Another interesting thing I found in this article is that, while the already infinitesimal number of hospital baby-snatches went down in the past 15 years, the number of attempted baby-snatches outside the hospital actually went up 13%. Maria Gurrola's stabbing and the kidnapping of her son took place just a few miles from me. I am not paranoid by any means, but I hate to think that cases like this happened because of increased paranoia in a place that doesn't need it.

Try to remember that when you get your health insurance bill and you're wondering why it's so damn high.

'ZACTLY!

True "health care reform" begins when we get rid of this kind of squanderous waste, as well as the nuisance malpractice lawsuits which have made it so expensive for a doctor to have his or her own practice that many have left the industry rather than pay the outrageous premiums for malprac insurance.

The one sure way to reduce costs, is to first reduce overhead. Basic business sense. None of which, has Obama, Pelosi, or the rest of the inmates running the asylum.

OK I do home births, well this time I am doing a birthcenter water birth, and I have less fear of someone snatching my baby in a hospital than I do of having a bunch of nurses bossing me around as if I am a child.

That being said, after my son Eoin was born I had to go to the store for a few things and he was only 2 days old. I had him in his carseat in the front of the shopping cart when some lady in her 30s started following me around. She came up behind me put her finger in his hands, I had my hand on his tummy rubbing him, and telling me how she was expecting very soon.. She was clearly not. And asking why I was out by myself, and a bunch of other inappropriate stuff. I told her I wasn't and immediately called my hubby on the cellphone and told him I needed help in the isle I was in. Thank God for Cellphones.

She stood there trying to talk to me till hubby got there and when she saw him approaching me she suddenly had other things to do. What can I say, he is a big intimidating looking man.

I have only had this happen with one of my six children but the chances are if I had left that store alone she may have followed me home and tried to snatch him.. She would have had a house full of relatives to deal with but still.

Most people have good intentions. Most people just want contact with this new member of their species. Most people want to grin at the baby pat its head and giggle as you head home to change the poopy diapers and care for the creature for the next 18 and beyond. But out of the hundreds of people who have stopped me to congratulate me and tell me how beautiful the kids were there was that one lady with the glazed over eyes who asked way to much about me and the baby and followed me for a little too long.

Of coarse the answer here isn't to run the hospital bills through the roof. The answer is when you are weak and have just been through birth, have someone with you as much as possible. These people are predators and they can smell a wounded animal just like a shark..

And I don't put those signs up in my yard. Or political signs. Or I support this or that signs.. Wast of yard space.

Some of this is just a cover for the hospitals' need to put in sophisticated identification systems so that they themselves don't get the babies mixed up. As for how you prevent criminal acts that are already of very low probability, that's a good question. I'm wondering the same thing in relation to the University of Alabama-Huntsville (my alma mater) shootings. I hope it doesn't result in a bunch of new intrusive -- and ineffective -- security measures on campus.

Dave, I'm from Huntsville. What an awful event. Feel bad for UAH, as I doubt a background check would've turned up what a nutjob the shooter was.

A case of babysnatching just happened recently where my dad lives in Ardmore, AL. A lady there stole a baby from a woman in TN. She went to her home and attacked her.

And that's the thing. If someone really wants to hurt you - or grab your baby - they'll find a way. These measures only serve as deterrents, and hospital security has been higher for awhile now, once these cases began coming to light. We don't know how many children would've been snatched without them, just as we can't know how many school shootings (which are also fairly rare), have been prevented by installing metal detectors and increasing campus security. That's the beauty of deterrents. If they work well, they keep statistics low. That doesn't mean unstable people aren't out there wanting to do this, so the low stats don't necessarily justify making it easier for them.

What concerns me is that your child is five times more likely to be hit by lightning. Clearly, we need to start imposing anti-lightning measures. Lightning rods on all prams should be federally mandated.

So began the "Maternity Wars." Birth centers across the country were renovated and ramped up to attract market share, and the maternity ward started to resemble a luxury hotel.

Oh, well, in that case it's a lot less bad. If spending on security is economically justified, then I have no problem with a hospital choosing to do so, even if it isn't, strictly speaking, needed for security reasons.

The bigger problem is that of the health care system as a whole: the disconnect between consumption and payment. When patients pay the same whether they go to a bare bones or to a luxury hospital, the system cannot bear the strain.

