Gothamist: Hell No, I Won't Go

there but for the grace

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:20:00 -0500

You people should consider yourself fortunate if you had never had an extended stay at a Hospital. You should consider yourself doubly lucky if your room doesn't have a reclining chair for a loved one to sleep over. So, unless you plan on staying healthy forever, the odds are you will be in one. If not yourself, then a loved one. Karma pays back in full and then some.

famdoc

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 12:52:09 -0500

Jen--At the hospital in which I have privileges, every effort is made to allow parents to room-in with children, particularly in the ICU. The pediatric rooms are equipped with flip-out sofas and roll-away beds are available. Of course, there are circumstances where the presence of an adult (or a sibling or other visitors) can jeopardize the health of a child: if the child has a condition that makes him/her suceptible to infection (cancer, HIV, etc.). I can count on one hand the number of calls from parents of hospitalized newborns/children regarding their inability to have access to their hospitalized child. And that's in 19 years of practice. Regarding the mom's choice to deliver in NYC even though she lives on LI: there are many factors pregnant women consider in deciding where to deliver. She might have been working in NYC at the time her pregnancy was diagnosed and/or had a relationship with an OB/GYN in NYC or she might have had a risk factor and decided to deliver at a hospital with a good perinatology service, etc. One cannot criticize her decision to deliver in NYC based upon her place of residence.

Jen Chung

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 12:42:35 -0500

Lexiphane, thanks for the Ronald McDonald House tip. I suppose the articles are a testament to a mother's desire to be near her child during the first days of his life. And famdoc, you're right - the staff did seem very helpful. But it brought up something I wondered - can't family members can usually stay in a hospital room if the patient is in a room? What does that mean for the babies' family members then? I can understand not wanting to leave, in case something changes.

mother

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 12:33:01 -0500

While I understand the need of parents to be close to their children when they're hospitalized (same can be said for almost all patients who like to have their family close by), I don't understand why this Long Island woman chose to give birth (routine procedure)in Manhattan. There are plenty of good hospitals on the Island.

Lexiphane

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 12:32:55 -0500

Unfortunately, if every parent with a child in a neo- or perinatal ICU did what this woman did, hospital waiting rooms would begin to resemble refugee camps. The Ronald McDonald House organization operates residential and comfort facilities in or nearby medical centers for use by parents who have hospitalized children.

famdoc

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 12:27:18 -0500

As an anti-managed care MD who deals with the hassles of the insurance industry every day, I understand the temptation to criticize Oxford (now a division of United Health, an even bigger health care for-profit enterprise). But, Oxford is under no obligation to pay for mom's continued stay if she is not sick. The resolution of this story speaks not to the evils of managed care but to the wonderful people at the hospital, who could have seen the mom's continued presence as a liability risk, but, instead, saw her very human plight and responded admirably. They deserve credit for making the mother comfortable and able to continue to nurse her baby.

Jen Chung

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 12:05:10 -0500

The hospital didn't fight Carey and many employees at Lenox Hill did try to help her. I think the headline refers to what health insurance implies - your newborn baby might be in the hospital, but you're fine, so you have no need to be there.

contructive

Tue, 13 Mar 2007 11:49:14 -0500

To me, the headline implies that the hospital fought her instead of letting her stay, but there is no indication of that in the story. Can someone clarify this matter for me?