|
{{helpme}}
Thanks for the welcome.
I would like to know how to make a link that directs a person to a particular section of a web page. I know how to copy and insert an url from my browser bar. How can I direct the reader to the relevant paragrapgh in the page? I am using Opera 9.27 on Vista 32 bit Home Premium, if that is relevant.
Oh, yah, and how do I stick a template on my page? ermadog Ermadog ( talk) 05:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I posed the question because the template name did not show up when I first pasted it. Now I see that it is there. did you edit it for me or does it just not show up in the preview mode? ermadog
Ermadog (
talk)
23:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Per the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons, please do not make comments such as this unless you have solid reliable sources. Comments such as that, this, this and this are uncivil and cross the line into personal attacks and will lead to your being blocked. Dreadstar † 19:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Accusing a living person of being a "liar," “fraudulent” and “disingenuous” as you did here does indeed violate WP:BLP, and forgive me if I don’t repeat the violation by quoting your exact wording.
Here are some examples of where you targed another editor with uncivil personal attacks:
As for the statement number one above, you’re wrong, there is no excuse for being uncivil…even if another editor actually is being dishonest as you so claim. This type of behavior will not be tolerated. Dreadstar † 02:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ermadog, I saw your note at SA's talk page asking SA or others for advice on this, so thought I'd drop by and say hello. I've only been in Wikipedia for 3 months and I've been watching these pages, especially TM-Sidhi, for most of that time (it's kind of a funny story how I first got interested in the Maharishi Effect, but not worth telling now) and trying to decide whether there's a way to address the problems. For a long time, I was stymied by a misinterpretation of WP:V (verifiability) and of WP:RS (reliable sources) that is widely held among fringe advocates, that says that as long as something is verifiable, and as long as it's published in a peer-reviewed source, it's unassailable. I spent some time last night studying the reliable sources policy and finally realized that I've let these people just flat pull the wool over my eyes. I had always assumed good faith and supposed that if they're so sure that's what policy says, then that must be a reasonable interpretation of policy, or at least a reasonable misreading of the policy, made possible because the policy isn't clearly enough written to avoid confusion. Now I see there's no way a reasonable person could read policy the way they read it. Unfortunately some of them are extremely busy just now rewriting policy to fit their misreading, to make it easier to make Wikipedia a compendium of fringe ideas rather than a serious encyclopedia, but I hope there's someone more knowledgeable and respected than I am, who's paying attention and will ultimately keep them from being successful at that effort.
I was also stymied by WP:NOR (no original research) because much of my understanding about how bad these studies are is based on my expertise as a statistician and my having looked at some of the data and at the studies themselves, but none of the result of that evaluation is allowable because it all qualifies as original research. So as I say, I'd been biding my time and trying to think of a way to approach this that might have even a tiny chance of being successful against the vested interests that guard these articles. I'm thinking now that reliable sources is the obvious way to address the deficiencies of the article, because it is in so obvious violation of that policy, but you'd need enough people who believe in NPOV (real NPOV, not the weird kind of NPOV these people engage in, where if you add some muffled criticism to balance the positive spin, they think that qualifies as NPOV) to be able to make any progress. I hate fighting, more than about anything (you seem to have more of a taste for it) so I've been hoping to find a way to make these articles encyclopedic without fighting. I'm also very encouraged by the proposal to set up a Sourcing Adjudication Board; I figure that if we editors can't convince the vested interests that the fact that basically it's all primary sources, and no independent verification make this material unencyclopedic, then the Sources Board can.
As I've watched the article, what I've seen is one person at a time comes along, raises criticisms about the research, gets gently corrected by the (oh so polite and always impeccably civil) guardians of the Maharishi interests who patrol the pages, ends up apologizing to them for daring to raise the questions, and goes away. (And yes, many people have raised the question of conflict of interest, but it never goes anywhere, because they are very careful to give the impression of attempting to keep the article neutral, so there's really no case, even though of course anyone looking closely can see that there's nothing neutral about it).
