Partners banned from birth-Mullingar Hospital

lozenges

There's a big difference to me between being disappointed (totally understandable) and being annoyed at staff/hospital decisions clearly aimed at keeping people safe.
There's a global crisis. Everyone is going to be affected in some way.

Raconteuse

People's tone could do with finessing all right - e.g. just posting "Rubbish!" but it's not about being heartless, and it's obvious why it's being done.

mariaalice

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I think you will be fine. Talk to your parents or grand parents. They will tell you the practice of husbands or partners attending the birth is only a very very recent thing. Up until very recently, the 1990s and certainly the 1980s, when the woman was giving birth the husband would be either at work or in the pub downing pints. It would be almost unheard of for them to be in the delivery room, most wouldn't have wanted to be there anyway.

In 1984 my husband came in with me, but it was not that common and the doctor keep looking at him as if to say what are you doing here.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Midnight Sundance wrote: »

Honestly some of you are heartless monsters with absolutely zero empathy in your bodies at all!!
It's not a competition for who has it worse! Fact of the matter is these women are disappointed, let them at least have that. They've lost control of every other aspect of their pregnancy and birth.
No matter what story comes out there will always be something worse . Doesnt mean they cant complain or question why it's being done.

Oh will ya stop. I have plenty of empathy for people in bad health situations. I’ve also looked on with eyelids at half mast while people tell me they could NEVER cope with the terminal diagnosis I received five years ago. My response is always “Firstly, yes you COULD cope and secondly, I have no choice but to”. People are just saying that labour will happen with or without one’s partner. With the suffering people are going through right now with this horrible virus, I’d take a little disappointment if it spared somebody that suffering.

El_Duderino 09

Midnight Sundance wrote: »

Honestly some of you are heartless monsters with absolutely zero empathy in your bodies at all!!
It's not a competition for who has it worse! Fact of the matter is these women are disappointed, let them at least have that. They've lost control of every other aspect of their pregnancy and birth.
No matter what story comes out there will always be something worse . Doesnt mean they cant complain or question why it's being done.

Depends on the comment. It's unfortunate for the woman giving birth and they're well within their rights to be disappointed. But it's not ridiculous to limit comings and goings in hospitals. It's actually very sensible and in the interest of everyone's health.

Nobody gives an absolute toss what the norm was in the 70s, 80s or before.

In fact, people smoking, drinking and doing drugs had lots of negative impacts on many babies so things weren’t always “grand”.

We know so much more these days and both parents been present at the birth is great for the child and the parents.

I understand why it’s not possible at the moment but let’s not treat parents to be as some kind of snowflakes looking for special treatment. They are upset at been denied normal treatment.

Tell me how

Midnight Sundance wrote: »

Honestly some of you are heartless monsters with absolutely zero empathy in your bodies at all!!
It's not a competition for who has it worse! Fact of the matter is these women are disappointed, let them at least have that. They've lost control of every other aspect of their pregnancy and birth.
No matter what story comes out there will always be something worse . Doesnt mean they cant complain or question why it's being done.

Boards = Discussion Forum.

If you are just looking for empathy or compassion, FB might be better.
Or at least post in the PI forum as opposed to CA.

Everyone is having to act differently right now, it's a needs must scenario.

splinter65

Few whingers now on Joe Duffy about this they’d want to cop themselves on.

Vegeta

Vegeta wrote: »

OP I completely see where you are coming from. I don't see being present as something for me or for emotional support. My wife is due in August and I see my role as primarily overseeing her care during the delivery. I won't be on medication that will impact my judgement, my wife might be. Of course, I certainly don't believe that I know more than medical professionals, but I know they're human and as everyone has mentioned, they are under a lot of pressure.

I have enough friends with negative experiences/anecdotes to feel this was the main reason why anyone would be present with a woman during her delivery. Unnecessary emergency c-section (as admitted by couples consultant), mother very nearly injected twice because chart wasn't read (husband copped it and stopped them), trainees botching stitches requiring follow up procedure and on and on. This is all from close friends not crap we read from Facebook.

This is the whole reason birthing partners (doulas etc.) are becoming a thing here.

So yes I am anxious at the thought of not being allowed in with my wife during the delivery BUT of course I accept the need for any medical facility to control who enters. At the time of writing this 19 people have died, that trumps any argument I could ever make.

Again, send your own doctor or solicitor in then if that's the excuse your going with

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Deleted User wrote: »

Nobody gives an absolute toss what the norm was in the 70s, 80s or before.

In fact, people smoking, drinking and doing drugs had lots of negative impacts on many babies so things weren’t always “grand”.

We know so much more these days and both parents been present at the birth is great for the child and the parents.

I understand why it’s not possible at the moment but let’s not treat parents to be as some kind of snowflakes looking for special treatment. They are upset at been denied normal treatment.

They're being denied medical treatment? No? Everything else is superfluous.

