Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sat, 2 Jan 1999 12:22:34 EST |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
In a message dated 1/2/99 12:00:19 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[log in to unmask] writes:
<< Well, go visit an "old" cemetery and count the infant graves and then go to
a
"new" cemetery and count the infant graves. Need I say more?
Perhaps we should go back to the prehistoric "good ole days" when more than
50% of infants did not make it to one year of age.
To paraphrase a famous quote: Those who do not know their history are doomed
to repeat it.
Your study of one out of 12 is hardly proof of anything. >>
Andrew:
It's certainly true that modern medicine saves *sick* babies' lives. As the
mother of a 12 month old (birthday tomorrow!) who was born last January with
persistent fetal circulation and who spent several lifesaving weeks in the
NICU (where, by the way, he never had a single bottle until the day I put him
to breast with nasal cannula still in at ten days of age), I am acutely aware
of how different things are for babies with health problems in 1999 as opposed
to 1889. And since you are on a l*st full of other medical professionals, you
can be quite sure that everyone else is too. However, to doubt that the
*routine* (meaning, not medically necessary) interventions of our
technological birthing culture are iatrogenic is to ignore the research.
Check out my article on this topic at:
http://www.goodnewsnet.org/weekly/minnesto.htm
Katie-- working at her computer today with her chronically aching, epidural-
injured back aching terribly
Katie Allison Granju
Knoxville, TN
|
|
|