The hospital my wife first gave birth at were very accommodating with her request. I think education of the individuals is a bigger issue than the hospitals (who have probably send and done all different ways.)
In the U.S. at least the incentives are perverse. Probably what would actually move the needle is a test trial with results showing it's more cost and resource effective
Hospitals are starting to bring midwives and doulas back. Of course, educating women and families about their options and pushing back on inducing labor and c sections would help as well.
If the water actually broke, inducing labor can be important to reduce the risk of infection though, since bacteria can easily get into the amniotic fluid. If the water didn’t break yet, then at least where I live they don’t induce unless you go so much over the expected birth date that there is a high risk you’ll need C-section if you wait more (in Northern Europe they generally don’t offer C-sections unless medically required).
Midwives provide most of the care for most births in hospitals in the UK AFAIK and have done so for decades (certainly where my older daughter was born).
I wonder how different things would have been if Germany had increased rather than decreased the reliance on nuclear energy.
After all so much of Germany’s energy now comes from natural gas which is bad for climate change and, in the case of Germany, the natural gas comes from Russia. Helps feed the war machine, etc.
Germany, and the rest of Europe, nowadays would have been less reliant on Russia and have contributed less to climate change if they had used more nuclear energy.
Like many things in the US, there's no centralized authority that mandates this sort of thing. Some states have laws around this some don't. For those that don't, some counties or cities might have laws around this. Belgium of course has a stronger central government, small land area, and a small population, so I'm not surprised that something like that would be done country-wide.
The shelter in my city chips every animal before anyone can adopt them. It's honestly bonkers to me why anyone who has a pet wouldn't chip them. It's cheap (especially when considering the cost of a regular vet visit), and can save you from lots of heartbreak later on.
Coloradan with all chipped pets for decades. Not sure where you're coming from. Our friend was reunited with a cat with a chip that was lost for a 6 months. Shitting on the US is great for karma these days
Did your state chip your pet or was it a private company? I think they are saying that there are no centralized authorities and you depend on private companies
That is upsetting for what could almost certainly be run from a SQLite database on a garbage-tier host. Presumably 99.9% of all animals are registered one time and never again queried. Could be near zero operational burden, but of course, capitalism.
Yeah, I moved to the US and I also thought it was weird. Same with vaccination stuff for dogs. You need to carry paperwork if you want to cross the Canada border. It's a throwback to the last century I guess.
I had moved into a new place, and it had a little garden, which attracted stray city cats. A kitten found my garden and adopted it, just moving in and living there. I invited her inside, fed her, took her to the vet, made sure she was okay. She had no chip, was definitely a stray.
So I adopted her, got her chipped per the law, and she grew into a fine cat who loved her place with me - she was great.
One time she got out, and I got the call. But it wasn't to get her back, it was to come get her corpse from under the car that had flattened her some distance from our home.
In many ways, I wish I'd not gotten the chip, that was a really traumatic event which I'd probably have avoided, at least not knowing what had happened.
The BBC operates independently of the UK government. It is an autonomous entity that is publicly funded. It is not a “propaganda arm” of the UK government in the manner of state television.
This isn’t true. The content of the BBC is independent of the UK government. Even for the royal family and for foreign policy.
I am not British so I could be wrong however. If you have evidence that the BBC lacks autonomy when it comes to foreign policy or to the royal family please share it with the rest of us.
The BBC coverage of the royal family is always crawling. They tried to bury the Andrew story several times. The entire BBC is under royal charter.
As for supposed autonomy from the government... Watch BBC News, you can always get a good idea of who the UK will go to war with next... Before it happens. Their coverage of the Troubles was also reflective of the British government.
reply