I know somebody in the UK whose cancer treatment is being delayed. She is stage 4 so that treatment is literally keeping her alive. I'm sure she'd take a healthy pregnant woman's predicament in a heartbeat. A bit of perspective, please.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

They're being denied medical treatment? No? Everything else is superfluous.

I know somebody in the UK whose cancer treatment is being delayed. She is stage 4 so that treatment is literally keeping her alive. I'm sure she'd take a healthy pregnant woman's predicament in a heartbeat. A bit of perspective, please.

I'm really sorry for your friend. My mother is a little bit passed cancer treatment. All is well with her thank god. All I can say is for her sake I'm delighted we didn't go through this a couple of years ago.

In your friends case do you know what the reasoning on delaying her treatment?

Is it delayed for the duration to save resources?

Or is it being delayed because it suppresses the immune system and makes her vulnerable?

Or is it being delayed til they engineer solutions so she can get her treatment with less risk of exposure to infected patients?

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

I'm really sorry for your friend. My mother is a little bit passed cancer treatment. All is well with her thank god. All I can say is for her sake I'm delighted we didn't go through this a couple of years ago.

In your friends case do you know what the reasoning on delaying her treatment?

Is it delayed for the duration to save resources?

Or is it being delayed because it suppresses the immune system and makes her vulnerable?

Or is it being delayed til they engineer solutions so she can get her treatment with less risk of exposure to infected patients?

Let me check back and get back to you. It's a few days since I heard about it.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

Let me check back and get back to you. It's a few days since I heard about it.

Thanks. I was just curious.

My mother heard of another case where cancer treatment was delayed and because she went through cancer so recently it really effected her.

I got curious about the idea of postponing lifesaving cancer treatment and those were the reasons I could come up with.

Obviously one of the reasons is pretty horrific while the others are regrettable but make relative sense.

When you mentioned it I got curious.

JOBSOXO

Your right they do need someone with them, A delivery team. Not some partner who is going to faint & have to be attended to. It is nice to have in normal times but these are not normal times.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

I'm really sorry for your friend. My mother is a little bit passed cancer treatment. All is well with her thank god. All I can say is for her sake I'm delighted we didn't go through this a couple of years ago.

In your friends case do you know what the reasoning on delaying her treatment?

Is it delayed for the duration to save resources?

Or is it being delayed because it suppresses the immune system and makes her vulnerable?

Or is it being delayed til they engineer solutions so she can get her treatment with less risk of exposure to infected patients?

Okay, so, the background is that she has stage 4 bowel cancer. She's 40 and has 2 children. Stage 4 bowel cancer is pretty much always terminal except for a tiny percentage who only have minimal spread to the liver and sadly, she is not in that group. She's had a scheduled surgery cancelled to remove a tumour from her lung. I understand that part, to be honest because unfortunately, it wouldn't have been curative and I guess the risks did not outweigh the benefits. A post-operative patient would be very susceptible to infection. However, she is also being stopped from getting her chemo. The chemo would have been stopped for a while anyway if she was getting the surgery but now that the surgery isn't happening, she wants to continue with the chemo. I guess they are worried about immune system suppression. But look at the horrible dilemmas some people face. I know she has a terminal disease but with two young children, I'm sure she wants to eke out as much time as possible with them. So when I read about things like that, I find it hard to muster sympathy for a happy event made slightly less joyous overall. And I'm aware that labours can go badly wrong but the presence or absence of the partner won't really change how the labour plays out.

I feel very lucky that the cancer treatment I'm on at the moment is a tablet I take at home. I'm crossing my fingers that it continues to work for a while longer to spare me hospital. I do go in every three months to receive Zometa which is a bone-strengthener but that is something that I imagine will be put off if things are still bad by my next appointment at the end of May. It means I might have to deal with increased pain but it's not a life-saving treatment. My last hospital appointment happened less than a week before the shit hit the fan.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

They're being denied medical treatment? No? Everything else is superfluous.

I know somebody in the UK whose cancer treatment is being delayed. She is stage 4 so that treatment is literally keeping her alive. I'm sure she'd take a healthy pregnant woman's predicament in a heartbeat. A bit of perspective, please.

Not denied medical treatment, denied the normal environment which is having your partner there with you.

I understand why it’s been done. But it’s not hard to empathize with pregnant women in this scenario.

TheBoyConor

Well said OBD. there are people in hospital, or sadly not in hospital for treatment, as in your friends case that are gravely ill and need life saving or extending treatment.
For a pregnant and perfectly healhty woman to go throwing their toys out fo the pram and complaining and insisting on an INFECTED parnter being brought into the hospital is extremely selfish and self centred. They seem happy to ignore that the partner swanning around could be infecting other people. If the mother is infect, well that is not an avoidable risk because she has to be in the delivery ward obviously, but the husband doesn't. It is just a modern nicety that can be entertained in normal circumstances - but these are not normal times. these are extraordinary times and there is no time for pandering to the whims of primadonnas.

