Hungarian home-births

Please excuse me, Plummer, I hope you don't interpret my response as an attack against you. That expression with "happy" is rather shocking in English, and I was responding to that.

Dr. Geréb has been in a maximum security prison before: shackles so tight they caused a bleeding wound, strip searches, body cavity searches, very restricted communication with her family.... That's humiliation or perhaps even intimidation, and was denounced by an ombudsman.

Every death is sad. There are four or five cases, not well reported on by English media, so forgive me if I am missing some pieces. I am not a medical expert and am not claiming to interpret the case on that basis (interesting to note that the Judge refused to hear the medical professionals' testimony, though). I am worried about human rights, however, because that affects all of us - not just Hungarian women who'd like to give birth.

Dr Geréb's case calls into question government regulation of professions (and lack thereof), women's right to choose birth methods, European rights not being applied in Hungary (Article 8: the right to respect for private and family life), and the illegal bribes given to doctors who are not paid enough by the State. Not about nazis and war crimes.

I agree with you in a sense that dr Gereb was right as a person, there are a series of serious system-level problems in Hungary with obstetricians and the medical profession at large.

In any case, her case trigerred the HU government to authorise home-births, which were outlawed before (this regulation is in force since sthing like this January).

I wouldn't call "halapenz", literally "money of respect/gratitude", an illegal bribe. It is rather a heritage from the socialist past, which no government addressed in the past 20 years. The more the medical profession is liberalised, the more doctor decides to stay in the country (which is an endemic problem too) and the more taxes the gov can collect - so should be in everyone's interest, except the dirty powerful lobby of established, tax-free doctors (rings a bell? Greece?).

Sorry for being arrogant, but you also have the right to be stupid and die or put your baby at risk. Hungarian hospitals have a very long way to go, as you say intervention and drugs should not be the standard but the exception, but I agree that a hospital is the best place for giving birth to a baby.

A woman's body used to be perfectly prepared for giving birth to a 1,5 kg baby (the average a century ago), but not with the food and vitamine-doped 4kg ones you are likely to get these days.

There is a tremendous difference between countries, I have seen a couple, and Hungarian hospital birthgiving was the worst.

Actually, what this article and some comments are pointing out is that you don't have the right (because it causes loss of unofficial revenue, no less).

On the subject of risk, try this one on: In the good old days of highly industrialized birthing in Hungary, the father was not allowed to be with the mother as she gave birth. Taking a risk, a certain doctor would bring them into the operating room. Now it's accepted practice.

Yes, we should all follow the rules and listen to the professionals (I do). But if everyone were like that, we'd still be sitting in caves, shivering.

see my previous comment: "For me, dr Gereb was most probably very unprofessional as a doctor..., but correct as a person by trying to introduce changes into a rotten medical profession."

@ZaraCha

“Why are the medical profession so threatened by women choosing to birth outside hospital?”

They’re not. Giving birth is quite tiresome and hassling for the staff too. 6-8 hours of labor is no joke. Multiply that with 4 or 5 women always present in the delivery room and you end up constantly checking on someone’s situation. And the responsibility you bear is crushing. If things go wrong, the staff is liable.
So, home birth is a relief for hospital staff. No more responsibility and stress. It’s easy.

@guest-wsmmwio

“Women in most hospitals are not even given the choice to choose a comfortable position to deliver/push because it has to be whatever is more convenient and easiest for doctors.”

It’s not about who is feeling more comfortable. It’s all being done so that the fetus passes faster through the birth canal. The pressure on the fetus passing through the birth canal is high and can cause trauma to the head or collarbone fracture. The positions are chosen so that they speed up the passage.

@guest-wsmmwio

“women are shaven, cut right”

Hair is a perfect culture medium for germs. All surgical operations are being performed on skin previously shaven. Shaving is a good thing. And episiotomies fasten the passage of the fetus through the birth canal. A fetus head stuck in the birth canal is a nightmare for obstetricians.

You list a wide array of theoretical truths which, taken out of context, are nonsensical. The whole tone of your post presupposes that giving birth in a hospital is somehow the “better” and “safer” and more “reasonable” choice. That is the case only when specific medial circumstances warrant it. It is a fallacy otherwise, i.e., in the majority of cases.

