
think the worst place to give birth was in a car up to 45 minutes away
from anywhere.

In this situation the midwife could easily be closer than the
hospital.
--
(\__/) 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

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 01:56:29 -0700 (PDT), wrote:


....


... I would
think the worst place to give birth was in a car up to 45 minutes away
from anywhere.

Exciting though! And something to talk/boast about for years - and embarrass
the child of course :-)

Reminds me of our third's birth ...

Mary

"DM" wrote in message
...

....

For the record, my own view is that you should indeed be allowed to smoke
if you want to. But don't do it around me or my kids.

Nor me. Treat it as masturbation and keep it private.

Mary

On 8 Sep, 09:56, wrote:

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.

Which risk factors? The ones of a home birth or the ones of faffing
about for an hour and a half about driving a woman in labour to
hospital?

We're twenty miles from the nearest maternity unit. My next door
neighbour had child #1 there and child #2 in the car on the way there.
So for child #3, everybody concerned agreed that it would be best to
plan for a home birth. Waters broke 5.30am, sprog emerged 6.30am,
attending staff went home 7.30am and she was cooking breakfast when
the the first two children got up, having slept through the whole
thing.

Ian

Mary Fisher wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
et...
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.

The reason I think it's awful for the mother is because she's been through a
lot, is tired and simply wants calm and quiet - which is one of the very
best things about a home confinement.

Well true, and I am not suggesting it is perfect by any means, but it
does at least attempt to get closer to that ideal than the traditional
get yourself to hospital at the first signs of labour routine. Anecdotal
reports certainly seemed to rate it over the conventional approach.

--
Cheers,

John.

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

On 7 Sep, 00:02, "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.

What evidence do you have that the statistics mentioned are wrong? And
if you are so concerned about NHS resources, should you not be pleased
by someone who isn't planning to take up expensive hospital resources?

*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 makes you think a home birth costs more?

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.

Just an ambulance ride away, as you said.

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

What sodding business is it of yours?

Grow up & get used to it FFS. *Our NHS isn't perfect but it's probably the
best in the world.

Of course it is. Mind you, it's the only one in the world. Strange
that nobody seems to want to copy it, eh?

Ian

On 9 Sep, 00:02, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

On the other side we should deduct the pension & elderly care costs because
smokers die younger in general, and we should deduct the cost of dementure
care - smokers rarely suffer from Alzheimer's or Parkinsons - facts that
have been suppressed.

And remember that stupid people are more likely than intelligent
people (a) to smoke and (b) to become demented, so smoking selectively
weeds out those who are most likely to need expensive dementia care.

Win-win, that.

Ian

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

...
For the record, my own view is that you should indeed be allowed to smoke
if you want to. But don't do it around me or my kids.

Nor me. Treat it as masturbation and keep it private.

Mary


Can we do the same with breast feeding, and babies in general, Mary ?

The fuss women make over something that can be nade with nine months of
completely unskilled labour is always beyond me..


Babies are Boring.

On 8 Sep, 17:37, John Rumm wrote:

[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!

The local maternity unit here doesn't do epidurals any more, as they
killed an unfortunate woman trying one a couple of years back. They
are only available two hours away now.

Ian

In article
..com, The Real Doctor scribeth thus
On 8 Sep, 09:56, wrote:

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.

Which risk factors? The ones of a home birth or the ones of faffing
about for an hour and a half about driving a woman in labour to
hospital?

We're twenty miles from the nearest maternity unit. My next door
neighbour had child #1 there and child #2 in the car on the way there.
So for child #3, everybody concerned agreed that it would be best to
plan for a home birth. Waters broke 5.30am, sprog emerged 6.30am,
attending staff went home 7.30am and she was cooking breakfast when
the the first two children got up, having slept through the whole
thing.

Ian

Aww... Poor woman .. you mean you didn't cook for the family?, how could
you;!....
--
Tony Sayer

"The Real Doctor" wrote in message
...

Grow up & get used to it FFS. Our NHS isn't perfect but it's probably the
best in the world.

Of course it is. Mind you, it's the only one in the world. Strange
that nobody seems to want to copy it, eh?

There are others, NZ springs to mind.

The Real Doctor wrote:
On 8 Sep, 17:37, John Rumm wrote:

[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!