If they work well, they keep statistics low.
But the statistics were already low when hospitals only had the ankle bracelets (like when I was born). With your reasoning, you could say that hospitals had prevented thousands of baby-snatchings, because you just don't know. The article says that there were (I believe, I don't have it up right now) 287 attempted baby-snatchings in this country since 1995. Many of these were before the really high-tech stuff. The statistics, as the author says, went from extremely low to extremely lower (almost statistically negligible). Also, as the author says (did you click the link to the article), baby-snatchers in hospitals are almost always immediately caught.

"That's the beauty of deterrents. If they work well..."

That's also the problem: it's hard to show that a deterrent is unnecessary. It takes some cold-blooded analysis.

Example: Suppose in 400,000 babies would be snatched without these deterrents (based on historical data mentioned by Amy). Suppose you have a deterrent that could (impossibly) stop all of these. How much is that worth? In dollars?

People cringe at this type of analysis, but it can be quite revealing. Practically speaking, human life has a value. Otherwise we would outlaw cars, since they kill thousands.

So let's continue the analysis: say we value preventing each crime at $1 million. This perfect deterrent will prevent roughly 10 crimes per year. It is therefore worth spending $10 million nationwide. There are more than 10,000 maternity wards and birthing centers. Hence. the average justifiable expenditure per center is $100 per year.

Any realistic deterrent will be far less effective, and hence worth far less.

The misplaced emphasis on technology extends beyond the baby-snatching paranoia when it comes to kids.

The place where my first child was born (gotta love that passive voice, eh?) had the best of everything. No monitor was left unpurchased or unattached. Alarms everywhere. Staff stacked atop one another.

But yet, when the fetal heart rate monitor slipped off spouse, and the monitor showed a flatline for a few minutes, no one responded to the alarm. I really did not worry much about it, but the alarm was annoying.

After about 10 minutes, I wandered over to the nurses' station and asked the gaggle of gabbing nurses if they were going to reattach the monitor, pointing to the flatline readout from the monitor that was feeding to the nurses's station. They looked at me peevishly--I had interrupted some juice talk, I think. They were simply ignoring the alarm and the readout.

Imagine that. They were simply ignoring the alarm and flatline readout of a fetal heart monitor. It must be a common thing for them to slip off, so no one bothers to address them. But it made me realize that all the grand technology is still dependent on what humans do. A flatline fetal rate is assumed to be just another slipped monitor, unworthy of attention. So the monitor is really just an expensive prop, as no one takes it seriously.

Mind you, this was a premier teaching university hospital with a "women's center" birthing facility that is supposed to be all Helen Reddy hearing them roar and stuff. These people consider themselves to be the best at what they do.

The only thing that topped the heart monitor dismissal was a nurse later lecturing me post-birth about how vital her job was to the safety of my spouse. Of course, I had just watched them nearly kill my child due to a botched delivery, and saw the doctors almost panic at losing the kid. (They called in an infant crash cart when the total apgar scale reading was 1-2.)

That was the outcome with a staff of 7 professionals in the delivery room. It was a fiasco.

After that, local hospitals with one doctor and a nurse did a much better job on subsequent kids.

Oops, should read: "Suppose that one in 400,000 babies..."

fancy is a great way to mask incompetence.

"We can't suck, look at all our wonderful equipment!"

I don't think we need really high-tech security. That is overkill - in the same way not allowing a kindergartener to bring a plastic knife to school is.

When my son was born, 20 years ago, it was a concern, as some of these cases had come to light, but it was more of a concern for me that they might mix him up with another baby (which, statistically, may happen even less, but has happened). The name bracelets and measures they took, such as allowing him to stay in the room with me most of the time, were comforts...and they didn't cost much. After giving birth, women are exhausted and anxious. If the measures aren't too costly, they give us peace of mind, and may, in fact, prevent some abductions. If the stats of out-of-hospital abductions have risen 13%, after these tighter measures, then it seems they have prevented in-hospital ones at least.

Umm, why should everyone's insurance cost more? This seems like a fairly easy cost to pass on to those who will use the service.

It's too bad that there isn't a more developed market for individual insurance.

I would think the odds are higher of a staff member, who has almost unlimited access to your baby and probably knows a few security codes, would be more likely to snatch a newborn then a stranger off the street. The hospitals high tech security system is virtually useless against an inside job.