My advice is to wind your neck in. Do your part to minimise infection risk and abide by the recommendations. Be a big girl, take your medicine, be brave and just get on with it. Just like many thousands of women before you have done, and were perfectly fine.
I question what practical use a partner would be anyway. They are just going to be gormlessly looking on and getting in the way of the medical professionals who have enough on their plate as it is besides having to prepare and supervise some superfluous spectator and listening to their running commentary on every action.

skallywag

Extremely selfish standpoint OP.

It makes me think that you are not really grasping the situation we have unfortunately found ourselves in. You are not alone on that score though.

People get taken into hospital at night and their families are never given a chance to see them again, not even to say one last goodbye.

Thelonious Monk

I'm pretty sure this was unheard of anyway up until the 90s or so? If they managed for millennia to not be there I'm sure we'll soldier on in this time of crisis.

TheBoyConor

it is the selfish, self absored people, who think the advice doesn't apply to them, or that they are a special case and don't need to abide by the social distancing rules, who have this crisis expanded to the chaos that it now is.
if everyone abided by the rules to the letter, the infection rate would be much lower than it now is.

I have a friend who is very sick with a suspected case of it, and is waiting on a test. She also has other severe health problems that put her at a great risk of death from it. Fibromyalgia, diabetes and athsma.

I'd say she would only be delighted to swap places with the op and be healthy with a healthy pregnancy and give birth in a hospital.

Perhaps the OP should consider the position of all the women in countries that are much worse off than ireland.

even considering the crisis, she is in a very fortunate and privilaged position.

Thelonious Monk wrote: »

I'm pretty sure this was unheard of anyway up until the 90s or so? If they managed for millennia to not be there I'm sure we'll soldier on in this time of crisis.

Agreed. It is only a modern indulgence brought in in more recent times.
i certainly would also have no interest in being in a delivery room. I'd only be in the way and getting under people's feet.

Vegeta

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

Again, send your own doctor or solicitor in then if that's the excuse your going with

What excuse? And for what? I completely accept the restrictions as stated in my post.

TheBoyConor

Well if you completely accept the restrictions then why are you doing a liveline on it?
You either accept it or you don't, but you don't really have the option of not accepting it, and then you just have to get on with it.

Saying you won't cope doesn't really make sense. What does not coping result in? You have no choice but to cope and just get on with it and do what you have to do.

El_Duderino 09

TheBoyConor wrote: »

…

Agreed. It is only a modern indulgence brought in in more recent times.
i certainly would also have no interest in being in a delivery room. I'd only be in the way and getting under people's feet.

I would like to be there with my Mrs. I'd stay well away from the goal end and leave that to the medical professionals. I would consider my job up the other end with my Mrs.

But right now it doesn't matter what I would prefer. The ban on non essential people is a good idea and I completely support it.

TheBoyConor

I wonder what do obstetricians and midwives think about partners in the delivery rooms? Do they take a "seen but not heard" approach to them?

eviltwin

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I wonder what do obstetricians and midwives think about partners in the delivery rooms? Do they take a "seen but not heard" approach to them?

They provide a support role to the woman which leaves them free to focus on the important stuff.

KiKi III

I think people are being harsh on the OP here. Especially people who will never have to give birth.

The restrictions are understandable and being upset about them is also understandable.

Going in to give birth, especially if it’s your first, on your own would be terrifying.

I have several friends whose labour went on for 24-48 hours, emergency c sections, unexpected complications. Expecting anyone to face into that alone is a lot to ask.

El_Duderino 09

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I wonder what do obstetricians and midwives think about partners in the delivery rooms? Do they take a "seen but not heard" approach to them?

Probably depends on whether they get in the way or not. If they keep the patient happy or calm, then it's probably seen as a small plus.

I imagine I would have absolutely no useful information to tell a professional in a delivery situation, so I wouldn't see much reason to interact much with them. I'd see my job as being there purely for my Mrs and staying out of the way so the professionals could get on with their job.

brocbrocach

That ban only applies in Mullingar. Most hospitals around the country are letting partners be present at birth, certainly the maternity hospitals. I'm sure those doctors and registrars also know their business. I can understand anyone unlucky enough to be attending that hospital being disappointed. Its a crushing thought.

skallywag

KiKi III wrote: »

The restrictions are understandable and being upset about them is also understandable.

I fully agree, and I would also be upset in this case.

The OP comes across as throwing the toys out of her pram though and as being completely unreasonable.

El_Duderino 09

KiKi III wrote: »

I think people are being harsh on the OP here. Especially people who will never have to give birth.

The restrictions are understandable and being upset about them is also understandable.

Going in to give birth, especially if it’s your first, on your own would be terrifying.

I have several friends whose labour went on for 24-48 hours, emergency c sections, unexpected complications. Expecting anyone to face into that alone is a lot to ask.

I think everyone would agree the ban is unfortunate and isn't a help to the mother. But the OP said it's a step too far and that's probably the point at which most people, including myself, disagree. It's not a step too far. It's a prudent step and I completely agree with it - while acknowledging that it could be an inconvenience for a woman in labour