or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Pregnancy and Birth Archives › Due Date Clubs 2009 - 2012 › November 2009 › Official Hospital ban on kids...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official Hospital ban on kids... - Page 2

post #21 of 39
Our hospital too. No kids under 18 and not more than 2 visitors at a time. I hope that doesn't include DH.
post #22 of 39
That's insane! The whole thing. It makes me SO angry. It's the FLU, not AIDS or the killer plague for cripes sake! And making an arbitrary "rule" that kids under 18 are banned, period, is just discrimination. Not to mention overkill. Why not, and I know this is going to sound crazy....put a ban on people exhibiting FLU SYMPTOMS from the hospital, regardless of age?

Just one more reason to stay away from the hospital if at all possible.
post #23 of 39
Interesting point I'll add to this. The city where my mom lives in Michigan has been closing their schools over the past month and the kids have figured it out how to get it done. If a certain number of parents call in that their kid is sick with flu like symptoms or enough kids go to the office/nurse to complain about flu like symptoms then they close the school for 3-5 days to "disinfect" and clean the school and give these kids time to get better. Well one school in particular has been closed more than it has been open in the past month because of this. The kids are working the system!
Seems to me they need a better system at the schools and the hospitals.
post #24 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by MamieCole View Post
That's insane! The whole thing. It makes me SO angry. It's the FLU, not AIDS or the killer plague for cripes sake! And making an arbitrary "rule" that kids under 18 are banned, period, is just discrimination. Not to mention overkill. Why not, and I know this is going to sound crazy....put a ban on people exhibiting FLU SYMPTOMS from the hospital, regardless of age?

Just one more reason to stay away from the hospital if at all possible.
You can shed the virus for 24 hours before exhibiting any symptoms. So just prohibiting people with flu symptoms would still leave a huge gap in a hospital's efforts to protect mamas and new babies. Hospitals are also likely concerned about the liability potential - in their mind, they're probably better off having some pissed off patients because of limited visitors than they are being sued because a newborn caught H1N1 at the hospital and died.

But I do agree with you on one point - it's just another reason to stay away from the hospital if possible.
post #25 of 39
ya i wont let them do that LOL my doc told me he can be in the room with me no matter what!
post #26 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by erickalynne View Post
NOW the hospital I am delivering at is saying one person can come in with the patient and they can't leave till the patient leaves,
WTF? Seriously, just WTF. They can not legally force someone to stay without a court order, regardless of their policy. If you want to get technical about it, if the bar someone from leaving (they can require the baby stay, but a support-adult), then it is legally abduction and/or false imprisonment, depending on how a prosecutor would push it. Whichever way, it is illegal. f they say a person has to stay and don't try blocking that person's exit and the person stays, then that's legal.

So if they hold your doula against her will, sue them.
post #27 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by deny_zoo29 View Post
Interesting point I'll add to this. The city where my mom lives in Michigan has been closing their schools over the past month and the kids have figured it out how to get it done. If a certain number of parents call in that their kid is sick with flu like symptoms or enough kids go to the office/nurse to complain about flu like symptoms then they close the school for 3-5 days to "disinfect" and clean the school and give these kids time to get better. Well one school in particular has been closed more than it has been open in the past month because of this. The kids are working the system!
Seems to me they need a better system at the schools and the hospitals.
Better system? How about not freaking over a minor illness? There's literally a higher chance of being murdered than dying of the swine flu. I looked up the stats.

The schools there should do what mine did - every school day closed was one more tacked on going into summer. If the kids didn't get out of it altogether, they might think differently about cutting into vacation.

I think this burns me a bit because I was genuinely ill a lot during scool and often lied about feeling WELL so I could go instead of have to stay home.
post #28 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcgee View Post
You can shed the virus for 24 hours before exhibiting any symptoms. So just prohibiting people with flu symptoms would still leave a huge gap in a hospital's efforts to protect mamas and new babies. Hospitals are also likely concerned about the liability potential - in their mind, they're probably better off having some pissed off patients because of limited visitors than they are being sued because a newborn caught H1N1 at the hospital and died.
But...what about ADULTS? Adults between 20 and 45 are statistically most likely to die, and the majority of cases so far have been in adults in this age group. Simply banning kids is putting a finger in the hole in the dam's wall when it's spilling over the top. You stop it from getting in one minor way while overlooking that there's another way.

Also hospitals are really not known for being the cleanest of places as it is. Why not ban shoes, for instance? You can't make an entire hospital sterile. You just can't. And stressing out people who NEED support by denying them their support is NOT going to help. Believe me on personal experience. The hospitals I've been in have learned they MUST bend the rules or else my vitals go nuts and they're are risk.

