Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Dec 1, 2016 9:13:44 GMT -5
Yea, but isn't the difference that if you have surgery they either stitch up or cauterize any wounds where as after birth you just have a quasi open wound where the placenta used to be plus any additional stitches you had. I am not saying that a vaginal birth should recover in less than two weeks. But I also know that it doesn't take a year for your body to heal. Women are cleared anywhere from 4-6 weeks. Anything beyond that is not due to the medical aspect of giving birth but because a woman wants to be home with her baby. And I get that. I just don't think the employer or taxpayers should have to foot the bill.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,082
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Dec 1, 2016 9:27:00 GMT -5
I had a c-section. I felt perfectly fine until I was driving, then I felt really out of it, like I was drunk pr high or something. Very weird. That's major surgery though. I don't know why someone can't drive after a vaginal birth after a few days. I drove but it was uncomfortable as all hell. I should have put a pillow underneath my butt or something. Otherwise I was fine. For me it was the cough I had right after giving birth that was the problem. I was made very aware of what muscles are involved in coughing.
|
|
Sam_2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:42:45 GMT -5
Posts: 12,350
|
Post by Sam_2.0 on Dec 1, 2016 9:46:18 GMT -5
They are both major surgery one just doesn't necessarily get anesthesia. IICR it is because driving uses the same muscles that childbirth does. After giving birth those muscles all need to heal. And depending on how the seat is, or is it a stick shift, it can require stretching that is not recommonded for a few weeks. I did know a women who went back to work less than a week after giving birth. She was really sure of herself and said she was fine and needed to get back to work. Well one minute she was fine and the next she had fainted. I have never heard of another person having this happen but then again I have never known anyone else who went back to work a week later either. I donf think anyone doctor would clear a woman to return to work after a week. I did have a colleague get cleared after 4 weeks and she returned. I get that our bodies need to heal. But it should not take longer to recover from child birth than other surgeries/procedures. I had a hysterectomy and was back to work in less than two weeks. And that was cleared by my surgeon. That's about what it was for my gallbladder surgery too. But childbirth isn't just surgery. There are more physical issues going on than just getting the kid out. THere's the massive blood/fluid reduction, plus the instant hormone shifts. More than just one body part/system involved in the whole process.
After Aubree I wanted nothing but to get back to "normal" ASAP. I didn't have a newborn to care for, so I didn't have that issue. But it still took me 6 weeks + to recover. Actually longer because I tried to get back out and doing stuff after the first week and I paid for it. The worst was getting mastitis because they refused to give me the medicine that prevents milk from coming in, and without a baby to nurse I couldn't get any relief from the pressure (pump and other things didn't work). In other countries moms at least have that option. I am still upset that they won't let women in the US do that.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Dec 1, 2016 9:49:03 GMT -5
That's major surgery though. I don't know why someone can't drive after a vaginal birth after a few days. I drove but it was uncomfortable as all hell. I should have put a pillow underneath my butt or something. Otherwise I was fine. For me it was the cough I had right after giving birth that was the problem. I was made very aware of what muscles are involved in coughing. The point was, I felt great after that first c-section, and thought I'd be fine driving, but actually wasn't. My DH recently had hip surgery and wasn't cleared to drive until he was able to put his full weight on his leg, which was a little more than 2 weeks, maybe even 3. The danger was not being able to hit the brake pedal without pain, and probably because of that not being able to brake as quickly--I imagine similar to someone who had a vaginal birth and got stiches down there. My DH felt like he could drive himself sooner than that too.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,082
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Dec 1, 2016 10:02:46 GMT -5
Stitches wise I had no problems with movement.
I was what I thought was physically fine after two weeks but then a few weeks later a bunch more stuff came down the pike. I am glad the ladies on the pregnancy thread warned me about that otherwise I would have freaked and called DH to take me to the ER.
I could have if I absolutely had to worked thru it but other than being able to smugly say I was at my desk after three weeks I wouldn't have been very productive. It would have been like when I drag myself into work sick because I don't want to face a giant pile of work when I get back, I don't get nearly as much accomplished as I think.
From my employers perspective if I came back that early and something happened I could try to sue. Medical literature/advice is that the average recovery time for a normal vaginal birth is 6 weeks. Yes that means some people recover faster, some people take longer but the standard is 6 weeks.