You asked for advice, so I'll give you some: your approach in the beginning wasn't terribly helpful; your somewhat insulting comments just gave them an excuse to dismiss your valid criticisms and focus on what they characterized as incivility. It's best not to give them ammunition but to stick to the issues. I don't think John Hagelin, for example, is dishonest; I think he's just very deluded. But whether he's one or the other doesn't really matter to writing the encyclopedia, so there's no point in sharing my opinion about it with people whose reflex reaction would be to defend him. That's a very long post, but I've been thinking about this for quite a while, so forgive me for unloading. Welcome to the weird world of Wikipedia. Woonpton ( talk) 21:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S. To round out the above discussion, you might be interested in looking at a post on my talk page from olive, who was shocked (shocked!) to read what I wrote to you and felt the need to respond. However, instead of rebutting anything of substance in the thoughts I shared with you, she rather corroborates most of it by and in her response. That she takes everything in it very personally and assumes it's all about her, seems just bizarre, since in fact, I wasn't thinking of her particularly when I wrote any of it but the mention of guardians of the Maharishi interests who patrol the TM pages. Anyway, read, and see if it doesn't just confirm much of what I said. As I said, welcome to the weird world of Wikipedia. A well-developed sense of humor may not be a prerequisite, but it does make the whole experience more entertaining. Woonpton ( talk) 01:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution to the Abortion article. From your contribution history, I can see you're aware of the Abortion law and History of abortion articles. Apologies if you've already aware, but we have a guideline called summary style, which encourages editors to spin off large sections of articles into separate articles (which are linked by the {{ main}} template), and to leave just a summary of the new article in the original.
The Abortion article is still too large by our normal standards, so I wonder if you'd have another look at the section where you contributed and consider if your additions are already covered in detail in either of those other two articles, and if not, whether one of those two articles would be a more appropriate place for them? I can see you quite rightly wanted to clarify an issue in the historical debate, but we defeat the point of summary style if we go into too much detail in a "parent" article, if there's a "daughter" article where such detail is more appropriate.
Whatever conclusions you come to, you're clearly interested and knowledgeable on this topic, and have access to good sources, so perhaps you might like to think about if we could condense the History and Abortion law sections in Abortion further? The topic as a whole is contentious, as you can see from Talk:Abortion, so you may feel more comfortable making suggestions in a new section on that talk page first. I have the page watchlisted, and I'll do my best to help if you ever need any assistance, or are unsure. Cheers -- RexxS ( talk) 03:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
PS: In case your question at the top of the page is not yet answered, you can link to any section of a wikipedia page by using [[Article title#Section title]], so the sections I mentioned above are Abortion#History and Abortion#Abortion law. HTH -- RexxS ( talk) 03:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
--~~~~
or by clicking the button on the bar above the edit window that looks like a squiggly signature. Happy editing! --
RexxS (
talk)
05:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
My new page has reached first good draft stage. Any feedback is welcome.
Hey there. I reverted your edit here, because I don't know if that source is reflective of the medical consensus. I checked a number of sources via PubMed. UpToDate seems to adequately represent what as the general consensus of those sources: "Eight to 20 percent of clinically recognized pregnancies under 20 weeks of gestation will undergo SAb; 80 percent of these occur in the first 12 weeks of gestation [3-5]...Loss of unrecognized or subclinical pregnancies is even higher, occurring in 13 to 26 percent of all pregnancies [3-5,7-9]." I'm trying to find a better source, but I can't see anything that supports 50% (which the University of Ottawa site states without any source to back it up). MedlinePlus seems to be down for me right now; could you quote what it says? Thanks, NW ( Talk) 16:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Here is the current page in full. The relevant parts are bolded:
A miscarriage is the spontaneous loss of a fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy. (Pregnancy losses after the 20th week are called preterm deliveries.)
A miscarriage may also be called a "spontaneous abortion." This refers to naturally occurring events, not medical abortions or surgical abortions.