I don't go around thinking that Nurses are stealing babies but since it is way more likely that they could take the baby then some random person, wouldn't it make more sense to protect against that instead if the fear of baby snatching is so great? But, I guess, logic and common sense don't really come into play when money can be made by feeding off of a new mom's fear.

Brian, every hospital needs a machine that goes 'BING!' - in case the administrator comes.

Per the article, "it hardly matters at all." Unless it's your baby.

OK, I get the point; as with prior blog items about not letting kids out in the driveway to play .. but ...

I love when statistics are used to support any argument - the implication in the article is that over 1,000 babies since 1983 have been struck [stricken?] & killed by lightning bolts ... I'm just sayin', is all...

Pirate Jo, great Python reference! just wait'll they come for your liver ...

"I would think the odds are higher of a staff member, who has almost unlimited access to your baby and probably knows a few security codes, would be more likely to snatch a newborn then a stranger off the street."

You would think so, but I don't recall any of the publized cases being nurses or hospital staff. There's probably a basic psychological profile for these people, and they don't tend to be stable enough to hold down a demanding job like that.

From the accounts I've heard about, it often seems that they are women trying desperately to hold onto a relationship with a man or get some sort of family attention. They tell the guy they're pregnant to get him to stay, then realize "whoops, I forgot that I actually have to have a baby at some point." They'll often go to elaborate extremes to appear pregnant.

They may actually try to get pregnant and can't, so I'm wondering if we've had an increase in these cases as women have put off having babies until they're older.

Lovelysoul, I totally get that. I am just trying to understand the logic behind all of it. (and I do realize my mistake in trying to find logic in a bureaucratic system but here I go. )

There are cases of Nurses mixing babies up so security measures in place to avoid that make total sense, but stangers taking babies from hosptials just doesn't happen. At least not often enough that we need to put all these measures in place. If they are doing it to offer piece of mind to new moms and dads, then so be it, but the stranger kidnapping is being touted as this great big threat to get already scared mommies and daddies to use thier facility so they can charge more.

"From the accounts I've heard about, it often seems that they are women trying desperately to hold onto a relationship with a man or get some sort of family attention. They tell the guy they're pregnant to get him to stay, then realize "whoops, I forgot that I actually have to have a baby at some point." They'll often go to elaborate extremes to appear pregnant."

This is true. But these women aren't breaking into hosptitals and taking babies. In the publicized cases, except for the particularly rare occurance in this article, those women usually kidnap a baby from a residence or public place. Or in the really tragic cases, they attack the mom and take the baby. They don't usually just waltz into a hospital and take babies. So I can't really understand the need for all the extra (expensive) precautions to protect against stranger kidnappings. They are protecting against something that just isn't happening.

On the other hand, maybe the reason we aren't hearing about stranger kidnappings in hospitals is because we have these measures in place. I guess if the security measures are suppossed to be merely acting as a deterent, as it did in this instance, then I guess they are doing thier job.

Who knows really? Bradley13 may have been onto something there...

I've had 4 babies in hospitals, and I am a fan of the measures. Anyone who wants to can still go Oooo and Ahhh at the babies through the nursery glass window, but only a few people have actual access to the babies. Makes sense to me, they're people's babies, not public toilets. Few people would leave a 10k diamond laying around in public, and babies are infinitely more precious.

My SIL used to work for CPS and now works for a foster agency. There were, on occasion, parents who lost custody of the baby at birth trying to steal them from the hospital. It's not well-documented, but it happened a few times in her 7 years.

And it's really hard to use statistics to determine the deterrent feature of security measures. We have no way of knowing how many people haven't bombed the US, and no way to know how many babies weren't stolen.

Exactly. It's about limiting opportunity. We can't know how much more theft there would be if we all left our cars unlocked and our valuables unattended. Lower stats, in and of themselves, don't prove that the crime is uncommon, or would remain uncommon if we stopped taking measures. There are crazy people out there who, if left unchecked, would act on their baser impulses.

I was just reading where instances of child molestation are way down largely because of the greater awareness that the general population has about it now. The opportunity to commit the crime has been severely limited. It's harder to gain access to a child, and most children today are aware of the lures a pedophile would use.

