Doctor refuses to do cSection, baby gets stuck...

[RearAdmiral]

How is that doctor not murdered by the father yet?

 

[chusteczka]

... The young couple says hey used in-vitro fertilization to get pregnant, but the unborn baby developed renal abnormalities that caused its abdomen to become enlarged.
...
a different doctor in the group wouldn’t agree to a cesarean section and would only do a vaginal birth.

The parents were sick and should not have been having children, resulting in a sick baby. This is a horrible situation but the baby's death has saved community money, whether insurance or public taxpayer funds, on trying to keep a sick baby alive. The baby should not have been born to begin with so the end result is acceptable. I really hope the parents do not receive a thing from the lawsuit since they should not have been having a child in the first place.

With that said, with a breech birth, the doctor should have either turned the baby around for it to be born head first or performed the C-section operation. Pulling on the legs to free the head is completely irresponsible and goes against all birthing knowledge gained through thousands of years of experience.

It amazes me that the mother's birthing canal dilated enough to allow the extended stomach to pass through but then clamped back down on the baby's neck so strongly as to pull its head off.

 

[Exterous]

i'm picturing him pulling, popping the head off, his face going white with panic as he tries feebly shoving everything back into the mother's vagina as if there's nothing to see here...

And how did they not notice something wrong if it was just covered up with gauze? Seems like it would...ya know...be really lose/flop off?

Nurse: "Why do you need the tape?"
Doctor: "Don't worry about it"
Nurse on the other side of the room trying to staple some papers together: "Where did all the staples go? I just filled this up"

:\

 

[eits]

the blood flying every part...just imagining that makes me want to puke. I can't imagine the look on the staffs faces when something like this happens.

i was thinking the same thing... how do the nurses shake something like that and get back to delivering the next baby?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Do doctors normally present a dead baby to the parents, regardless of how it died before/during/immediately after birth?

Yes, it is part of grief therapy. It is considered best to let the parents hold the child at least once to get some closure.

And I know a baby's bones are fragile, but is there skin and other tissues that much more fragile too?

I figured it was a case of internal decapitation until I read further into the article. He popped the whole head off? How hard is he pulling?! Holy shit!! D:

I think it was internal decapitation, just during the cesarean he had to remove the babies head to extract it from the birth canal with out doing further damage to the mother. The blood probably mostly came from the mother.

 

[RPD]

The parents were sick and should not have been having children, resulting in a sick baby. This is a horrible situation but the baby's death has saved community money, whether insurance or public taxpayer funds, on trying to keep a sick baby alive. The baby should not have been born to begin with so the end result is acceptable. I really hope the parents do not receive a thing from the lawsuit since they should not have been having a child in the first place.

With that said, with a breech birth, the doctor should have either turned the baby around for it to be born head first or performed the C-section operation. Pulling on the legs to free the head is completely irresponsible and goes against all birthing knowledge gained through thousands of years of experience.

It amazes me that the mother's birthing canal dilated enough to allow the extended stomach to pass through but then clamped back down on the baby's neck so strongly as to pull its head off.

DIAF.
No where in the article did they said the parents were sick. Fuck you for saying the result is acceptable. Oh here's your baby's head and the rest of his body, my bad.

Either you are a troll or a sick individual.

 

[BrokenVisage]

I love how they completely avoided using the word "descapitated".

I would hope so, it's not even a word lol.

 

[chusteczka]

DIAF.
No where in the article did they said the parents were sick. Fuck you for saying the result is acceptable. Oh here's your baby's head and the rest of his body, my bad.

Either you are a troll or a sick individual.

The parents needed invitro fertilization. They were not healthy enough on their own to have a child. Their baby had renal failure as a result. Do you find unhealthy parents having an unhealthy baby to be acceptable? Does the truth somehow slip past you unawares?

The world is overpopulated. We are producing GMO food and raising animals in tight cages and humans are completely destroying our environment to support this overpopulation. Do you think this is acceptable? It is you and everyone else that ignores the truth so they may selfishly feed their personal sensitivities that I find to be sick individuals.

 

[ch33zw1z]

The parents needed invitro fertilization. They were not healthy enough on their own to have a child. Their baby had renal failure as a result. Do you find unhealthy parents having an unhealthy baby to be acceptable? Does the truth somehow slip past you unawares?

The world is overpopulated. We are producing GMO food and raising animals in tight cages and humans are completely destroying our environment to support this overpopulation. Do you think this is acceptable? It is you and everyone else that ignores the truth so they may feed their personal sensitivities that I find to be sick individuals.

easy chust. while I understand what you're saying, you are presenting it to coarsely to gain any converts.

 

[RPD]

The parents needed invitro fertilization. They were not healthy enough on their own to have a child. Their baby had renal failure as a result. Do you find unhealthy parents having an unhealthy baby to be acceptable? Does the truth somehow slip past you unawares?

The world is overpopulated. We are producing GMO food and raising animals in tight cages and humans are completely destroying our environment to support this overpopulation. Do you think this is acceptable? It is you and everyone else that ignores the truth so they may feed their personal sensitivities that I find to be sick individuals.

Because invitro means not healthy right? Keep trolling your boat.