They need to stop with these stupid blanket policies.
post #29 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishmommy View Post
No, but if you have to be admitted, and the child can't go with you, and you have no one to leave him with, they could call CPS for temporary care.
You hand your kid to CPS and good luck getting the kid right back. CPS can not just hand a child back. They're required to do a full investigation on parents who hand their kids over (not saying they always follow the rules, because they don't). She may as well kiss her child good-bye for a while. The best they MIGHT be able to do is suggest a babysitter, but no guarantee that babysitter will be available on a moment's notice.
post #30 of 39
Well here you can sign your kids over, and get them back with 24 hours notice.
post #31 of 39
Yeah, CPS doesn't work that way here either. I've had CPS involvement for years due to my son (who is bipolar/adhd) and was told by my case manager and by the social worker that if you hand your child over, they view it as saying you cannot take care for your child. Therefore, to get said child back, you have to jump through all the CPS hoops and do everything they want until they will hand the child back. I even asked about respite care-my ds has had periods of time when he was a danger to his siblings and I don't know if their dad will always be around to take them so I can focus on him-and again, I was told if I asked for even a 24 hour placement to protect my other children, I was admitting I couldn't properly care for him and I wouldn't be getting him back anytime soon.

Anyway, I think this is completely ridiculous. Besides the kids thing, which would hurt me so much (I spent 5 days in the hospital after my last child, being away from them AND the baby for 5 days...oy, I would've been a wreck), the other policy is basically preventing people from having personal help at the birth. Or family. Its like we're going backwards.

What I think seems to be missing is simply this: yes, the baby may be in the hospital for 1-2 days, maybe longer, but as soon as they go home, they will be exposed to all sorts of things anyway. You can't build a bubble around a baby, it doesn't work. I can understand trying to prevent spread in the hospital...but that's why hospitals scare me anyway. People catch all sorts of things from there-H1N1 is hardly the worst. And arn't most hospitals mandating vaccine for workers anyway? I mean, are they saying they don't trust to vax to prevent spread (amongst hospital workers) now?

Honestly I think this a foolish move on their part. How many women will be going home too soon now because they miss their family? How many more will have cesareans and other interventions because they don't have the extra support during birth? How many will be pushed more towards PPD because they can't see their children while they recover? Worry and sadness can have a profound impact on birth and recovery.

Sadly I have to say that if my hospital enacts this and I end up in the same situation as last time, I will not be staying. I had HELLP, I had a cesarean, and I had a preemie. There is no way I could be there for even a couple of days away from everyone.

And on a side note-my fiance wouldn't be able to visit either, since finding a babysitter is so difficult and affording one, for us, even harder.
post #32 of 39
CPS here does parent respite. We had a child for years, every other weekend came to us to give the bioparents a break (heck, we needed the two weeks in between to recover!). They signed the kid in to care every other Friday, for two days, got her back on the Sunday no issue. It kept them from having to put her into foster care full time.

We did have another TCA (temporary care agreement) where the mom did have to jump through some hoops, but it was a totally difference scenario. Signing a TCA because you are giving birth in a hospital with no family to babysit? You'd be able to swing by and pick up your TCA'd kid on the way home.
post #33 of 39
IMHO, if hospitals limiting visitors and support personnel on maternity wards in an effort to slow the spread of disease makes more mamas think about how germ-y hospitals can be and encourages some mamas on the fence to consider an out of hospital birth, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
post #34 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noelle C. View Post
But...what about ADULTS? Adults between 20 and 45 are statistically most likely to die, and the majority of cases so far have been in adults in this age group. Simply banning kids is putting a finger in the hole in the dam's wall when it's spilling over the top. You stop it from getting in one minor way while overlooking that there's another way.

Also hospitals are really not known for being the cleanest of places as it is. Why not ban shoes, for instance? You can't make an entire hospital sterile. You just can't. And stressing out people who NEED support by denying them their support is NOT going to help. Believe me on personal experience. The hospitals I've been in have learned they MUST bend the rules or else my vitals go nuts and they're are risk.

They need to stop with these stupid blanket policies.
Yes, I'm aware that adults can spread the virus as well. I'm sure hospitals know that too, and they also know that they can't create a completely sterile environment or stop every germ from being spread. They're doing what they can. And as a I stated earlier, I'm sure a lot of what they're doing stems from a desire to prevent lawsuits.