There is nothing inherently dangerous about giving birth at home. Wishing to do so does not make one an “eccentric living on the edge”. The fact is the medical profession (and it is almost nowhere as conservative as in the US), can’t seem to accept that birth is a natural process with all that this implies and continues to treat pregnancy, labor and birth as a series of medical emergencies. In many cases, physicians treat midwives and their profession as quacks delving in witchcraft.

Women wishing to give birth at home should be supported in this desire, if only because that is their right. Of course, women who pregnancy is a difficult one, or whose individual genetic and/or physiological baggage entails a serious danger for the baby, should not give birth at home. Professional midwives who meet their client at regular intervals to monitor the pregnancy know how to “weed out” such patients and advise them accordingly. It is such preliminaries that allow one to determine how likely complications – such as the need for a caesarian section – are likely to arise.

My two children were born at home in the USA 15 and 20 years ago. We got expert assistance from highly qualified professionals. This included “monitoring the fetal heartbeat” (not something necessitating mysterious qualifications, special apparatus or presence in a hospital), and the proper evacuation and examination of the placental tissue, by the way. As to episiotomies, too many hospitals perform the procedure as a matter of course, “just to be safe”. The truth is that it is only needed in some cases, which midwives are perfectly competent to assess (and to perform).

Birth fatalities also occur in hospitals, incidentally, and their causes often turn out to be perfectly avoidable. One example of such is the scandalous state of sanitation and hygiene in many hospitals. Ultimately, statistics demonstrate that countries in which there is an active and autonomous midwife profession have better live birth records than those where births take place solely in a hospital environment.

You list many theoretical truths which, taken out of context, seem nonsensical. There is nothing inherently dangerous about giving birth at home. Wishing to do so does not make one an “eccentric living on the edge”. The entire tone in your post seems to imply that giving birth at a hospital is somehow the “better”, “safer” and “more reasonable” approach. It is, but only in cases when medical circumstances specifically warrant it. It is a fallacy otherwise, i.e. in the majority of cases.

The fact is the medical profession (and it is almost nowhere as conservative as in the US), can’t seem to accept that birth is a natural process with all that this implies and continues to treat pregnancy, labor and birth as a series of medical emergencies. In many cases, physicians treat midwives and their profession as dangerous quacks delving in witchcraft.

Women wishing to give birth at home should be supported in this desire, if only because that is their right. Of course, women who pregnancy is a difficult one, or whose individual genetic and/or physiological baggage entails a serious danger for the baby, should not give birth at home. Professional midwives who meet their client at regular intervals to monitor the pregnancy know how to “weed out” such patients and advise them accordingly. It is such preliminaries that allow one to determine how likely complications – such as the need for a caesarian section – are likely to arise.

My two children were born at home in the USA 15 and 20 years ago. We got expert assistance from highly qualified professionals. This included “monitoring the fetal heartbeat” (not something necessitating mysterious qualifications, special apparatus or presence in a hospital), and the proper evacuation and examination of the placental tissue, by the way. As to episiotomies, too many hospitals perform the procedure as a matter of course, “just to be safe”. The truth is that it is only needed in some cases, which midwives are perfectly competent to assess (and to perform).

Birth fatalities also occur in hospitals, incidentally, and their causes often turn out to be perfectly avoidable. One example of such is the scandalous state of sanitation and hygiene in many hospitals. The just as scandalous insensitivity and callousness that literally hundred of thousands of women the world over report from their hospital birth experience is another. You can’t be ignorant of such facts. Ultimately, statistics demonstrate that countries in which there is an active and autonomous midwife profession have better live birth records than those where births take place solely in a hospital environment. Perhaps that matters.

@guest-ilaesnw
Yes, you are right, of-course.
I just wanted this fact written down, so that people who do not know Dr Geréb should not think she might be just a freak doing idiotic things.

Yes, because many negative things are taking place in Hungary...

The title is not necessarily written by the writer - often editors provide the title to an article. A reader who is so superficial as to only read the title of articles would be uninformed and could think many things about the world that are far from the truth.