 

[lupi]

Remember when this was first posted. Think this version reads a bit more gruesome.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

The parents needed invitro fertilization. They were not healthy enough on their own to have a child. Their baby had renal failure as a result. Do you find unhealthy parents having an unhealthy baby to be acceptable? Does the truth somehow slip past you unawares?

The world is overpopulated. We are producing GMO food and raising animals in tight cages and humans are completely destroying our environment to support this overpopulation. Do you think this is acceptable? It is you and everyone else that ignores the truth so they may selfishly feed their personal sensitivities that I find to be sick individuals.

You have no clue what you are talking about.
Maybe the parents couldn't conceive because her fallopian tubes were dysfunctional. Perhaps it was done in-vitro because he was infertile. What would have happened in this was a lesbian couple who did in vitro? Would you say the same thing? You assume they were sick. The renal failure was not a result of the method of fertilization. It was just a complication of the pregnancy and would have happened no matter how fertilization occurred.

On top of that, in vitro fertilization is a legal method to get pregnant. You can disagree with it all you want, try to change it, but the face is that this doctor killed this child.

The world is overpopulated. Why don't you do humanity a favor and remove yourself from the problem?

 

[Capt Caveman]

The parents needed invitro fertilization. They were not healthy enough on their own to have a child. Their baby had renal failure as a result. Do you find unhealthy parents having an unhealthy baby to be acceptable? Does the truth somehow slip past you unawares?

The world is overpopulated. We are producing GMO food and raising animals in tight cages and humans are completely destroying our environment to support this overpopulation. Do you think this is acceptable? It is you and everyone else that ignores the truth so they may selfishly feed their personal sensitivities that I find to be sick individuals.

Let's hope you always remain a virgin.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

People can be unhealthy for many reasons. Maybe chusteczka can give us a list of conditions that should preclude people from having children. I would rather someone with a low sperm count (one of the reasons for IVF) have a child this way than an AIDS mom conceiving naturally.

chusteczka, are you a fan of eugenics?

 

[SMOGZINN]

The parents needed invitro fertilization.

Or at least opted for it, the article does not say.

They were not healthy enough on their own to have a child.

Assumption. Please define your term 'healthy'.

Their baby had renal failure as a result.

Assumtion. We have no way of knowing if the baby's renal failure had anything to do with the invitro fertilization or the parents health. There is any number of other factors possible.

Do you find unhealthy parents having an unhealthy baby to be acceptable?

Yes I do.

Does the truth somehow slip past you unawares?

What truth, you have said no truths, only your assumptions.

The world is overpopulated.

Based on what?

We are producing GMO food and raising animals in tight cages and humans are completely destroying our environment to support this overpopulation.

The first part is true, but then you connect it to an assumption on your part. Is GMO foods bad? I don't think so. Is animals in a cage bad? I don't think so.

Do you think this is acceptable?

Yes, I do.

It is you and everyone else that ignores the truth so they may selfishly feed their personal sensitivities that I find to be sick individuals.

Once again you better check your 'truth' because all I see is opinion, and a pretty uninformed one at that.

 

[Pens1566]

The parents needed invitro fertilization. They were not healthy enough on their own to have a child. Their baby had renal failure as a result. Do you find unhealthy parents having an unhealthy baby to be acceptable? Does the truth somehow slip past you unawares?

The world is overpopulated. We are producing GMO food and raising animals in tight cages and humans are completely destroying our environment to support this overpopulation. Do you think this is acceptable? It is you and everyone else that ignores the truth so they may selfishly feed their personal sensitivities that I find to be sick individuals.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[JohnnyGage]

That is horrific. This guy should never work again.

 

[mmntech]

Well, I stopped reading at the headline. Want to keep my afternoon snack where it belongs.

 

[dank69]

Okay I need to stop reading ATOT for awhile. :'(

 

[chusteczka]

easy chust. while I understand what you're saying, you are presenting it to coarsely to gain any converts.

Thank you. Understanding is really all I am going for. I am not trying to create problems or force my views, just state my thoughts that have not yet been stated by anyone else.

I honestly often get confused by this forum because logic is so often ignored. But then I remember that here I am communicating with everybody, including people I would not normally communicate with due to varying views, lifestyle, and educational levels and then all the communicative issues become understandable.

Because invitro means not healthy right? Keep trolling your boat.

You have no clue what you are talking about.
Maybe the parents couldn't conceive because her fallopian tubes were dysfunctional. Perhaps it was done in-vitro because he was infertile. What would have happened in this was a lesbian couple who did in vitro? Would you say the same thing? You assume they were sick. The renal failure was not a result of the method of fertilization. It was just a complication of the pregnancy and would have happened no matter how fertilization occurred.

On top of that, in vitro fertilization is a legal method to get pregnant. You can disagree with it all you want, try to change it, but the face is that this doctor killed this child.

The world is overpopulated. Why don't you do humanity a favor and remove yourself from the problem?

Yes, the fact invitro fertilization was necessary naturally shows imperfect health. The inability to breed is nature's way of ensuring the unhealthy do not breed so we do not develop an overpopulation of unhealthy misfits. This is not difficult to understand.