I could not get within spitting distance of the lab, I could not even email my boss until 6 weeks had passed.
It didn't matter if I felt fine, my FMLA paperwork signed by the doctor said six weeks. She would not sign off on me going back earlier either.
I did all this research not because I wanted to go back at two weeks but because I was curious after having read so many YM threads on the subject. It's not so simple as I announce I am fine and everyone says "Okay welcome back!". There was a lot going on in the background that I can't control when it comes to me returning to work.
It's the same with anything else you are on approved FMLA leave for. If I had a heart attack and my paperwork said it takes 8 weeks to recover UNMC is not going to give a crap that I say I am fine after a week. My doctor is unlikely to sign off on me returning that early either because crap does happen. Me feeling fine and actually BEING fine to do my type of job are two totally different things.
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Dec 1, 2016 10:11:14 GMT -5
I went back to work 2 weeks after my first hip replacement. I had an anterior, so no movement restrictions. The surgery was Tuesday, I was released from the hospital Thursday and by Saturday, I was roaming my apartment without crutches. I had ditched my drugs after the first week, so drove as soon as I was drug free. The surgery was on my left, and I had an automatic, so had no problem hitting the brake. When I went into work, I used a single crutch as a mental crutch, but it was pretty much parked once I got into the lab and more than once I walked out yo my car without it.
However, I had a phenomenal recovery and I know it was not the norm. I felt so well, I was bored out of my skull plus I was roaming the mall for exercise and I couldn't afford me being out of work any longer! I was spending too much, as shopping for the previous year had been such a painful activity, I did as little as possible. So I guess I was making up for it.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,082
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Dec 1, 2016 10:18:03 GMT -5
My boss would have been thrilled if I could have come back earlier but the UNMC legal team/HR was standing in our way. People could make all sorts of judgements they wanted seeing me out and about "just fine" but still on maternity leave but at the end of the day it wasn't me or my boss that got to decide when I came back. Course if I had known I was going to lose my job four months later I would have gone ahead and taken the full 12 weeks I had enough sick/vacation/floating holiday to pay for it.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Dec 1, 2016 10:26:56 GMT -5
DH was off a month, though worked on the laptop part days from home, laying in bed much of that time. Lathroscopic surgery was on his right hip/driving leg--torn labram (sp?) repair. He took pain meds for one day. Ditched them due to nausea being worse for him to deal with than the pain.
He lays in bed and ices, sometimes using a heating pad instead. A month and a half post-surgery, he got his crutches back out because the surgery only took care of half the problem, and trying to walk normally the other day made the pain unbearable.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Dec 1, 2016 10:37:12 GMT -5
Yea, but isn't the difference that if you have surgery they either stitch up or cauterize any wounds where as after birth you just have a quasi open wound where the placenta used to be plus any additional stitches you had. I am not saying that a vaginal birth should recover in less than two weeks. But I also know that it doesn't take a year for your body to heal. Women are cleared anywhere from 4-6 weeks. Anything beyond that is not due to the medical aspect of giving birth but because a woman wants to be home with her baby. And I get that. I just don't think the employer or taxpayers should have to foot the bill. Everyone I've seen on here for longer leave acknowledges there's a medical component and a non medical component. And it seems the countries with leave policies do too.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,082
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Dec 1, 2016 10:45:20 GMT -5
A lot of whether or not your going to be fine to do your job earlier than 6 weeks also depends on the nature of your job. I do A LOT of heavy lifting and I am useless if I cannot do that. I could easily do the desk portion of my work but I am not going to be very productive if I can't lift stuff.
I had to fill out a 8 page form going over my job description and checking off each box that applied to me so UNMC and my OB could use that to determine when I'd be able to come back to work. 6-8 weeks was the estimate for when I'd be cleared to perform my job.