Yet, there are still little children, like Summer Thompson, who are snatched on their way home from school. 189 registered sex offenders lived within a 5 mile radius of her house. We simply don't know how many more would be abducted and killed if parents made it easier, or if schools didn't take protective measures against it, or kids weren't aware that they're safer in groups than alone.

So, I think taking reasonable measures is wise. But what is reasonable? To me, not celebrating a baby's birth is silly. Like Amy said, you could just as easily be targeted at a restaurant or mall and followed home. We can't live in a cocoon. You lock your doors, maybe buy a good security system, check on your children frequently, and do what you can to limit the opportunity for them to become a statistic, rare or not.

Off topic, but...

Momof4, do they really still do that? Take the babies away and put them in a room where they aren't being touched or held? Is it like that in all hospitals, or can you keep your baby with you?

This worries me. If and when I have a baby I don't like the idea of it spending its first day or two alone and unhugged.

lovelysoul:

***Yet, there are still little children, like Summer Thompson, who are snatched on their way home from school. 189 registered sex offenders lived within a 5 mile radius of her house. We simply don't know how many more would be abducted and killed if parents made it easier, or if schools didn't take protective measures against it, or kids weren't aware that they're safer in groups than alone.***

This is so true. We almost learned this the hard way in our neighborhood. At the end October 2009, a fourth grade girl walking home alone from our elementary school was grabed by a stranger and dragged towards his car. She fought like crazy and got free. This girl is a friend of my fourth grade dd... so, you could say that this has had an impact on us.

We (the other parents) waited for the school to make an annoucement or for it to show up on the local news. It never did and you want know why? Because the police told us, (the neighborhood association had an emergency meeting about the lack of info)that ATTEMPTED abductions are way more common than you think and the news just isn't interested unless the kid is actually taken. The school was covering its rear-end and didn't want to start a panic. All they told us was that a fourth grade girl was approached...not touched and dragged. Fortunately, the unofficial "PTO News Network" got the word spread far and wide about what really happened.

The worst part... when I talked to the child's mother, she told me that the police told her that the attacker is probably still in the area and this wouldn't be enough to scare him away. So this creep is lurking around here somewhere. If he doesn't show up my neighborhood again, he can choose one of dozen others located in the area.

I know that every time a woman or a child goes missing there are those who complain that the story gets coverage only bc the victim was white, middle class, or pretty. That is not true. This story had all of those elements... what the media wants is fear and loss... Since that didn't happen here, they never reported it and the people who live within two miles of this neighborhood don't know that there is someone out there trolling for 10 year old girls.

Moral of the story: just because you don't see it in the media doesn't mean its not happening.

LS, thanks; I live in Huntsville and I work at a place across the street from that building. And you're right; a criminal background check would not have flagged Dr. Bishop because she was never charged in the case of the one murder she probably did commit, or in the case of the other murder she might have committed.

Two things here. One is that much of our approach to security these days concentrates on trying to stop people who have already decided on a crime from initiating or completing that crime. That's really hard to do. The criminal has the advantage of surprise and often the advantage of either superior force (in the case of violent crimes) or superior knowledge (in the case of "white collar" crimes). The good guys are always starting out with a handicap. When you think about it, it's a bit surprising that we manage to stop as much crime as we do.

The second one is the problem of how to significantly reduce the occurrence of an already rare event. The airline industry faced this back around 1992: although airliner crashes are very rare on a per-mile basis, people in the industry could see that as the industry grew and there were more planes in the air flying more routes, the number of times per year that bad crashes occurred would increase. And of course, airliner crashes are catastrophic events, and the cost of each one is very high. Plus, the perception of more frequent crashes creates bad publicity, even when statistics show that the perception isn't true on a per-mile basis.

They started by analyzing crash data and zeroing in on a category called "controlled flight into terrain" accidents. At the time, this accounted for a significant percentage of all accidents. Industry people set about identifying ways to prevent this type of accident. The typical CFIT accident occurs during landing approach or right after takeoff, in areas where high terrain is near the airport, when an aircraft strays from standard approach or ascent paths. There was one technical innovation that was applied (forward-looking ground proximity warning systems), but most of the improvement was accomplished by simplifying approach paths, clarifying procedures, and improving training. In other words, although the technical area wasn't ignored, the problem was attacked mostly by addressing the human part of the equation.

