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