Other terms for the early loss of pregnancy include: Complete abortion: All of the products of conception exit the body Incomplete abortion: Only some of the products of conception exit the body Inevitable abortion: The symptoms cannot be stopped, and a miscarriage will happen Infected (septic) abortion: The lining of the womb, or uterus, and any remaining products of conception become infected Missed abortion: The pregnancy is lost and the products of conception do not exit the body
See also: Threatened miscarriage Causes
Most miscarriages are caused by chromosome problems that make it impossible for the baby to develop. Usually, these problems are unrelated to the mother or father's genes.
Other possible causes for miscarriage include: Drug and alcohol abuse Exposure to environmental toxins Hormone problems Infection Obesity Physical problems with the mother's reproductive organs Problem with the body's immune response Serious body-wide ( systemic) diseases in the mother (such as uncontrolled diabetes) Smoking
It is estimated that up to half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among those women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is about 15-20%. Most miscarriages occur during the first 7 weeks of pregnancy. The rate of miscarriage drops after the baby's heart beat is detected.
The risk for miscarriage is higher in women: Older age, with increases beginning by 30, becoming greater between 35 and 40, and highest after 40 Who have had previous miscarriages Symptoms
Possible symptoms include: Low back pain or abdominal pain that is dull, sharp, or cramping Tissue or clot-like material that passes from the vagina Vaginal bleeding, with or without abdominal cramps Exams and Tests
During a pelvic exam, your health care provider may see the cervix has opened (dilated) or thinned out (effacement).
Abdominal or vaginal ultrasound may be done to check the baby's development, heart beat, and amount of bleeding.
The following blood tests may be performed: Blood type (if you have an Rh-negative blood type, you would require a treatment with Rh-immune globulin. See: Rh incompatibility) Complete blood count (CBC) to determine how much blood has been lost HCG (qualitative) to confirm pregnancy HCG (quantitative) done every several days or weeks WBC and differential to rule out infection Treatment
When a miscarriage occurs, the tissue passed from the vagina should be examined to determine if it was a normal placenta or a hydatidiform mole. It is also important to determine whether any pregnancy tissue remains in the uterus.
If the pregnancy tissue does not naturally exit the body, the woman may be closely watched for up to 2 weeks. Surgery (D and C) or medication (such as misoprostol) may be needed to remove the remaining contents from the womb.
After treatment, the woman usually resumes her normal menstrual cycle within 4 - 6 weeks. Any further vaginal bleeding should be carefully monitored. It is often possible to become pregnant immediately. However, it is recommended that women wait one normal menstrual cycle before trying to become pregnant again. Possible Complications
An infected abortion may occur if any tissue from the placenta or fetus remains in the uterus after the miscarriage. Symptoms of an infection include fever, vaginal bleeding that does not stop, cramping, and a foul-smelling vaginal discharge. Infections can be serious and require immediate medical attention.
Complications of a complete miscarriage are rare. However, many mothers and their partners feel very sad. Seemingly helpful advice like “you can try again,” or “it was for the best” can make it harder for mothers and fathers to recover because their sadness has been denied.
Women who lose a baby after 20 weeks of pregnancy receive different medical care. This is called premature delivery or fetal demise and requires immediate medical attention. When to Contact a Medical Professional
Call your health care provider if vaginal bleeding with or without cramping occurs during pregnancy.
Call your health care provider if you are pregnant and notice tissue or clot-like material passed vaginally (any such material should be collected and brought in for examination). Prevention
Early, comprehensive prenatal care is the best prevention available for all complications of pregnancy.
Many miscarriages that are caused by body-wide (systemic) diseases can be prevented by detecting and treating the disease before pregnancy occurs.
Miscarriages are less likely if you receive early, comprehensive prenatal care and avoid environmental hazards (such as x-rays, drugs and alcohol, high levels of caffeine, and infectious diseases).