And I think that's what we're going to have to do to cut the incidence of these rare-but-catastrophic crimes. The technology area has gone about as far as it can go, using what we know how to do today, without becoming a real pain in the arse to work with. What we're going to have to do is start finding ways to screen for the Amy Bishops of the world, and nip their problems in the bud before they start. We can't let them get as far as thinking seriously about, and planning, the crime; if they get that far, our system has already failed. We have to catch them sooner than that.

Of course, the problem is how to do that without tearing up the Constitution. That's a huge problem. I won't pretend otherwise, and simply saying that we'll have to accept further limits to freedom is not an acceptable answer. But somehow we have to start addressing that. Throwing up our hands and saying that the problem is unsolvable is not acceptable either.

What do you do, Dave? I have this odd feeling you would probably know my dad. lol He's worked for various companies around there, I think, as a tech writer.

Sheepmommy, that is frightening, and I'm glad you told that story because I think many of us who are parents know of similar incidences that did not show up in the news.

Whenever we start talking here about stranger abductions being so rare, I wonder. I have two or three friends whose children have been molested by family members, and I encountered other cases as a GAL, so I often think if someone will molest their grandchild or nephew, what really prevents them from molesting a neighbor or a child just wandering down the street? Easier access and opportunity is the only answer.

But, in almost every case, there were warning signs and some relatives outright knew this person was a threat, yet they didn't come forward until afterward. That is a human aspect we need to work on.

I'm having a hard time believing Bishop's husband was completely in the dark. Of course, when it's someone you love, you don't want to believe they could ever be that violent, but c'mon. It's a warning sign if a person who "accidently" shot her brother suddenly gets a gun and goes off to the shooting range. Most sane people would never touch a gun after something like that.

Momof4, do they really still do that? Take the babies away and put them in a room where they aren't being touched or held? Is it like that in all hospitals, or can you keep your baby with you?

This worries me. If and when I have a baby I don't like the idea of it spending its first day or two alone and unhugged."

No, they typically room in unless you don't want them to. But they ahve to go to the nursery to get checled periodically, so there's always some there. And if you're smart, when they come for the baby at midnight, you tell them to keep it till the next feeding time!

Did any of you who are saying that all this high-tech stuff is worth it actually read the article? Fewer than 300 attempted kidnappings since 1995, before all the super-duper security measures. As quoth Tyler Durden, the illusion of safety.

What's high tech? I delivered at the best hospital in Austin, and they had these measures: Doors to the mother/baby wing that would lock from the nurses station. No one allowed to have a baby in the hall unless it was in a rolling bassinet. No one allowed to take your baby out of your room without the proper ID badge. Every time baby came or went (or got meds, etc) it's id bracelet (wrist and foot) were matched to mom's. How is any of that expensive?

My SIL delivered in a suburban hospital with a women's center. They had ankle bracelets that set off an alarm if they got too close to the door to the delivery wing. I still can't imagine they're THAT expensive. Lord knows they're saving money on the food they serve you-ick!

"Lord knows they're saving money on the food they serve you-ick!"

LOL. You know, I don't remember being in there long enough to have food. These days, it's kind of like, "Ok, you've delivered, now get the h--- out!" If in-hospital abductions have gone down, maybe it's because there's simply no time.

But, you're right. Those measures can't cost that much, and it's simply intelligent prevention. Sure, maybe only 300 babies might be taken in a given year. I'm in the hospitality business. Maybe only 300 people fall from balconies each year, or hurt themselves on slip and fall accidents, but I assure you that I am legally expected to be responsible for preventing even the most rare accident from occurring. It's ultimately my ass that will be sued, whether it's a rare accident or not. I must have liability insurance and my insurance company demands that I take every precaution.

I was sued once because some drunk lady fell over a log. Another time, a drunk jetskier hit the end of my jetty and died. How often does that happen? Who cares? I would suspect it would be far worse if I lost somebody's baby.

LS, I'm trained as a software engineer, but they keep dragging me into systems engineering... go figure. I'm currently working missile defense, but I've only been doing that about six months. Over the past ten years, I've worked on Shuttle, SPACEHAB, International Space Station, Future Combat Systems, and several proposals and short-term things.

"I'm having a hard time believing Bishop's husband was completely in the dark. " I have to admit I'm completely mystified by this bit... according to the reports I've read, they were dating when she shot her brother. So he's seen this side of her before, although she may have done a convincing job of snowing him then (and quite possibly he was willing to be snowed). And as you say, love is blind and dumb sometimes.