Before ejecting Hungary, please eject UK, France, Italy, Austria all of which were/aree the origin of Orbanesque stories.
Pls read the link if you don't know what I am talking about.
http://www.presseurop.eu/en/content/article/1404381-myth-equality-end
Then, let's eject all the ex definitione 'lazy' countries, which has sneaked into the Union unnoticed and against the will of the rest. As an example.
Afterwards let's eject the CEE newcomers, because they consume cohesion funds and take away jobs from the rest.
Sorry if I forgot to eject someone.

@optimal_R
I respect your opinion, though I do not agree.
But, how do you think a government can be "forced" to resign, and unelected eurocrats in Brussels take over? What silly thing is that? And don't you think that exactly this train of thought is undemocratic?

Well, I tried to be sarcastic here. But after all the news being published some may actually consider it serious?

@optimal_R
That is what I hoped for, sarcasm.
On the other hand, there are many people who really think that this government can loose power otherwise it got it: through elections.

I have a similar opinion about Hungary as Konker - an opinion that has been formed by 11 years of living in the country! The press DID write very critically about the previous Hungarian government. Little could anyone know that it would merely be the prelude to the main act of gross incompetence, in which Mr. Orbán takes a starring role.

I've read the article you linked to and I still don't know what you are talking about! Orbanesque stories in the UK? Pray tell, where is the UK's Orbán? The only reference to the UK was that the government appoints the board of directors of the BBC. Anyone who knows anything about the BBC will know that it is far from being pro-government - unlike most TV channels (public and private) in Hungary.

Please take into account the whole context of the article. I have cited one part in toto at the end of my comment. There's no Orban in UK, and there was no Gyurcsány, and there was no real communism and the resulting post-communistic conformation operating in parallel to official system and weakening the country. During getting out of the communism in Poland, my country, one of the most important and difficult concerns was to maintain balance between newly acquired democratic ways and having to be relentless in cutting the shady dependencies inherited from the old system. These dependencies are not prone to be simply voted-out. Neither can they be eradicated with simple legal prosecution as the the procecutors might be also involved. That is why established democracies should in fact be more tolerant to what they see as a deviations from the _spirit_ of democracy, which indeed do happen in countries like Hungary. But not just in them, in established democracies as well. That was the point of my comment.
Further, frankly, I find notions entitled "eject, eject, eject!" extremely irresponsible, sorry. You go along the line: Hungary transgresses the spirit of democracy==>eject Hungary=problem solved. While at this point the problem both for Hungary (for which I guess you may have some positive feelings after living there 11 years, isn't it?) and Europe actually begins. It is precisely the EU which forms an excellent additional framework which prevents braeching the laws of democracy. Hungary breached the spirit. If you really want to leave her on her own, instead of gently supporting, embrasing her in time of hardship, it means you don't give a damn about the country. And you act in the most short-sighted way since Hungary out of EU, with or without Orban, would be more prone to undemocratic ways than inside it.
Now the promised fragment from the link, written by Jacek Żakowski.
"His [Orban's] assault on the media is no more anti-libertarian than Sarkozy’s power plays in French public television, or what Berlusconi previously did to the Italian media. As for the BBC, its directors have always been directly nominated by government. The same applies to the Hungarian National Bank which will be no more dependent on government than the Bank of England or the American Federal Reserve.
The international community has calmly tolerated and continues to calmly tolerate such manouevres in France, Italy, the UK, and the United States, not because these go unnoticed, or even as a result of timidity with regard to major powers, but quite simply because it does not see them as reprehensible. Just like German bonds, longstanding large democracies benefit from a capital of trust that is not accorded to their younger smaller peers."

Hmm, then you should also eject Netherlands and others...I don't think Hungary is a basket case. It is just passing through a bad episode. Let's hope that in the end common sense and moderation will prevail in Hungary.

he was kidding, I hope.

Other countries mostly did not go sraight against european norms and rules, and those who did (like illegal state support to car and airplane indsutry in France, or the electricity sector not liberalized), corrected this instead of talking about the EU as a foreign oppressor.