The local maternity unit here doesn't do epidurals any more, as they
killed an unfortunate woman trying one a couple of years back. They
are only available two hours away now.

They nearly managed that with SWMBO actually. Anaesthetist made a
complete balls of it and at one point SWMBO pointed out that she was
losing feeling in her arms...

For the uninitiated, this means that the spinal block is too high and is
affecting the nerves to the arms as well as the abdomen and legs. The
next nerves up the spinal column to be affected would be those of the
heart - obviously that's not exactly a desirable scenario.

The anaesthetist at this point draws up a syringe of liquid without
comment, and leaves it on the table next to me, while going back to
fiddling with the epidural. I take a glance at the phial and see that
it contains adrenaline - and I'm well aware that the only purpose of
that would be to bang it into SWMBO if and when her heart stopped
beating. Not a good moment. Fortunately, however, the arm-numbing
shortly subsided and the adrenaline wasn't needed.

(At least with home births you don't get epidurals!)

David

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Mary Fisher wrote:
"DM" wrote in message
...

...
For the record, my own view is that you should indeed be allowed to
smoke if you want to. But don't do it around me or my kids.

Nor me. Treat it as masturbation and keep it private.

Mary


Can we do the same with breast feeding, and babies in general, Mary ?

The fuss women make over something that can be nade with nine months of
completely unskilled labour is always beyond me..


Babies are Boring.


Don't think labour last for nine months... :-)

--
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

Mark wrote:
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 07:28:47 -0400, S Viemeister
wrote:

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.

I'm glad this worked for you. IMHO a nicely decorated hospital room
is better than one that resembles a torture chamber but no substitute
for home.

It was also quiet and private - my husband and I had the place to
ourselves most of the time, although staff checked my progress, and were
certainly present in the final stages of labour. We were not turfed out
immediately, either. No labour roomdelivery roomrecovery
roomhospital room, shifting about - I was in the same place for more
than 24 hours - it was a very long labour - and I didn't have to clean
up after myself.
Had I been younger, without a previous emergency c-section, I would
definitely have considered home birth.

On Sep 6, 11:16*pm, John Stumbles wrote:
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!


In my experience limited, the women do forget in time but the men (if
present at the birth) do not.

Robert

dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message om...
John Stumbles wrote:
On Mon, 08 Sep 2008 18:36:51 +0000, The Medway Handyman wrote:

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

Indeed: the truth, but not the whole truth. Apart from costs to the
NHS illness and disabilities in general, including smoking-related
illness and disabilities in particular, cost society in other ways:
time lost off work by the afflicted, and those looking after them,
costs to local authority social services, and so on.

Quite possibly John, all I'm asking is for Dennis to tell me how
much this cost is. I doubt that it is £5.5 billion a year.

No you aren't, you are being an arsehole.
If you wanted to know you could have asked without the abuse.
However being an arsehole you just couldn't manage it.

Can't answer the question huh? You don't have a clue do you?


On the other side we should deduct the pension & elderly care costs
because smokers die younger in general, and we should deduct the
cost of dementure care - smokers rarely suffer from Alzheimer's or
Parkinsons - facts that have been suppressed.

Even that is also only a half truth.. dementia , etc. sufferers tend
to stop smoking after they have it due to them being unable to
continue.

What? They can't remember where they left their fags?


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

Kevin wrote:
but one thing is 100% correct
breathing out just air in a room is not killing anyone, and you
cannot say that about smoking with 100% certainty and you never will

Necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, "the necessity of proof lies with
he who complains."

In other words, if you claim passive smoking kills X number of people a year
you must offer proof that it does.


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

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

Sounds more like "I lost the argument because I was talking out of
my arse" to me.


nah I just beg to differ I wont change my opinion you wont change
yours so what's the point? theres info to back me up and info back
you up but it cannot be all correct, but one thing is 100% correct
breathing out just air in a room is not killing anyone, and you
cannot say that about smoking with 100% certainty and you never will

Even when you post stuff like
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4882686.stm
where a study specifically found that 5% of the non smoking cases
developed diabetes as a result of secondhand smoke

he will deny it.

You lying git. No where on that page does it make such a statement.