When a mother's body is having difficulty sustaining a pregnancy, signs (such as slight vaginal bleeding) may occur. This means there is a possibility of miscarriage, but it does not mean one will definitely occur. A pregnant woman who develops any signs or symptoms of threatened miscarriage should contact her prenatal provider immediately. Alternative Names
Abortion - spontaneous; Spontaneous abortion; Abortion - missed; Abortion - incomplete; Abortion - complete; Abortion - inevitable; Abortion - infected; Missed abortion; Incomplete abortion; Complete abortion; Inevitable abortion; Infected abortion References
Katz VL. Spontaneous and recurrent abortion: etiology, diagnosis, treatment. In: Katz VL, Lentz GM, Lobo RA, Gershenson DM, eds. Comprehensive Gynecology. 5th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Mosby Elsevier; 2007:chap 16.
Simpson JL, Jauniaux ERM. Pregnancy loss. In: Gabbe SG, Niebyl JR, Simpson JL, eds. Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. 5th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone; 2007:chap 24.
Laurino MY, Bennett RL, Saraiya DS, et al. Genetic evaluation and counseling of couples with recurrent miscarriage: Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. J Genet Couns. June 2005;14(3). Update Date: 11/21/2010
Updated by: Linda J. Vorvick, MD, Medical Director, MEDEX Northwest Division of Physician Assistant Studies, University of Washington, School of Medicine; Susan Storck, MD, FACOG, Chief, Eastside Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, Redmond, Washington; Clinical Teaching Faculty, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Washington School of Medicine. Also reviewed by David Zieve, MD, MHA, Medical Director, A.D.A.M., Inc. Ermadog ( talk) 19:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I'm pleased to see you have returned. I've been digging around the abortion articles and archives over the last few months and was wondering if we might work together. Your original History of abortion law debate article shows a balance I find missing in the current abortion panoply of insanity. I think the Fetal rights could use this style of balance. The article is about rights but doesn't touch on what those rights might be. It gives example cases yet cites no case law. i.e. State v. Ashley, 701 So. 2d 338 - Fla: Supreme Court 1997. I can do the research, gather sources, pull summaries, produce numbers, charts, graphs, outlines, formatting, etc. Thoughts? Interested? - ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 22:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
"Extending such liability to the pregnant woman herself would constitute a radical and dangerous expansion of the existing law....[s]ince anything which a pregnant woman does or does not do may have an impact, either positive or negative, on her developing fetus, any act or omission on her part could render her liable to her subsequently born child . . . Mother and child would be legal adversaries from the moment of conception until birth . . . Holding a third person liable for prenatal injuries furthers the interests of both the mother and the subsequently born child and does not interfere with the defendant's right to control his or her own life. Holding a mother liable for the unintentional infliction of prenatal injuries subjects to State scrutiny all the decisions a woman must make in attempting to carry a pregnancy to term, and infringes on her right to privacy and bodily autonomy . . . Logic does not demand that a pregnant woman be treated in a court of law as a stranger to her developing fetus . . . As opposed to the third-party defendant, it is the mother's every waking and sleeping moment which, for better or worse, shapes the prenatal environment which forms the world for the developing fetus."
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
22:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
|
{{helpme}}
Thanks for the welcome.
I would like to know how to make a link that directs a person to a particular section of a web page. I know how to copy and insert an url from my browser bar. How can I direct the reader to the relevant paragrapgh in the page? I am using Opera 9.27 on Vista 32 bit Home Premium, if that is relevant.
Oh, yah, and how do I stick a template on my page? ermadog Ermadog ( talk) 05:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I posed the question because the template name did not show up when I first pasted it. Now I see that it is there. did you edit it for me or does it just not show up in the preview mode? ermadog
Ermadog (
talk)
23:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Per the Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons, please do not make comments such as this unless you have solid reliable sources. Comments such as that, this, this and this are uncivil and cross the line into personal attacks and will lead to your being blocked. Dreadstar † 19:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Accusing a living person of being a "liar," “fraudulent” and “disingenuous” as you did here does indeed violate WP:BLP, and forgive me if I don’t repeat the violation by quoting your exact wording.