"Did any of you who are saying that all this high-tech stuff is worth it actually read the article? Fewer than 300 attempted kidnappings since 1995, before all the super-duper security measures. As quoth Tyler Durden, the illusion of safety."

NumberSix, I agree that a lot of it is security theater, especially when the system false alarms so many times per day that it has trained the nurses to ignore it. But I think LS sharpened a point that I was trying to make in my last post: most people who aren't trained in probability and risk management don't evaluate risk that way. The way they evaluate it is: how often per unit of time does it happen (or do they hear about it happening)? We see this in aviation all the time: statistics on crashes per passenger-mile just don't make an impression on anyone outside the industry. If there were two newsworthy crashes last year, and you ask the average person what his odds of being in a crash are, he'll say, "well, I fly once a month, and there have been two crashes in the past twelve months, so it's one out of six." And he'll really believe that he has again cheated a near-certain death every time he steps off a plane.

I'd like to blame this on our utterly crappy primary education system, which hardly trains anyone to do any math beyond simple addition and subtraction. But I run into it among people who are pretty well educated, and ought to know better, that I'm starting to think that it's something more fundamental. Something like the human brain having a primitive risk-assessment function that is time based, and served some purpose back when our ancestors were evaluating their odds of running into a saber-toothed tiger in the next cave. It seems to take a considerable amount of mental effort and practice to overcome it.

How about our POTUS, Barry Hussein, calling a series of Democrat $$ funded Tea Parties, wherein Obama has series, upon series of Townhall Meetings, where he uses his considerable, albeit teleprompter enhanced charm, to try and talk illegal aliens out of using emergency room facilities every time one of of their kids comes down with a rash?

Ironic that you should mention the fact that dramatizing an isolated incident or two causes people to think certain things are more common than they actually are.

Sometimes I wonder if some of your blog entries have the same effect. Yes, certain things that happen are horrible, but not necessarily commonplace. And we've seen this happen, with British Airways "every man is a molester" attitude for instance.

Well,

Hello there, Patrick. I can see you have been reading between my lines.

Yes, the "every man is a molester" has been the sword of choice whenever the wife, in the divorce, wants to really, really punish the soon to be ex, who was too devastated to hire his own lawyer, and thought he would get easy visitation rights.

I don't have to refer you to the current lady who probably really murdered her brother.

Or the "psychiatrist" who did "something" at Fort Hood.

Check out how the immensely talented Phil Hartman met his demise.

I'm glad you referred me to Phil Hartman's death. A couple of things were unknown to me. Brynn was taking Zoloft, so of course, that means her brother gets to sue the makers of Zoloft for wrongful death. Never mind his stupid sister was taking cocaine (supplied by Andy Dick) and was also drunk at the time, and every prescription bottle of Zoloft clearly states that alcohol and recreational drugs aren't to be used.

Brynn's idiot brother should sue Andy Dick. Not that he should bear any responsibility for Brynn's decisions, but it would make more sense than suing the makers of Zoloft because the stupid bitch misused the drug.

Why any man would want to marry and have children is beyond me, given the erroneous presumptions that are rampant in our society and show no signs of changing. Men are all child molesters, and we have to be on our guard against male teachers, never mind that more women teachers have sexual trysts with their male students than the reverse. And men are all abusers. Never mind that statistically, more women abuse their husbands than the reverse, even physically.

The anti-male propaganda mill is running full steam.

Yes!

... all part of what I often think of as "The Darkness" or "The Beast".

Of course there have been horrible examples of both sexes, all races, and many religions, and one ideology masquerading as a religion (Islam).

But, if you are a white male, you are often D.O.A. before the first pitch.

I use the baseball analogy, because I am from New York, the Yankees are the New York Yankees (of baseball) and trust me, in that 14 or 15 year stretch of the 18 or so year career he had, when he was pretty healthy, or really, really healthy (13 years), he was the very best whoever had a cleat touch down on God's green grass. His name was Mickey Mantle, and if you need more proof, just watch Home Run Derby on ESPN Classics.

Patrick,

I will give you, and all out here, one more to think about:

Statins, the generic reference to prescription strength drugs that lower cholesterol, will spawn the drugs to cure Alzheimer's.