There were blurbs in there that depending on the situation my boss could petition to have me come back to do X% of my job should my OB rule I am physically capable but like I am not worth much if I can't do the physical portion of my job. Just easier on everyone to have me come back at 6-8 weeks 100% medically cleared then try to find a student or someone to do my heavy lifting.
|
|
Lizard Queen
Senior Associate
103/2024
Joined: Jan 17, 2011 22:19:13 GMT -5
Posts: 14,659
|
Post by Lizard Queen on Dec 1, 2016 10:54:54 GMT -5
After my C-sections, I wasn't allowed to lift anything heavier than my baby--the weight going up as the baby's weight went up. Not sure when that restriction was lifted. didn't matter so much for my job, but wasn't supposed to lift the older kid who was still only 2.5 yo. Just found out the shooting pains I've been getting in my abdomen are from scar tissue from those C-sections.
|
|
siralynn
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 8, 2013 10:33:16 GMT -5
Posts: 528
|
Post by siralynn on Dec 1, 2016 11:09:11 GMT -5
The worst was getting mastitis because they refused to give me the medicine that prevents milk from coming in What in the actual fuck?!? ETA: I don't know why ProBoards has attributed the quoted part to MT....
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,082
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Dec 1, 2016 11:10:58 GMT -5
What in the actual fuck?!? They won't give you the medicine anymore because they believe it discourages breastfeeding and that it's better for your body to naturally dry up. I asked and this was the answer I was given.
|
|
siralynn
Familiar Member
Joined: Jan 8, 2013 10:33:16 GMT -5
Posts: 528
|
Post by siralynn on Dec 1, 2016 11:13:00 GMT -5
What in the actual fuck?!? They won't give you the medicine anymore because they believe it discourages breastfeeding and that it's better for your body to naturally dry up. I asked and this was the answer I was given. I get why it's not the standard of care in normal situations, but in a situation like Sam's? You'd think they could make exceptions. Good lord our health care system is borked beyond belief.
|
|
Sam_2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:42:45 GMT -5
Posts: 12,350
|
Post by Sam_2.0 on Dec 1, 2016 11:14:15 GMT -5
What in the actual fuck?!? They won't give you the medicine anymore because they believe it discourages breastfeeding and that it's better for your body to naturally dry up. I asked and this was the answer I was given. I was told it's been shown to have a link to breast cancer later in life. And I could see if you have a living baby to care for why they wouldn't give it out. But I was begging for it and was told no. I am a damn dairy cow and suffered with engorgement for almost the full 6 weeks. Other loss moms from the groups I were in were all given the option for the shot if they weren't in the US, and most took it. It seems the kindest thing to do. At least give me the option and let me sign that I understand the risks.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Dec 1, 2016 11:15:34 GMT -5
That makes no sense...in adoption, surrogacy, or in the case of the child dying there is no breastfeeding to promote.
Damn, I would have taken my rage at the world out on them for making it more difficult.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,082
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Dec 1, 2016 11:18:04 GMT -5
They won't give you the medicine anymore because they believe it discourages breastfeeding and that it's better for your body to naturally dry up. I asked and this was the answer I was given. I get why it's not the standard of care in normal situations, but in a situation like Sam's? You'd think they could make exceptions. Good lord our health care system is borked beyond belief. I agree with you. I get they don't want to go back to automatically giving it like they did with my grandmother and MIL (it was automatically assumed you would not BF) but we've swung too far the other direction. It should be my choice to either get it OR not get it. That's how it works with any other medication on the planet.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Dec 1, 2016 11:27:54 GMT -5
I get why it's not the standard of care in normal situations, but in a situation like Sam's? You'd think they could make exceptions. Good lord our health care system is borked beyond belief. I agree with you. I get they don't want to go back to automatically giving it like they did with my grandmother and MIL (it was automatically assumed you would not BF) but we've swung too far the other direction. It should be my choice to either get it OR not get it. That's how it works with any other medication on the planet. Not that I think you shouldn't be able to get this particular medication, but that's most definitely not how it works with "any other medication on the planet". There are lots of medications you can't just go up to your doctor and say "I want this medication, give it to me".
Also why it's important to find a doctor who shares your general philosophies on whatever you're seeing them for (assuming the medication is legal in the U.S. in the first place).
