Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Tue, 27 Apr 2010 11:38:33 EDT |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Sara writes:
Wow; 3-5% incidence for a potentially lethal problem seems so high!
I guess I was wondering what evolutionary pressures would permit
continuity of this sort of problem. But if the term is heterogeneous the way Rachel
describes, with many different underlying causes ranging from submucosal
attachment to mechanical birth-related issues figuring into that number,
then perhaps it's not so high as all that. That is, true "inherent" (as
opposed to 'environmental') tt may not be as prevalent as all that.
~~~ Interesting point. I wonder if it remains "high" in populations because
most used to have a way to deal with it so the babies might have been
underweight for a while but would have survived, unless it was really
super-restricted and there was no midwife or wise person to release it and no
relative with an older baby and a full and/or fast-flowing supply to pass the
baby to if needed. I also wonder if the studies were done before recent
super-managed births where IVs/epi/pitocin are the standard, so they were
actually identifying truly anatomical issues. If it is by visual assessment then
all the posteriors wouldn't be counted either so I wonder if functionally
taking into account all ties, the incidence would be even higher.
Peace,
Judy
***********************************************
Archives: http://community.lsoft.com/archives/LACTNET.html
To reach list owners: [log in to unmask]
Mail all list management commands to: [log in to unmask]
COMMANDS:
1. To temporarily stop your subscription write in the body of an email: set lactnet nomail
2. To start it again: set lactnet mail
3. To unsubscribe: unsubscribe lactnet
4. To get a comprehensive list of rules and directions: get lactnet welcome
|
|
|