To all:

If Grandpa or Grandma seem to be sharply slower than usual, of late, ... start having them eat two packets of oatmeal in the morning, ... nuke 3/4 cup of whole milk ... yes ladies, lots of good things in the fats you are always trying to avoid ... and pour the packets in. Think of oatmeal as "generic, eat-at-home statins". If Grandpa and Grandma are able to swallow this, you have taken your best shot.

Aricept, the current prescription drug for Alzheimer's is as useful as mammary glands on a bull.

Wow. Back in the dark ages (late 70's - early 80's) we had a concept called "rooming in". Baby never left mom's presence until discharge from hospital. Dad arranged to be there, too, so it was a non-issue. I think Cousin Dave is right, this is for the liability of the hospitals.

Yes, that was the point I was trying to make. If anyone gets hurt at my business - even in a freak accident - they will still sue me. No one says, "The probabilities were so low that this poor business owner couldn't possibly have protected against this occuring". The attitude is no matter how rare an incident it is, somehow the business should've done something more to prevent it, and since they didn't foresee the accident/injury/kidnapping occuring, they must pay.

So, the hospitals are just doing what any business has to do in such a litigious climate - trying to cover every base, even if the odds of a baby-snatching are extremely low.

The only way to stop it is legal reform. If we had a system where litigants had to pay the opposition's legal expenses if they lost, we'd have fewer frivolous lawsuits and businesses could stop functioning out of fear and paranoia.

Ken: But, if you are a white male, you are often D.O.A. before the first pitch.

I use the baseball analogy,

Sorry, Ken. I have to laugh. You didn't just use the baseball analogy. You gave a mixed metaphor. "DOA before the first pitch"? DOA is dead on arrival. It's used by ambulances and rescue squads, mostly. DOA before the first pitch...the pitcher is trying to get the batter to swing and miss, not kill him.

Lovelysoul, I understand that part of the reasons hospitals do this is because of our litigation-happy society. That doesn't mean it's good for the rest of us. To wit: my first comment about attempted baby-snatchings elsewhere going up significantly. I am not implying total causality, but the correlation is chilling. In hospitals, snatchers are almost always caught immediately. Not so in the outside world without the baby Lo-Jack.

Oh, well, in that case it's a lot less bad. If spending on security is economically justified, then I have no problem with a hospital choosing to do so

If you were the one paying, then yes, it would be another service and you could decide if you wanted to pay the extra few thousand dollars or not. But the problem is none of us pays, a 3rd party pays, and we have no idea of the costs. So we just say "yes give me everything" without thinking, and that is what drives prices higher.

None of the above spending would matter if we actually paid out of pocket.

Patrick,

See the original DOA starring Edmund O'Brian.

Don't ever cross swords with me, my friend, when it comes to movies. :)

Patrick,

If I am at the plate, and I hit a line shot that kills the pitcher, I will round all the bases, and take my homerun. Then, and only then will I clammor around the pitcher's mound, and say something like: "Oh, come on, everybody, ... he's faking it!"

It probably all started with the kidnapping nurse, Norma Jean Armistead.

She stole two babies from their mothers - one in 1974 - and murdered the second mother in order to do so. Her case was turned into the 1993 TV movie starring Kate Jackson, "Empty Cradle."

From elsewhere:

Mary Childs, 26, was an L.A. grocery store employee who had endured a routine pregnancy until September 20, 1974. That day she entered the Kaiser Foundation Hospital to give birth. There, she met Norma Armistead, who took an immediate interest in her.

That evening, Norma gave Mary several drugs before she fell asleep. When Mary awoke in the middle of the night, everything seemed wrong.
She couldn't control her limbs, couldn't focus her mind, wasn't big anymore. Nurse Armistead and several doctors were by her side. Nurse
Armistead was telling the doctors she had visited the ward a few minutes earlier to find Mary unconscious with a stillborn between her
legs. When the realization finally hit Mary, she was inconsolable. Doctors informed her that her system contained massive quantities of narcotics, none of them prescription. Mary was astonished; she had never taken drugs. Doctors chose not to believe her; it was common for
users to deny using......

Norma had been living common law with Charles Armistead. She felt they were drifting apart due to her inability to have a child. (She'd had a
hysterectomy in 1961.) Her job as a obstetric nurse gave her ample opportunities to steal a live child and replace it with a child from
the morgue........

