Male Blogger: Laboring Mom Not a 'True Emergency'

re: Male Blogger: Laboring Mom Not a 'True Emergency'

bostonmama — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 03:14:08 GMT

The hospital you "choose" to deliver at may also be a cost issue. My health insurance only covers delivery at a particular hospital and if I delivered anywhere else after 36 weeks even in the event of an emergency, it would not have been covered.

re: Male Blogger: Laboring Mom Not a 'True Emergency'

gpgirl — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 20:34:08 GMT

Many people have commented that it would take too long to wait for the ambulance, and it would be faster to just drive. But remember, if something happened while she was in the ambulance, she would have EMT's right there. Also, as they are driving to the hospital, the EMT's can take her vitals, call the hospital ahead of time, and she would go straight from the ambulance to a room. If they drive themselves, they have to park, walk in, and then tell their story to a nurse, and probably have to wait in a hallway while they found a room. The priority would almost always goes to who comes in via ambulance.

I totally understand if it was a cost issue, as ambulances can be expensive without insurance. However, I don't think the time argument is really valid. (Of course, they probably were not in the right frame of mind to think about all these factors at the time. However, since they chose a hospital so far from their house in a direction that was likely to have traffic, they probably should have thought about it a little beforehand.)

I am really not trying to judge them or say they are bad people. However, it amazes me how some people set up such complicated situations for themselves, when there is a simpler alternative. (Choosing a hospital close to home.)

re: Male Blogger: Laboring Mom Not a 'True Emergency'

daniel — Sat, 06 Dec 2008 05:33:12 GMT

First: the lane is meant for such emergencies.

Second: the contractions were only 5 min apart and bad things can happen during the course of a birth, especially on a highway, hence it's an emergency.

Third: they asked permission and already got it twice

Forth: I can understand a brief delay to ensure the woman is indeed pregnant but that's all... anything else is clearly endangerment and mental anguish, of which I hope that trooper is sued for.

Fifth: You can't give a ticket to someone who already got permission (twice) for what he just got a ticket for... hopefully they remember the other two cops' names.

Sixth: It was a wise decision not to accept the ambulance... They would've had to wait for the ambulance to get there, move her into it on a gurney, and then continue on the exact same lane at the exact same speed to go to the hospital, thus placing the mother and unborn child in additional risk and trauma.

re: Male Blogger: Laboring Mom Not a 'True Emergency'

gpgirl — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 22:12:04 GMT

amandamaren, I see what you are saying. The one time I needed an ambulance, I was fortunate enough to have insurance that covered it. (Although the copay was $100.) If you don't have insurance that covers this, I can see why you'd want to avoid this cost.

However, they did choose a hospital that was 30 miles away from their home, in a direction where rush hour traffic was possible. (I used to live in Boston, and there is a good portion of the day where there is heavy traffic, so they should have known this was a possibility.) There were many hospitals (with good reputations) closer to their house. If you cannot afford an ambulance, you should probably not put yourself in a situation where you would need one.

I know, I know, I am being cruel and heartless, but I really think people need to be responsible for their decisions. I loved my old OB, but when we moved 15 miles away, I found a new one that was closer.

I still think this post was very off the mark when it said the Volokh blog said this was not a true emergency, which is not at all what it said. One could argue that an ambulance is not the right way to go, but he never said this was not an emergency. I really do not like it when words get twisted around to make a point.

re: Male Blogger: Laboring Mom Not a 'True Emergency'

Maria — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 21:53:34 GMT

I had a perfectly average 7 hour labor the first time around. The second time around I had mild labor for 2 hours and as my husband wnt out to warm up the car so we could leave for the birth center my daughter was born on the living room floor. The paramedics arrived about 10 minutes after my daughter was born with teh cord wrapped around her neck twice (my husband and father took quick action to get her breathing).

Babies are unpredictable--I would have asked my husband to drive on the shoulder too.

re: Male Blogger: Laboring Mom Not a 'True Emergency'

amandamaren — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:32:13 GMT

I disagree with a lot of these comments. If they are fortunate enough to have health insurance, it would not have covered the ambulance ride(non-life threatening), leaving them with the bill. The others leaving comments in regards to that must be extremely fortunate to not even have to worry about that. As for the hospital choice, it's probably safe to assume they chose that hospital ahead of time, had a doctor or midwife who was working out of that hospital, and that is there business- AND they did not CHOOSE to drive in rush hour traffic...I doubt they had any choice about when she would go into labor.

I also think driving through the break down lane to make it to the hospital in time is a lot less of a risk then being stuck in a traffic jam while birthing, when you have no idea if there will be any complications.

re: Male Blogger: Laboring Mom Not a 'True Emergency'

gpgirl — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 19:12:03 GMT

OK, I finally read the Volokh blog. He does NOT say this is not a true emergency. What he says is this,

"If it's a true emergency, call 911 and meet the ambulance at the next exit!"

In fact, the trooper offered to get them an ambulance twice, and they declined. If they would have just accepted the ambulance, it seems like he wouldn't have ticketed them. (At least that is the implication from the Globe article.

I'm sorry, but I think you twisted this to have him say this is not a real emergency. What he is saying is that, if they felt it was a true emergency, they should have called 911, which I agree with.

re: Male Blogger: Laboring Mom Not a 'True Emergency'

gpgirl — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:45:38 GMT

I think I'm a little lost. Why is it bad to call 911 for an ambulance in this situation? Maybe I don't understand the whole story, but that seems like a good idea. (If she started delivering in the ambulance, there would be trained professionals there to help her, and it would be more likely that other cars would get out of the way of an ambulance than of a car.) Why does calling 911 make it less of an "true emergency"?

There was only one time in my life that we needed an ambulance, and they came in about 2 minutes (My husband was still on the phone with 911 when they arrived.) Maybe not everyone has had that situation.

re: Male Blogger: Laboring Mom Not a 'True Emergency'

Colleen — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:24:27 GMT

The thing is, they had the option of going to a hospital (with a well-regarded maternity service) in the next town over. They decided to drive 25 miles in rush hour traffic to a non-major Boston area hospital because she wanted to have both of her children at the same place. Which, 90% of the time, I wouldn't have a problem with. But when they make the decision to drive illegally in the break-down lane, putting themselves, their daughter, and all the other drivers on the road at risk, it's an issue.

re: Male Blogger: Laboring Mom Not a 'True Emergency'

maeby — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 18:15:58 GMT

i was "just 7 centimeters" dilated according to the nurse, then oooh about 15 to 20 seconds later the babys head was out.

it happens. I was also only contracting every 4 minutes until the last few minutes. That guy needs to STFU