Here are some examples of where you targed another editor with uncivil personal attacks:
As for the statement number one above, you’re wrong, there is no excuse for being uncivil…even if another editor actually is being dishonest as you so claim. This type of behavior will not be tolerated. Dreadstar † 02:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Ermadog, I saw your note at SA's talk page asking SA or others for advice on this, so thought I'd drop by and say hello. I've only been in Wikipedia for 3 months and I've been watching these pages, especially TM-Sidhi, for most of that time (it's kind of a funny story how I first got interested in the Maharishi Effect, but not worth telling now) and trying to decide whether there's a way to address the problems. For a long time, I was stymied by a misinterpretation of WP:V (verifiability) and of WP:RS (reliable sources) that is widely held among fringe advocates, that says that as long as something is verifiable, and as long as it's published in a peer-reviewed source, it's unassailable. I spent some time last night studying the reliable sources policy and finally realized that I've let these people just flat pull the wool over my eyes. I had always assumed good faith and supposed that if they're so sure that's what policy says, then that must be a reasonable interpretation of policy, or at least a reasonable misreading of the policy, made possible because the policy isn't clearly enough written to avoid confusion. Now I see there's no way a reasonable person could read policy the way they read it. Unfortunately some of them are extremely busy just now rewriting policy to fit their misreading, to make it easier to make Wikipedia a compendium of fringe ideas rather than a serious encyclopedia, but I hope there's someone more knowledgeable and respected than I am, who's paying attention and will ultimately keep them from being successful at that effort.
I was also stymied by WP:NOR (no original research) because much of my understanding about how bad these studies are is based on my expertise as a statistician and my having looked at some of the data and at the studies themselves, but none of the result of that evaluation is allowable because it all qualifies as original research. So as I say, I'd been biding my time and trying to think of a way to approach this that might have even a tiny chance of being successful against the vested interests that guard these articles. I'm thinking now that reliable sources is the obvious way to address the deficiencies of the article, because it is in so obvious violation of that policy, but you'd need enough people who believe in NPOV (real NPOV, not the weird kind of NPOV these people engage in, where if you add some muffled criticism to balance the positive spin, they think that qualifies as NPOV) to be able to make any progress. I hate fighting, more than about anything (you seem to have more of a taste for it) so I've been hoping to find a way to make these articles encyclopedic without fighting. I'm also very encouraged by the proposal to set up a Sourcing Adjudication Board; I figure that if we editors can't convince the vested interests that the fact that basically it's all primary sources, and no independent verification make this material unencyclopedic, then the Sources Board can.
As I've watched the article, what I've seen is one person at a time comes along, raises criticisms about the research, gets gently corrected by the (oh so polite and always impeccably civil) guardians of the Maharishi interests who patrol the pages, ends up apologizing to them for daring to raise the questions, and goes away. (And yes, many people have raised the question of conflict of interest, but it never goes anywhere, because they are very careful to give the impression of attempting to keep the article neutral, so there's really no case, even though of course anyone looking closely can see that there's nothing neutral about it).
You asked for advice, so I'll give you some: your approach in the beginning wasn't terribly helpful; your somewhat insulting comments just gave them an excuse to dismiss your valid criticisms and focus on what they characterized as incivility. It's best not to give them ammunition but to stick to the issues. I don't think John Hagelin, for example, is dishonest; I think he's just very deluded. But whether he's one or the other doesn't really matter to writing the encyclopedia, so there's no point in sharing my opinion about it with people whose reflex reaction would be to defend him. That's a very long post, but I've been thinking about this for quite a while, so forgive me for unloading. Welcome to the weird world of Wikipedia. Woonpton ( talk) 21:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
P.S. To round out the above discussion, you might be interested in looking at a post on my talk page from olive, who was shocked (shocked!) to read what I wrote to you and felt the need to respond. However, instead of rebutting anything of substance in the thoughts I shared with you, she rather corroborates most of it by and in her response. That she takes everything in it very personally and assumes it's all about her, seems just bizarre, since in fact, I wasn't thinking of her particularly when I wrote any of it but the mention of guardians of the Maharishi interests who patrol the TM pages. Anyway, read, and see if it doesn't just confirm much of what I said. As I said, welcome to the weird world of Wikipedia. A well-developed sense of humor may not be a prerequisite, but it does make the whole experience more entertaining. Woonpton ( talk) 01:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution to the Abortion article. From your contribution history, I can see you're aware of the Abortion law and History of abortion articles. Apologies if you've already aware, but we have a guideline called summary style, which encourages editors to spin off large sections of articles into separate articles (which are linked by the {{ main}} template), and to leave just a summary of the new article in the original.
