![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
walkitouthttp://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/3935/context/cover/
Small hospitals in New York State merging for financial reasons are stuck in doing the merger because tiny little 15 bed Catholic hospital won't do the merger with sterilization services in place. The others won't merge if they have to give up sterilization services. They compromise by moving the controversial services to an "ambulatory" surgery center across the street.
What _is not_ said, but is almost certainly the case is that now you won't be able to have your tubes tied when you have your second c-section, a common combination and one that is regarded _very_ positively by the medical community because the more c-sections you have the worse the outcomes for mothers and babies. If you can have this done by having the c-section in the ambulatory center, that might be okay. Group Health in Seattle has a c-section OR totally separate from the main hospital, in the maternity wing. This is actually good from a security standpoint (yes, virginia, people _do_ try to steal babies from hospitals) and maybe infection control (keeps the healthy people away from the really sick people in the hospital and the infections that run rampant there). I do wonder, however, about the tradeoff in terms of things-go-horribly-awry, and I strongly suspect they didn't move all of the maternity beds over there (altho you never know).
I suppose the best face that can be put on it would be that it isn't a Catholic hospital in the end and when the dust die down, maybe things can be changed.
Reproductive freedom is NOT just about abortion. Never, ever forget that. The pro-life team never does.
ETA: R. and I suspect that given the size of the hospitals involved and the location of Kingston, they don't do C-sections anyway, rendering my complaint in this instance irrelevant. Certainly, a merger that preserves access to abortion and sterilization in a small community is much to be preferred compared to one that does not. The increased visibility as a target of the clinic has to be traded-off against a reduction in risk to the hospital as a whole.
Small hospitals in New York State merging for financial reasons are stuck in doing the merger because tiny little 15 bed Catholic hospital won't do the merger with sterilization services in place. The others won't merge if they have to give up sterilization services. They compromise by moving the controversial services to an "ambulatory" surgery center across the street.
What _is not_ said, but is almost certainly the case is that now you won't be able to have your tubes tied when you have your second c-section, a common combination and one that is regarded _very_ positively by the medical community because the more c-sections you have the worse the outcomes for mothers and babies. If you can have this done by having the c-section in the ambulatory center, that might be okay. Group Health in Seattle has a c-section OR totally separate from the main hospital, in the maternity wing. This is actually good from a security standpoint (yes, virginia, people _do_ try to steal babies from hospitals) and maybe infection control (keeps the healthy people away from the really sick people in the hospital and the infections that run rampant there). I do wonder, however, about the tradeoff in terms of things-go-horribly-awry, and I strongly suspect they didn't move all of the maternity beds over there (altho you never know).
I suppose the best face that can be put on it would be that it isn't a Catholic hospital in the end and when the dust die down, maybe things can be changed.
Reproductive freedom is NOT just about abortion. Never, ever forget that. The pro-life team never does.
ETA: R. and I suspect that given the size of the hospitals involved and the location of Kingston, they don't do C-sections anyway, rendering my complaint in this instance irrelevant. Certainly, a merger that preserves access to abortion and sterilization in a small community is much to be preferred compared to one that does not. The increased visibility as a target of the clinic has to be traded-off against a reduction in risk to the hospital as a whole.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-03-01 05:54 pm (UTC)thanks! data is good!
Date: 2009-03-01 07:18 pm (UTC)Re: thanks! data is good!
Date: 2009-03-01 07:30 pm (UTC)Incidentally, I just saw a 1939 prenatal exercise movie that was really very sensible stuff, though they made the women look so dippy doing it. It even advocates squatting during labor and being on all fours for the birth! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9wRBWDxReY&feature=related