|
6678. Trillium - 9/2/2006 11:43:53 PM webfeet: Over a decade ago, the upstairs neighbor (and favorite babysitter of my children) hemorrhaged the way you describe.
Another neighbor, a midwife's assistant, bundled her off in a taxi to a nearby city hospital, where they gave her a transfusion.
Happy ending, although without a hospital and blood transfusion supply a few blocks away, she wouldn't have survived.. she, the husband and kids are all still thriving. 6679. Trillium - 9/3/2006 12:01:53 AM concerned: surgery can take care of fistulas, but the surgeons and surgical facilities are not available in many parts of the globe. This is because of rural location, lack of money to pay for help, or sometimes because women may not be seen by male doctors, and no women have been educated to do the necessary surgery.
If you search the websites, the claim is that this is a medical situation afflicting millions of women, but shame suppresses discussion of the problem.
I know that when mission/settlements were set up in Appalachia in the 1920s, they focused primarily on education of children and maternal health programs.
I would sometimes wonder briefly why maternal health and hospital birthing was such an issue, because the potential risks of childbirth weren't discussed in polite society. I think in the generation prior to mine, because so many babies were born at home, the witnesses and families knew the secret risks even if they didn't talk about it in public.
The problems of difficult births are so unspeakable that they have been forgotten, and there is a tendency to assume that medical care is as available on the rest of the globe as it is in the urban first world.
What misery, though, for those people who can't get help when they need it. 6680. Ulgine Barrows - 9/3/2006 12:35:57 AM 6673. concerned - 8/30/2006 8:03:31 PM
I think I might ask a chiro about it, rather than a surgeon.
A chiroquackter?
6674. concerned - 8/30/2006 8:04:44 PM
Why not an osteopath?
Mmmm, osteopath is the path to a surgeon.
I've had worse experiences with surgeons than chiros, let's leave it at that. 6681. wonkers2 - 9/3/2006 1:19:49 AM An osteopath is basically the same as an M.D. I recently went to a chiropractor once a week for six weeks or so for low back pain. It was the first time I'd seen a chiropracter and had been prejudiced against them. But several people whom I respect recommended this guy. I found him quite helpful. One of the first things he did was determine that my right leg was approx. 1/4 inch shorter than my left. He gave me lifts for my right shoes. Also he taught me a lot about how to take care of my back--sitting properly. Also, he recommended a back cushion for my car. Much of the benefit was from educating me about my back and how to take care of it. Also, he gave me some exercises. But he said walking every day was the best thing I could do.
Orthopedists make their living doing surgery which doesn't always work out very well. Some of them will recommend surgery when less invasive techniques should be tried first. I agree with Ulgine that a chiropractor is a good place to start. 6682. concerned - 9/4/2006 4:03:48 AM Re.6680, 81 -
I guess I'll have to defer to your experiences in this case. I suppose a good chiropractor can be preferable to a mediocre osteopath, especially if the latter is on the make to perform medical procedures.
Even so, I would proceed with caution. In the case of a more serious illness, a real medical professional is much less likely to misdiagnose such a condition than a partially medically trained chiropractor.
6683. Ulgine Barrows - 9/4/2006 9:37:33 AM "partially medically trained chiropractor"
And this is different than a partially medially trained surgeon exactly how?
OK, given equal parameters, I -might- listen to a 56-yr-old surgeon harder than a 56-yr-old chiro.
But most of those 50+ surgeons have retired due to insurance hassles,.
When faced with an early 30s surgeon vs and early 30s chiro.....
I'll take door #2, the chiro. 6684. Ulgine Barrows - 9/4/2006 9:38:39 AM Damage control! 6685. alistairconnor - 9/4/2006 11:10:09 AM Around here, there are still a few "rebouteux".
They are sort of folk-chiropractors/physiotherapists. Bone-setters, witch-doctors. No formal training in anatomy or anything, but people swear by them. 6686. Wombat - 9/5/2006 8:54:48 PM I am waiting for artificial spinal discs to become mainstream. 6687. judithathome - 9/5/2006 9:45:15 PM Osteopaths ARE Medical Doctors...been through the same courses, interned the same amount of time at hospitals, etc.