He will also get abusive and behave like the arsehole he is.
He is an arsehole because he gets abusive and a bigger arsehole in
that he continues to want to injure others and seeks excuses for his
behavior.

Do I detect Dennis, that you think I'm an arsehole?

You still haven't answered the question - how much does it cost social
services to look after smokers? You must know, your argument depends on it.
Is it more that £5.5 billion?


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

dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in


I think you will find clear evidence that the manipulation of
figures is the perogative of the anti smoking lobby Dennis. The USA
claim 35,000 deaths in a population of 305, 000,000, the EU claim
16,000 deaths in a population of 728,000,000. Both cannot be
correct.

Why can't they?
Just show me one reason why the deaths from a particular cause don't
vary from population to population?

Yawn
They can, but we are looking at an alledged 1 in 8,700 chance in the USA and
a 1 in 45,500 chance in Europe. Figures that vary by that amount are
considered unreliable except by ****wits like you.

The genetic makeup of the population of Europe is not the same as
America, the fags they smoke aren't the same, the levels of obesity
aren't the same.

They would have to come from a completely different ****ing planet to
explain that variation.

The consultants and doctors know which patients are smokers without
asking.. they are the ones with bits missing.

So, you are now claiming that smoking causes limbs to fall off on a
massive scale? No doubt you have scientific evidence to support that
claim?

Yes I do.

OK lets see it. You can answer the question about the cost to social
services of looking after smokers at the same time.


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

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Kevin wrote:
but one thing is 100% correct
breathing out just air in a room is not killing anyone, and you
cannot say that about smoking with 100% certainty and you never will

Necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit, "the necessity of proof lies with
he who complains."

In other words, if you claim passive smoking kills X number of people a year
you must offer proof that it does.


yawn
I don't care if its X Y or Z smoking kills .

--
Kevin R
Reply address works

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

Sounds more like "I lost the argument because I was talking out of
my arse" to me.


nah I just beg to differ I wont change my opinion you wont change
yours so what's the point? theres info to back me up and info back
you up but it cannot be all correct, but one thing is 100% correct
breathing out just air in a room is not killing anyone, and you
cannot say that about smoking with 100% certainty and you never will

Even when you post stuff like
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4882686.stm
where a study specifically found that 5% of the non smoking cases
developed diabetes as a result of secondhand smoke

he will deny it.

You lying git. No where on that page does it make such a statement.

You really do want to show how stupid you are don't you!!!

"But 17% of those who never smoked themselves, but had been subject to
second-hand smoke, went on to develop the condition.

Poisons

This compared to the 12% of those not exposed to smoke who, the study said,
developed glucose intolerance.
"

He will also get abusive and behave like the arsehole he is.
He is an arsehole because he gets abusive and a bigger arsehole in
that he continues to want to injure others and seeks excuses for his
behavior.

Do I detect Dennis, that you think I'm an arsehole?

No I know you are an arsehole.


You still haven't answered the question - how much does it cost social
services to look after smokers? You must know, your argument depends on
it. Is it more that £5.5 billion?

What would be the point, you are too stupid to understand anything more than
1.

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
news
dennis@home wrote:
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in


I think you will find clear evidence that the manipulation of
figures is the perogative of the anti smoking lobby Dennis. The USA
claim 35,000 deaths in a population of 305, 000,000, the EU claim
16,000 deaths in a population of 728,000,000. Both cannot be
correct.

Why can't they?
Just show me one reason why the deaths from a particular cause don't
vary from population to population?

Yawn
They can, but we are looking at an alledged 1 in 8,700 chance in the USA
and a 1 in 45,500 chance in Europe. Figures that vary by that amount are
considered unreliable except by ****wits like you.

The genetic makeup of the population of Europe is not the same as
America, the fags they smoke aren't the same, the levels of obesity
aren't the same.

They would have to come from a completely different ****ing planet to
explain that variation.

The consultants and doctors know which patients are smokers without
asking.. they are the ones with bits missing.

So, you are now claiming that smoking causes limbs to fall off on a
massive scale? No doubt you have scientific evidence to support that
claim?

Yes I do.

OK lets see it. You can answer the question about the cost to social
services of looking after smokers at the same time.

What would be the point you have proven that you are too stupid to
understand.