"How much more helpless can you be when you're 2, and you're dead."
A good question, indeed. If you didn't think you had anything to be thankful for on Thursday, think again. You're not Baby Grace.
Speaking of dead babies (what?!) I found an, um... *interesting* entry on Wikipedia yesterday: coffin birth.
Yes, I know. I have major problems. But there's a logical explanation: We had some down time at the hospital yesterday, and my friend Scott was checking CNN.com and read an update about the Natalee Holloway suspects, and mentioned to me that he found it amazing that these guys could be held without a body having been found. So I mentioned that I had read the other day that in Aruban/Dutch law, you don't need a body to prove homicide, apparently, unlike here in the U.S. In fact, I remember seeing a program on TV a few years ago where a body was never found, but the bedroom where the killing occurred had so much blood spattered on the wall and soaked into the bedsheets that they were able to prove that the loss of that volume of blood would have to cause death, and so the blood was actually the body (this was a U.S. case). And Scott refuted me, saying he was pretty sure Laci Peterson's body was never found, but Scott Peterson was still found guilty. I thought he was wrong, so we went to the best source there is: Wikipedia. And not only did Wikipedia tell us that the body was found, but it mentioned that one hypothesis for the findings of the fetus's body separate from its mother was coffin birth. So naturally, I had to look up coffin birth. Which led me to that. It was pretty morbid-but-fascinating (a recurring theme in my life).
We told the other people in the room with us (residents, physicians, students, etc) of our disgusting discovery, and someone responded, "You SHOULD be an Ob/Gyn, hwong14." WHAT!? I'm pretty morbidly fascinated by lots of things, not just dead babies, and there are plenty of other medical students fascinated by dead babies who are not interested in Ob/Gyn. In what way the two go together, I'm not quite sure. Nevertheless, there you go.
In other news, I declared to the Ob/Gyn clerkship director that I'm pretty sure I want to go into Ob/Gyn and asked if I could set up a meeting with her to talk about my options. It's pretty scary, sending myself down this path.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
5 comments:
Did you read the article in the Inquirer last week on the practice of having OBs rotate as "catchers" so they're not getting up in the middle of the night. I forget what day - I'll see if I can find it. Mixed reviews from patients, although they made the point that so many practices are so large that often a woman is delivered by a doctor she's only seen once or twice anyway. They interviewed two female OB/GYNs who said it really made a difference in their home lives.
Here's the story:
http://www.philly.com/philly/business/11541131.html
And not only did Wikipedia tell us that the body was found, but it mentioned that one hypothesis for the findings of the fetus's body separate from its mother was coffin birth.
Except that Wikipedia is quite wrong. So called 'coffin birth' was impossible and was ruled out by the medical examiner, who admitted that the baby was removed through the cut in the uterus, and that he could not rule out human hands as having made that cut. Consider:
• A visibly pregnant woman vanishes from her home. No signs of a crime can be found - anywhere - ever.
• Her body turns up four months later, found on the shore of San Francisco Bay, a place where many other bodies have been dumped.
• Her uterus has been cut open by someone unskilled in medical procedures.
• The fetus and the placenta are both missing.
• Some distance away, the body of her child is also found.
• He shows no signs of prematurity, he is full term and he is not curled up in the fetal position.
• The fetal cord has been crudely cut.
• A piece of twine has been double knotted around his neck, not to harm him but to keep his body wrapped in plastic bags to protect it. One of the bags is found nearby.
• The mother is wearing underwear with a wear pattern which shows she has worn it for the whole period of her abduction - 111 days.
• Her clothes are still on her body, something which could not happen unless they were retied after the baby was removed. It also shows she was in the water for a day or two at most.
• Her uterus is two to three weeks post partum, showing that she lived at least that long after the baby was removed from her body.
• Although the body of the mother is simply discarded in the sea, either from the Albany Bulb or more likely from Point Isabel (it has been suggested in the Hoffman channel), the body of the baby is carefully laid on the shore at Point Isabel so it can be found and buried. This is clearly the work of someone who cared for the baby.
What part of this does NOT look like a failed fetus napping, where both mother and child have died?
Wow, A Voice of Sanity, you obviously are very deeply involved in this case, and I am obviously not. I appreciate your comments regarding the Laci Peterson case, but here are a few comments of my own. (Spoken with the utmost respect and neutrality.)
-I only linked to the Wikipedia entry because of the definition of coffin birth. I am not trying to prove or disprove whether that event actually occurred to Laci Peterson; I was simply intrigued by the possibility of such a thing happening (ever, to anyone) from a medical standpoint.
-While you may not believe there is evidence for coffin birth in the Laci Peterson case, Wikipedia is, in fact, NOT wrong in what is written there (as of 3:48 pm, 11/29/2007): "DNA tests verified they were the bodies of Laci Peterson and her son, possibly separated by coffin birth." I am not touching the DNA evidence phrase; I really don't know anything about the evidence. But the phrase "possibly separated by coffin birth" leaves all possibilities open, so technically, Wikipedia can't be wrong. Coffin birth is one theory, and that's all that it says.
-I cannot comment on any of the evidence you are submitting here, as I myself do not know if they are true or not, having not followed the trial that closely, but I don't really understand why you submit the fact that there were "no signs of prematurity" as an argument against coffin birth. If the fetus was term when its mother died, then there would be no evidence of prematurity, even if it was expunged from the uterus later. Also, the two best tests for prematurity are last menstrual period and the Ballad exam, which is performed on live infants no more than 48 hours after birth; many of the components of the Ballard score, which would allow for gestational age determination, would likely have been destroyed by decomposition and the body being in the water. So while I have no comment regarding the rest of your evidence, I just want to say that the logic behind the statement there were "no signs of prematurity" is flawed and furthermore, I suspect many of the physical signs used for determining prematurity may have been unavailable to the pathologist.
Thank you for your comment, though; it is very interesting, as is your blog. Again, however, I just want to make it clear that I am not trying to say that I believe that coffin birth was involved in the Peterson case -- I was merely mentioning a Wiki article.
But the phrase "possibly separated by coffin birth" leaves all possibilities open, so technically, Wikipedia can't be wrong. Coffin birth is one theory, and that's all that it says.
However coffin birth is a most unusual occurrence which requires an intact uterus, something which was not the case here. Decomposition leads to gas pressure build up which then expels the fetus through the birth canal. Since the uterus was not intact, no gas build up could occur and thus no expulsion - and Dr B. Peterson, the medical examiner ruled this out in any case. Since there was no evidence Conner was ever in the sea or any other water, this is a case of "When hearing hoof beats, think horses not zebras".
It was assumed that Laci Peterson was 7 1/2 months pregnant when abducted. The baby showed no vernix, no lanugo and no other signs of prematurity. Scott Peterson is entitled to the benefit of the doubt in this case. Dr Devore's testimony as to the age of the fetus at death was based on a wholly new theory, never used before or since, and relied on P. Jeanty's research. P. Jeanty, F. Rodesch, D. Delbeke and J. E. Dumont say that his bone measuring method is an unreliable method (Journal of Ultrasound in Medicine, Vol. 3, Issue 2 75-79). He also failed to apply the usual deviation factors needed in such a case, and thus his testimony was completely misleading.
Post a Comment