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Dec 1, 2016 11:46:38 GMT -5
They have less child poverty. They have a higher rate of mothers in the workforce. Lower rates of mothers on welfare. Significantly lower infant mortality rates. Maybe it's not solely because of longer maternity leave, but the countries that have better stats on that then us have paid maternity leave. Correlation does not equal causation.
|
|
NomoreDramaQ1015
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:26:32 GMT -5
Posts: 48,082
Member is Online
|
Post by NomoreDramaQ1015 on Dec 1, 2016 11:51:53 GMT -5
Not that I think you shouldn't be able to get this particular medication, but that's most definitely not how it works with "any other medication on the planet". There are lots of medications you can't just go up to your doctor and say "I want this medication, give it to me".
I am not wording myself right I think. What I meant was if my doctor says that I need "x" it's my decision to take it or not take it. I can't get any drug under the sun I want for any reason but if it is something I need they usually work with you and then it's my decision if I want to proceed with treatment.
I can get they would not give the shot to me if I walked in and said "Hey I am not BF-ing so just give me the shot would ya?" but if you got someone suffering mastitis which can turn very serious on a dime I think it's crazy to not offer it and let the patient decide for themselves if they want to accept the risks associated with it.
|
|
justme
Senior Associate
Joined: Feb 10, 2012 13:12:47 GMT -5
Posts: 14,618
|
Post by justme on Dec 1, 2016 11:54:13 GMT -5
They have less child poverty. They have a higher rate of mothers in the workforce. Lower rates of mothers on welfare. Significantly lower infant mortality rates. Maybe it's not solely because of longer maternity leave, but the countries that have better stats on that then us have paid maternity leave. Correlation does not equal causation. Never said it did. But laws that deal with employment usually have some effect on employment, not merely correlation. But, hey, if you have anything that points to other reasons why other countries are so much better at those things then we are or prove is "just correlation", post away.
|
|
tskeeter
Junior Associate
Joined: Mar 20, 2011 19:37:45 GMT -5
Posts: 6,831
|
Post by tskeeter on Dec 1, 2016 12:02:58 GMT -5
At least from what I can gather from the emails I've been getting about our insurance it is not women having babies that's increasing the burden. It's age related issues. Which are only going to get more expensive and more cumbersome as baby boomers continue to work and age. So really the best solution would be to stop providing leave and insurance coverage for old people. Then there would be plenty of money for the rest of us. While you make an interesting point, at least my experience is different than your theory. Over my 40+ years in the workforce, I've dealt with more than a dozen pregnancies. The number of extended absences due to old age diseases? None. While I don't consider my experience to be statistically valid. I do suspect that it might indicate the relative frequency of extended absences from work due to various causes.
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,288
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Dec 1, 2016 12:05:42 GMT -5
They have less child poverty. They have a higher rate of mothers in the workforce. Lower rates of mothers on welfare. Significantly lower infant mortality rates. Maybe it's not solely because of longer maternity leave, but the countries that have better stats on that then us have paid maternity leave. Correlation does not equal causation. neither does it rule it out.
|
|
Sam_2.0
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 15:42:45 GMT -5
Posts: 12,350
|
Post by Sam_2.0 on Dec 1, 2016 12:36:40 GMT -5
At least from what I can gather from the emails I've been getting about our insurance it is not women having babies that's increasing the burden. It's age related issues. Which are only going to get more expensive and more cumbersome as baby boomers continue to work and age. So really the best solution would be to stop providing leave and insurance coverage for old people. Then there would be plenty of money for the rest of us. While you make an interesting point, at least my experience is different than your theory. Over my 40+ years in the workforce, I've dealt with more than a dozen pregnancies. The number of extended absences due to old age diseases? None.While I don't consider my experience to be statistically valid. I do suspect that it might indicate the relative frequency of extended absences from work due to various causes. I guess you don't work here Most people that have FMLA approved time off are not pregnant. They are generally 40+ and dealing with chronic health issues. So they take the full 12 weeks EVERY YEAR. I've been here 11 years and even with my vacation time and 3 maternity leaves included I've not been out as much as one of the senior (rank, not age) members on my team. There was even a time period where one department had to crack down because people figured out a certain dr in town would fill out the paperwork for $200 cash, basically guaranteeing 12 weeks off work and there was nothing the employer could legally do about it. There are always those that ruin it for everyone else.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Dec 1, 2016 12:44:39 GMT -5
What in the actual fuck?!? ETA: I don't know why ProBoards has attributed the quoted part to MT.... I don't either because I sat here for a second wondering why I typed that...hahaha
|
|
|
Post by The Walk of the Penguin Mich on Dec 1, 2016 12:55:51 GMT -5
Correlation does not equal causation. Never said it did. But laws that deal with employment usually have some effect on employment, not merely correlation. But, hey, if you have anything that points to other reasons why other countries are so much better at those things then we are or prove is "just correlation", post away. There are many other confounders that are used that can account for any one of these. Race, education, SES are just a few. For infant mortality, not all countries define it the same way. So it is comparing apples to oranges. The US is one of the few (only) countries that count a live birth as any birth born alive, regardless of viabiltiy. Many other countries only count a live birth as whether or not the infant is viable. economics.mit.edu/files/9922
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Dec 1, 2016 12:57:54 GMT -5
Not that I think you shouldn't be able to get this particular medication, but that's most definitely not how it works with "any other medication on the planet". There are lots of medications you can't just go up to your doctor and say "I want this medication, give it to me".
