I’ve just read an article about this in the news page, but can’t seem to link it to a comment on the forum, but basically the title here says it all. I hope the comment below, that I wrote on the news page first, but couldn’t post, makes sense. They are calling the knowledge of needing to induce births early to prevent the risk of stillbirth a new discovery, but...
I’m confused by this being called newly discovered information. My first baby was induced two weeks early, nearly 35 years ago, for this very reason. I was on my third baby with the same demand from the doctors when I finally bullied them into telling me why (I refused to leave the room until the doctor gave me the real reason why they needed to induce diabetic mums early). He really didn’t want to tell me but he had to, and he said that sometimes the baby can die if left to full term. I was happy with his answer and said, ‘Fine. Go ahead then.’ But they knew this at least 35 years ago and are now calling it a new discovery. I hear things like this so often. ‘New’ discoveries seem to happen for the same things at least once every generation I’m sure. What happens to the knowledge that used to be there?
I’m confused by this being called newly discovered information. My first baby was induced two weeks early, nearly 35 years ago, for this very reason. I was on my third baby with the same demand from the doctors when I finally bullied them into telling me why (I refused to leave the room until the doctor gave me the real reason why they needed to induce diabetic mums early). He really didn’t want to tell me but he had to, and he said that sometimes the baby can die if left to full term. I was happy with his answer and said, ‘Fine. Go ahead then.’ But they knew this at least 35 years ago and are now calling it a new discovery. I hear things like this so often. ‘New’ discoveries seem to happen for the same things at least once every generation I’m sure. What happens to the knowledge that used to be there?