The Abortion article is still too large by our normal standards, so I wonder if you'd have another look at the section where you contributed and consider if your additions are already covered in detail in either of those other two articles, and if not, whether one of those two articles would be a more appropriate place for them? I can see you quite rightly wanted to clarify an issue in the historical debate, but we defeat the point of summary style if we go into too much detail in a "parent" article, if there's a "daughter" article where such detail is more appropriate.
Whatever conclusions you come to, you're clearly interested and knowledgeable on this topic, and have access to good sources, so perhaps you might like to think about if we could condense the History and Abortion law sections in Abortion further? The topic as a whole is contentious, as you can see from Talk:Abortion, so you may feel more comfortable making suggestions in a new section on that talk page first. I have the page watchlisted, and I'll do my best to help if you ever need any assistance, or are unsure. Cheers -- RexxS ( talk) 03:43, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
PS: In case your question at the top of the page is not yet answered, you can link to any section of a wikipedia page by using [[Article title#Section title]], so the sections I mentioned above are Abortion#History and Abortion#Abortion law. HTH -- RexxS ( talk) 03:58, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
--~~~~
or by clicking the button on the bar above the edit window that looks like a squiggly signature. Happy editing! --
RexxS (
talk)
05:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
My new page has reached first good draft stage. Any feedback is welcome.
Hey there. I reverted your edit here, because I don't know if that source is reflective of the medical consensus. I checked a number of sources via PubMed. UpToDate seems to adequately represent what as the general consensus of those sources: "Eight to 20 percent of clinically recognized pregnancies under 20 weeks of gestation will undergo SAb; 80 percent of these occur in the first 12 weeks of gestation [3-5]...Loss of unrecognized or subclinical pregnancies is even higher, occurring in 13 to 26 percent of all pregnancies [3-5,7-9]." I'm trying to find a better source, but I can't see anything that supports 50% (which the University of Ottawa site states without any source to back it up). MedlinePlus seems to be down for me right now; could you quote what it says? Thanks, NW ( Talk) 16:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Here is the current page in full. The relevant parts are bolded:
A miscarriage is the spontaneous loss of a fetus before the 20th week of pregnancy. (Pregnancy losses after the 20th week are called preterm deliveries.)
A miscarriage may also be called a "spontaneous abortion." This refers to naturally occurring events, not medical abortions or surgical abortions.
Other terms for the early loss of pregnancy include: Complete abortion: All of the products of conception exit the body Incomplete abortion: Only some of the products of conception exit the body Inevitable abortion: The symptoms cannot be stopped, and a miscarriage will happen Infected (septic) abortion: The lining of the womb, or uterus, and any remaining products of conception become infected Missed abortion: The pregnancy is lost and the products of conception do not exit the body
See also: Threatened miscarriage Causes
Most miscarriages are caused by chromosome problems that make it impossible for the baby to develop. Usually, these problems are unrelated to the mother or father's genes.
Other possible causes for miscarriage include: Drug and alcohol abuse Exposure to environmental toxins Hormone problems Infection Obesity Physical problems with the mother's reproductive organs Problem with the body's immune response Serious body-wide ( systemic) diseases in the mother (such as uncontrolled diabetes) Smoking
It is estimated that up to half of all fertilized eggs die and are lost (aborted) spontaneously, usually before the woman knows she is pregnant. Among those women who know they are pregnant, the miscarriage rate is about 15-20%. Most miscarriages occur during the first 7 weeks of pregnancy. The rate of miscarriage drops after the baby's heart beat is detected.
