Babies Are Bleeding to Death as Parents Reject a Vitamin Shot Given at Birth

8b16380d•about 1 hour ago

social media was a mistake

beardyw•27 minutes ago

No, the mistake is to make spreading misinformation profitable. We then have a vicious cycle where profits feed into politics, and so nothing is done to stop it.

I don't think it will end well.

ASalazarMX•35 minutes ago

Let's hope humanity develops defenses against the easy (even forced) spread of disinformation, hate, ignorance, and mass manipulation if general. Social networks, and the drivers of their owners, caught the world by surprise.

suzzer99•28 minutes ago

I don't think humans will ever have a defense for "trigger my amygdala and tell me what I want to hear."

thefz•33 minutes ago

Before that, giving a pocket computer to everyone was the biggest mistake

fred_is_fred•about 1 hour ago

Speaking as someone with kids, many people I know rejected all of these. The eye ointment that they gloss over is to protect from gonorrhea. Which presumes that everyone having a kid has it in the first place. This is easy to test for before the baby comes though - what about Vitamin K?

ceejayoz•about 1 hour ago

The people who won’t let a kid get ointment aren’t gonna consent to a mandatory STD test either.

(The ointment is also primarily for chlamydia these days.)

brendoelfrendo•about 1 hour ago

Per the article: "All newborns lack vitamin K. No matter how much vitamin K a mother consumes, it doesn’t sufficiently pass through the placenta, and breast milk contains only small amounts." Even vitamin fortified formula may not be enough to provide infants with enough vitamin K to prevent bleeding. The open question in the medical community is not which newborns lack vitamin K (they all do), but why some vitamin K deficient newborns develop bleeding while others don't.

I guess I don't see the point in rejecting the shot. It's a vitamin, it has a clear benefit, and no drawback.

ceejayoz•about 2 hours ago

Another case of statistical murder that can't be punished as it should, unfortunately.

baggy_trough•about 1 hour ago

What does 'statistical murder' mean in this case?

golem14•about 1 hour ago

   “Do you understand what I'm saying?" shouted Moist. "You can't just go around killing people!"

   "Why Not? You Do." The golem lowered his arm.

   "What?" snapped Moist. "I do not! Who told you that?"

   "I Worked It Out. You Have Killed Two Point Three Three Eight People," said the golem calmly.

   "I have never laid a finger on anyone in my life, Mr Pump. I may be–– all the things you know I am, but I am not a killer! I have never so much as drawn a sword!"

   "No, You Have Not. But You Have Stolen, Embezzled, Defrauded And Swindled Without Discrimination, Mr Lipvig. You Have Ruined Businesses And Destroyed Jobs. When Banks Fail, It Is Seldom Bankers Who Starve. Your Actions Have Taken Money From Those Who Had Little Enough To Begin With. In A Myriad Small Ways You Have Hastened The Deaths Of Many. You Do Not Know Them. You Did Not See Them Bleed. But You Snatched Bread From Their Mouths And Tore Clothes From Their Backs. For Sport, Mr Lipvig. For Sport. For The Joy Of The Game.”

   ― Terry Pratchett, Going Postal

chowells•about 1 hour ago

It means making an informed choice that you know raises fatality rates.

baggy_trough•about 1 hour ago

Who did that in this case? The parents? Isn't it more likely that they don't believe it raises fatality rates (however incorrectly)?

ceejayoz•about 1 hour ago

It means you’re deliberately killing people, but indirectly enough it can’t be prosecuted.

Fucking with vaccines kills people. Getting rid of USAID kills people. Selling cigarettes kills people. But none of these are crimes. Some of them probably should be.

j16sdiz•about 1 hour ago

It's not the same for an individual choice vs government choice.

Individual different is real. Law of large number is true only for large number. Until you can claim omniscience, I don't think we should make an individual responsible for a "statistical" crime for one individual.

Government policy, on the other hand, ...

cityofdelusion•42 minutes ago

There is no way to have enough nuance for this to actually mean anything. If I drive my child in a small car instead of a massive truck, is this statistical negligence? Or driving at all, very likely the most dangerous thing people do daily. What about the trees outside my home and their hundred pound limbs — if one breaks it will almost certainly be fatal. But many people accept that death is inevitable and minimizing the chance of it isn’t worth doing. Society also speaks out both sides of its mouth — why does an infant refused a vaccine constitute murder but 11 days earlier in the womb its life had no value?

The world has a lot of things it needs to figure out with all this stuff. Blanket statements just aren’t very valuable IMO.

Babies Are Bleeding to Death as Parents Reject a Vitamin Shot Given at Birth

⚡ Community Insights

Discussion (32 Comments)Read Original on HackerNews