I think some hospitals are going over the top with saying that doulas aren't permitted or that once you enter you can't leave, but I don't necessarily have a problem limiting children. I have a three year old, and while we stress proper hygiene with her, I know that she's not as strict about cleanliness as my husband and I are. She picks her nose. She puts her hands in her mouth. She picks things up off the floor or the ground if they look interesting to her. She fiddles with her shoes. She's a little kid. They're germ-y.
post #35 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcgee View Post
IMHO, if hospitals limiting visitors and support personnel on maternity wards in an effort to slow the spread of disease makes more mamas think about how germ-y hospitals can be and encourages some mamas on the fence to consider an out of hospital birth, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
haha, nevermind, i read the post wrong....
post #36 of 39
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcgee View Post
IMHO, if hospitals limiting visitors and support personnel on maternity wards in an effort to slow the spread of disease makes more mamas think about how germ-y hospitals can be and encourages some mamas on the fence to consider an out of hospital birth, that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Not everyone can do that. I have a complicated medical history not even counting the fact that I'm a VBA2C.
post #37 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by DocsNemesis View Post
Honestly I think this a foolish move on their part. How many women will be going home too soon now because they miss their family? How many more will have cesareans and other interventions because they don't have the extra support during birth? How many will be pushed more towards PPD because they can't see their children while they recover? Worry and sadness can have a profound impact on birth and recovery.
Many families can't afford to hire babysitters to stay with the children while the father visits with the mother, so I have no doubt this will result in many families having NO CHOICE but for the mother to sign out AMA. This many mean having to leave a newborn.

This whole thing is a load of bunk. Don't touch anything in the hallways but the floor. Go to your room. Have only who you want there. Someone else bringing a kid doesn't impacts everyone else's rooms. Someone having a child in the room next to me (I'm not planning a hospital birth, but if my baby doesn't move head-down SOON, it will happen in a hospital by freaking state law) does NOT impact me in my room. A nurse's shoes touch the same floor, yes, but those same shoes touch the nasty ground outside, and nurses must wash hands before touching patients or anything else in the room. So who cares if someone has a kid picking her nose in another room? If one woman doesn't want children around her immediately post-partum, don't have them in her room. Simple as that. Don't deny another woman the right to have her children there.

I have a friend who shouldn't deliver out of hospital. I'm very pro-out-of-hospital births, but she shouldn't. She and her husband have NO ONE who can watch their kids, and it's necessary for him to be present. Since no one can watch their children, she may have to deliver out of the hospital. The safest thing for her would be to deliver in a hospital with her husband there, and she might not be able to. Between hospital and no husband, or husband and no hospital, the safer is husband and no hospital. The safest option isn't an option for her.

You know, I have no doubt at all that the hospitals are probably being at least partly motivated by money. Pass crap rules like this and more women will ultimately end up with interventions. Who can advocate for a woman in labor when things go wrong if her husband can't be there because no one is available for child care? THE HOSPITAL has the say at that point, and what do you think they will choose? C-section.

Terribly, this rule doesn't apply just to the maternity ward either. It's entire hospitals. If I had to be hospitalized and they said I couldn't have my baby in at all, I'd sign out AMA unless it was life-or-death. How do they think this will impact breast-feeding mothers to be forced apart from their children? I doubt they care.
post #38 of 39
So if a support person leaves and is not allowed back in, does that apply to nurses? If they leave at the end of their shift, are they banned from the hospital/ward until flu season is over? Of course not.

On a more realistic note, are the staff (doctors and nurses) confined to the baby ward during their shifts? Or are they allowed to the cafeteria/outside/other parts of the hospital for breaks, etc? If so, what's the difference between that and a partner/doula going home for a few hours and then coming back?
post #39 of 39
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irishmommy View Post
So if a support person leaves and is not allowed back in, does that apply to nurses? If they leave at the end of their shift, are they banned from the hospital/ward until flu season is over? Of course not.

On a more realistic note, are the staff (doctors and nurses) confined to the baby ward during their shifts? Or are they allowed to the cafeteria/outside/other parts of the hospital for breaks, etc? If so, what's the difference between that and a partner/doula going home for a few hours and then coming back?
You hit the nail on the head. These rules don't actually eliminate the risk they claim. Patients' families are more likely to stay confined to the room of their family member. The STAFF are the ones going from room to room and are more likely to transfer germs. Hand-washing doesn't eliminate what gets on their scrubs, and scrubs can be VERY germy, which is why they wear sterile coverings in the ER. Their clothing does come into contact with various surfaces in the rooms, and then into yours. I'd rather have a nose-picking child depositing some germs from a fairly-healthy outside world than a nurse depositing germs from several other sick-rooms.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: November 2009
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Archives › Pregnancy and Birth Archives › Due Date Clubs 2009 - 2012 › November 2009 › Official Hospital ban on kids...