I am not wording myself right I think. What I meant was if my doctor says that I need "x" it's my decision to take it or not take it. I can't get any drug under the sun I want for any reason but if it is something I need they usually work with you and then it's my decision if I want to proceed with treatment. I can get they would not give the shot to me if I walked in and said "Hey I am not BF-ing so just give me the shot would ya?" but if you got someone suffering mastitis which can turn very serious on a dime I think it's crazy to not offer it and let the patient decide for themselves if they want to accept the risks associated with it. Right, the question is what happens when your doctor says "you don't need that medicine" for one reason or another (could be legit, could be that your doctor simply doesn't believe in that type of medication, or the doctor believes the risk is too great compared to the benefits, etc). Doctors are still ultimately responsible for the health of their patients. That's why I think it's so important to use a doctor who has the same kinds of thoughts on healthcare as you do.
It's still on the doctor to basically make sure you're not taking unnecessary risks...and fortunately/unfortunately sometimes our own ideas of what is a necessary risk is not the same as the doctor. This isn't relegated to this particular situation, this happens a lot. A patient has an issue, they want a particular medication to do a particular thing, the doctor won't write that particular prescription for any number of reasons. Some doctors are all about writing you a prescription for whatever you want and let you take the risks, some are super averse to writing some prescriptions except as a last resort. It's highly dependent upon the doctor.
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Dec 1, 2016 13:02:02 GMT -5
I also think that having the ability to transition back to work part time for a few weeks can help, though that can make finding childcare an issue for that time (or you're paying for full-time care and only using it part-time). I'm also a proponent of dad/partner taking leave. DH took a week when each kid was born, various days (or half days) throughout my mat leave, and the entire first week I'm back at work. He's staying home with DD this week, and then she'll start daycare next week, which makes for a smoother transition for both me and the baby. Regarding paternity leave...
Here in the government, men are allowed to take up to two weeks of paternity leave, which you can cover with your sick leave.
I think that's fair. Though I don't know if they'd let you take the paternity leave later, when mom goes back to work.
Men are allowed to take FMLA surrounding the birth of a child just like a woman.
|
|
HoneyBBQ
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 10:36:09 GMT -5
Posts: 5,395
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"3b444e"}
|
Post by HoneyBBQ on Dec 1, 2016 13:12:02 GMT -5
But what is being discussed in this thread is much longer than the recovery time for a delivery. With my oldest, I was up and walking fine in a week. And that was with a lot of tearing (she was a HUGE baby!). I had a hysterectomy and was back to work in less than two weeks. It doesn't take 3 months, 6 months or a year to recover from birth. Once again, you've neglected that everybody is different and experiences and recovers from pregnancy and birth differently.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Dec 1, 2016 13:35:58 GMT -5
God forbid you change for the better! God forbid you examine how other countries do things better and reevaluate what you're doing! Nope, not gonna happen! Because You're Number One!! I find this comment hysterical because I have yet to see you say one thing negative about your country. All you ever post is why America sucks and how we should do it the Canadian way. Because that's not arrogant at all No, not the Canadian way. It's the way of all other first world countries which have a much better Quality of Life than you do.
|
|