I wonder about the comment at the end stating that the mother and child would have died, if not for the circumstances that followed the earthquake. Is that based on the assumption that the baby would have been born prematurely? Why would the mother have died? If I read the article correctly, it seems that the baby turned on her own, and isn't it just as easy to assume that the mother would not have delivered at 32 weeks if the trauma of the earthquake had not occurred at all?
I'm glad that the mother and baby are ok, but stories like this, reported the way it was, do nothing but perpetuate the myth that birth is a dangerous event, that needs as much medical monitoring as possible. No discussion of high vs low risk pregnancies, or the assumed lack of good prenatal care available in an impoverished country, just drama.
That's just a weird article. I was a little baffled by the assumption that the woman would have died had she given birth at home. Why? The baby turned on it's own, plus, was there any reason she wouldn't have gone to 40 weeks at the end? And whats with the "experiencing pre eclampsia at the end of her labor" part? Random. What, did her blood pressure spike cause she was pushing? I just don't get it.
I mean, don't get me wrong, she was in a bad way and those doctors did help save her life. But, if there hadn't been an earthquake? Would any of that been even remotely necessary?
My guess is that this baby was IUGR because of lack of pre-natal care. What bugged me about this one is that they should the iv's, the bed, all the medical stuff as being a superior birth. This lady probably did need more care though with the baby afterwards since it was so little and probably under nurished.
This other story, though, was interesting because I can't imagine what an ob would do without medical interventions. They haven't been trained in how to do births without them. A well trained midwife would have been much more useful.