Just as with any profession, there are good ones and bad ones. I wouldn't group them with Chiropracters at all. 6688. wonkers2 - 9/6/2006 3:27:31 AM True. The choice is between an orthopedist and a chiropracter. Osteopaths now prefer to be called D.O.'s or just plain doctors. As Judith says, D.O.'s get the same training as M.D.s. 6689. wonkers2 - 9/6/2006 2:25:21 PM The latest on killers in our diet. 6690. webfeet - 9/6/2006 3:37:39 PM Trillium: thanks for the response.
This is why women should never choose those loopy alternatives to hospitals like at home pregnancies, etc, bathtubs. Things can go terribly wrong. I'm relieved to hear your babysitter was treated well.
I hemorrhaged with my daughter, requiring two transfusions, and wondered how many other women experienced this. I recently learned how you can hemorrhage with a C-section as well. I thought that perhaps if I avoided a vaginal delivery, it wouldn't have occurred. But that isn't the case. In fact, that is an even more dangerous scenario.
Thank God I was ignorant during my first pregnancy and gave birth books, birthing stories a shrug. I think the more you know, the more frightening the idea of giving birth becomes.
6691. concerned - 9/6/2006 3:40:19 PM I assume that the main appeal of chiropractors (never having been to one) is that they're considerably cheaper than medical doctors. Half the price for half the expertise seems about right. 6692. wonkers2 - 9/6/2006 4:15:49 PM No. Actually they cost more because many or most health care insurance plans don't pay for chiropractors or only pay under limited circumstances.
In my experience, the appeal of chiropracters is two-fold (1)good word-of-mouth at least for temporary relief and (2)back surgery recommended by many orthopedists is problematical--i.e. doesn't work very well in a significant number of cases.
Also, as I pointed out above, the chiropracter I saw about 5 times @ $60/half-hour session, the process was educational about how my back works and how to take care of it. Also, the chiropracter pointed out that my problem stemmed in part from the fact that my right leg is shorter than my left leg. Upon his recommendation I have added 1/4 inch heel lifts to all my right shoes. 6693. concerned - 9/7/2006 7:02:03 PM Well, I am definitely not an advocate for back surgery unless absolutely necessary, or for joint replacement, either. I'll hobble along on my own unmodified gristle as long as possible, thank you.
OTOH, it sounds a lot like what most chiropractors do is deal in a limited form of physical therapy. 6694. concerned - 9/7/2006 7:10:53 PM My father is starting to have significant problems with cataracts - something he was able to forestall for a couple year with keratinoid supplements, but now he has decided that the time has come for a lens replacement.
He and I were discussing the available surgical options yesterday, which now extend beyond the conventional single focal point lens. He was particularly interested in a replacement lens called 'Crystalens', which utilizes the eye's lens focusing muscles to change focal length, thus, besides curing the cataracts, is advertized to restore much of the eye's focusing ability after a short period of acclimatization.
One advantage important to him wrt Crystanlens is that its manufacturer claims that it has no significant glare problems that might limit night driving, unlike some competing multiple focal length implantable lenses. 6695. wonkers2 - 9/7/2006 8:45:12 PM That's about right on chiropractors. 6696. Trillium - 9/10/2006 4:23:12 PM web, I'm not anti-home-birth -- some of my friends had very good experiences with this, but all of them did a lot of research on what to expect and what can go wrong. Plus, they all went through the process while only about 5-10 minutes' taxi ride from a well-equipped hospital.
It's the oversimplification of one side or the other that bugs me. A lot of my home-birth advocate friends would carry on at length and with high emotion about how much they are anti-cesarean section and that C-sections are only done for hospital/doctor profits, etc.
Then on the other hand the radical medical advocates say everyone should always get to a hospital and receive the farthest line of medical treatments available.
I just like to have all the options available... call me spoiled! 6697. Trillium - 9/10/2006 4:28:15 PM I've had excellent results from a chiropractor who also specializes in "trigger point therapy". Trigger point therapy was developed by an Air Force physician who used to treat Jack Kennedy's back pain in the 1960s. It deals with "referred pain" that can come from favoring one leg over the other etc. (which in my case had happened after I had sprained an ankle that took several weeks to recover). The imbalance took some time to really blow up in my lower back... anyway this practitioner hit all the right spots of nerves and muscles, with immediate relief, plus some retraining. One of his favorite techniques is to put tennis balls between your back and a door post, and roll up and down -- when you hit the "right" spots, there is an electrical sort of sensation, but it loosens up the whole framework.
I'm not particular about titles, but I do like personal recommendations from other people who've been successfully treated.
|