In a way, yes the renal failure was a result of the invitro fertilization due to the medical problems that required the artificial insemination in the first place. Whatever those medical problems were. Saying the renal failure was merely a complication is an excuse to rationalize allowing science to overcome nature at a large cost for the community.

Just because something is legal does not mean it is natural. Nature trumps whatever laws we humans might make for our societies. That is the one thing we cannot govern no matter how hard we try to.

And seriously now RPD and Apple Of Sodom telling me to die, what is up with that? I did not choose to be alive just you both did not. We all do what we can. This is "natural". Hopefully, you may both soon start to understand that term. Of course, Apple's name provides further understanding for his views.

Let's hope you always remain a virgin.

Where did this even come from? I live my life differently from the lowest common denominator method our society uses to normalize millions of individual lives into an ill-functioning society overpopulated by rationalization and ego. I am not the only one that does this, there are many people like me. Newsworthy for you, there are enough intelligent women that continually ensure your claim is false.

People can be unhealthy for many reasons. Maybe chusteczka can give us a list of conditions that should preclude people from having children. I would rather someone with a low sperm count (one of the reasons for IVF) have a child this way than an AIDS mom conceiving naturally.

chusteczka, are you a fan of eugenics?

Eugenics is the human attempt to control nature and this can easily be taken to an extreme similar to the Nazi medical experiments and policies. Breeding is one area where nature trumps human ability to control and I believe it should stay that way. Human manipulation creates ethical and health problems with a significantly high cost for society that I do not wish to pay.

...

Once again you better check your 'truth' because all I see is opinion, and a pretty uninformed one at that.

It was not my intention to waste the rest of my day in declaring the obvious to those unwilling to contemplate reality outside their own views. I have other things to do. All I wanted to do was state my opinion since nobody else had mentioned anything similar, not get into a hate fest.

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

Yes, the fact invitro fertilization was necessary naturally shows imperfect health. The inability to breed is nature's way of ensuring the unhealthy do not breed so we do not develop an overpopulation of unhealthy misfits. This is not difficult to understand.

Since you are making a lot of assumptions let me assume they received IVF due to low sperm motility, a common reason for IVF.

If someone is having trouble breeding because of low sperm count or motility you would deem them unhealthy and think that is nature's way of making sure they don't breed? For what reason? I can think of many other things that are very unhealthy and nature still "allows" procreation. Genetic disorders, autoimmune disorders, diseases of all sorts...all are far worse than low sperm motility.

Your premise falls apart. Your premise is that they could not conceive because they were unhealthy and nature effectively tried to stop them. Why can so many other unhealthy people conceive? And who are you to say low motility, sperm count, or a damaged fallopian tube is unhealthy?

Maybe the sperm motility is due to external factors, such as choice of underwear or work environment, and this couple was rich and decided to have IVF. How is this an unhealthy person?

What is it you do for a living? You seem very egotistical.

 

[Number1]

Here is the video

NSFW

Beheading Baby!

assole!!!

 

[Apple Of Sodom]

chusteczka, are you a Christian Scientist?

Do you take any man made pills, supplements, medications? Have you ever had any type of treatment or surgery? Surely, if you answer yes, you will see the hypocrisy of your own statements. Your lack of nutrients, your sickness, your infection, were all nature's way of ensuring you do not breed and by treating those you are going against the will of nature.

 

[Murloc]

I will admit that in vitro fertilization might cause more complications than the natural way. It's always like this, nature usually does it best, because it has been automatically looking for the best solution for ages (literally).

This said, I don't agree with chusteczka.

The world is not overpopulated. The population would be declining without immigrants in most of the western world, and it already is in places like Russia.

• The demographic transition will soon stop the huge growth of countries like Nigeria. These countries are having huge GDP growth, and international parenthood planning organizations are making it easier for them to control how many kids they have. The sudden increase in population is a phase of the transition, and a sign that it has begun. The death rate has dropped, the fertility rate takes a while to drop too, but eventually it will (look at Europe).
  The projections estimate that population will top out at 10 billions. It could be more, yet it doesn't matter. Until the next transition, which is far away and would throw everything we know out of the window. The industrial revolution began 250 years ago in the first countries. A medieval farmer would not have been able to think about mechanisms that moved without an animal or a river pulling it. We can't see what the next big thing will be.
• There is no food shortage. There is enough food for everyone. The capitalist economy doesn't distribuite it in the best way possible though.
  A planned economy wouldn't be able to do any better either, probably worse.
  So we have to deal with it and manipulate laws to correct the situation, for example by eliminating import fees for stuff from poorer countries. Right now they're caught in the imperialist trap of being allowed to export raw stuff but nothing else.

So his reasons are not good enough for someone to stop pursuing personal happiness by leaving a mark in the world (2 things do this: great art/accomplishments or children, the latter is the easiest), just because there's already enough people.
Also this whole thing doesn't change the fact that the doctor decapitated a kid. The situation could have happened with anyone, there's no karma here.

 

[Ns1]

The world is not overpopulated. The population would be declining without immigrants in most of the western world

Immigration does not affect world population since immigration is a zero sum game.