Mary, meanwhile, had her 8-month-old returned to her. She sued the hospital and attending physicians for $24 million. She was awarded
$375,000 (in 1977).

And from elsewhere:

Norma Jean Armistead checked herself into the Kaiser Hospital in Hollywood, California, after claiming to have given birth at home. Armistead, a nurse at the hospital, confused doctors by showing no evidence of giving birth. Doctors pieced together the evidence after Kathryn Viramontes was soon discovered at her apartment in Van Nuys stabbed to death with her baby cut from her womb. "Authorities said Armistead took the Viramontes infant to the hospital after the murder and claimed to be the natural mother. However, hospital authorities became suspicious and notified police," The Oakland Tribune reported on December 10, 1975.

(end)

BTW, I still have mixed feelings about Childs' suing - since the nurse had a clean record, how could the hospital have avoided hiring her?

In the meantime, home assaults/kidnappings by strangers seem to be going up, since hospital/maternity security IS so good!

Patrick,

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042369/

That is so scary. I don't understand how Armistead was able to do that twice. Were they simultaneous incidents? She probably could've easily gotten away with the first one. That's like a horror movie - to be drugged and no one believes you.

I agree that the reason home assaults are going up is because the hospital measures are so good. And also why, when they do occur, the subject is more likely to get caught. They probably have cameras in the nursery and hallways now, so it's easier to get a description of who took the baby.

That's the very least parents would expect when faced with such an ordeal. I mean, if they have cameras in banks and convenience stores, they are warranted in order to protect babies.

Actually, I don't understand why insurance would go up when these measures are successful. I get deductions on my insurance for doing things that make my property more secure and limit liability. The insurer has to pay out less in claims, so why would that cost any of us more?

I agree that the reason home assaults are going up is because the hospital measures are so good. And also why, when they do occur, the subject is more likely to get caught. They probably have cameras in the nursery and hallways now, so it's easier to get a description of who took the baby.

That's the very least parents would expect when faced with such an ordeal. I mean, if they have cameras in banks and convenience stores, they are warranted in order to protect babies.

lovelysoul

_________________________

And that's partly how the newborn in Lubbock, Texas, was rescued in 2007, but the kidnapper shouldn't have been able to get her out in the first place.

(Sadly, there's another relatively recent story of a baby kidnapped - by a stranger? - in Florida. The baby has never been found.)

From March of 2007:

AP: A newborn baby kidnapped from a Texas hospital by a woman posing as a medical worker was found safe early Sunday and returned to her mother.

Four-day-old Mychael Darthard-Dawodu was found in a home in New Mexico by police following up on tips, a day after she was hidden in the woman's purse and taken from the hospital.

"It's a joyous time," Gwen Stafford, senior vice president of Covenant Health System, said at a news conference Sunday. "This has been a roller coaster of emotions."

Rayshaun Parson, 21, was arrested on suspicion of kidnapping. Federal charges also could be pursued, Lubbock police Lt. Scott Hudgens said.

Phone numbers at Parson's address had been disconnected Sunday.

Mychael was found to be in good condition, Clovis, New Mexico police Lt. James Schoeffel said. She had earlier been reported to be suffering from jaundice, a common complication in newborns in which a buildup of pigment in the blood causes a yellowing of the skin.

The infant was kidnapped early Saturday by a woman posing as a medical worker who walked out with the 5 pound baby in her purse, police said.

Hospital surveillance footage showed a woman wearing hospital scrubs and a gray, puffy jacket with a hood walking out of the hospital.

The abductor had gone into Mychael's mother's room several times before the baby was taken, telling her the baby needed tests, Stafford said.

Newborns at Covenant are tagged with a security bracelet, said Stafford, who did not give details on how the bracelet worked.

"As soon as the baby and this security piece were separated, we were alarmed and knew," Stafford said.

"Clearly we need to take security to a higher standard," she added.

A former Covenant nurse who had a baby Friday at the same hospital told the Lubbock Avalanche-Journal newspaper that the hospital placed an electronic band on her newborn girl's ankle. She said she was told that if the baby were taken too close to a door or elevator, a sensor would cause the door to lock or the elevator to shut down.

If the band were cut off before it was deactivated, she said, the hospital would be locked down.