The risk for miscarriage is higher in women: Older age, with increases beginning by 30, becoming greater between 35 and 40, and highest after 40 Who have had previous miscarriages Symptoms
Possible symptoms include: Low back pain or abdominal pain that is dull, sharp, or cramping Tissue or clot-like material that passes from the vagina Vaginal bleeding, with or without abdominal cramps Exams and Tests
During a pelvic exam, your health care provider may see the cervix has opened (dilated) or thinned out (effacement).
Abdominal or vaginal ultrasound may be done to check the baby's development, heart beat, and amount of bleeding.
The following blood tests may be performed: Blood type (if you have an Rh-negative blood type, you would require a treatment with Rh-immune globulin. See: Rh incompatibility) Complete blood count (CBC) to determine how much blood has been lost HCG (qualitative) to confirm pregnancy HCG (quantitative) done every several days or weeks WBC and differential to rule out infection Treatment
When a miscarriage occurs, the tissue passed from the vagina should be examined to determine if it was a normal placenta or a hydatidiform mole. It is also important to determine whether any pregnancy tissue remains in the uterus.
If the pregnancy tissue does not naturally exit the body, the woman may be closely watched for up to 2 weeks. Surgery (D and C) or medication (such as misoprostol) may be needed to remove the remaining contents from the womb.
After treatment, the woman usually resumes her normal menstrual cycle within 4 - 6 weeks. Any further vaginal bleeding should be carefully monitored. It is often possible to become pregnant immediately. However, it is recommended that women wait one normal menstrual cycle before trying to become pregnant again. Possible Complications
An infected abortion may occur if any tissue from the placenta or fetus remains in the uterus after the miscarriage. Symptoms of an infection include fever, vaginal bleeding that does not stop, cramping, and a foul-smelling vaginal discharge. Infections can be serious and require immediate medical attention.
Complications of a complete miscarriage are rare. However, many mothers and their partners feel very sad. Seemingly helpful advice like “you can try again,” or “it was for the best” can make it harder for mothers and fathers to recover because their sadness has been denied.
Women who lose a baby after 20 weeks of pregnancy receive different medical care. This is called premature delivery or fetal demise and requires immediate medical attention. When to Contact a Medical Professional
Call your health care provider if vaginal bleeding with or without cramping occurs during pregnancy.
Call your health care provider if you are pregnant and notice tissue or clot-like material passed vaginally (any such material should be collected and brought in for examination). Prevention
Early, comprehensive prenatal care is the best prevention available for all complications of pregnancy.
Many miscarriages that are caused by body-wide (systemic) diseases can be prevented by detecting and treating the disease before pregnancy occurs.
Miscarriages are less likely if you receive early, comprehensive prenatal care and avoid environmental hazards (such as x-rays, drugs and alcohol, high levels of caffeine, and infectious diseases).
When a mother's body is having difficulty sustaining a pregnancy, signs (such as slight vaginal bleeding) may occur. This means there is a possibility of miscarriage, but it does not mean one will definitely occur. A pregnant woman who develops any signs or symptoms of threatened miscarriage should contact her prenatal provider immediately. Alternative Names
Abortion - spontaneous; Spontaneous abortion; Abortion - missed; Abortion - incomplete; Abortion - complete; Abortion - inevitable; Abortion - infected; Missed abortion; Incomplete abortion; Complete abortion; Inevitable abortion; Infected abortion References
Katz VL. Spontaneous and recurrent abortion: etiology, diagnosis, treatment. In: Katz VL, Lentz GM, Lobo RA, Gershenson DM, eds. Comprehensive Gynecology. 5th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Mosby Elsevier; 2007:chap 16.
Simpson JL, Jauniaux ERM. Pregnancy loss. In: Gabbe SG, Niebyl JR, Simpson JL, eds. Obstetrics: Normal and Problem Pregnancies. 5th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: Elsevier Churchill Livingstone; 2007:chap 24.
Laurino MY, Bennett RL, Saraiya DS, et al. Genetic evaluation and counseling of couples with recurrent miscarriage: Recommendations of the National Society of Genetic Counselors. J Genet Couns. June 2005;14(3). Update Date: 11/21/2010
Updated by: Linda J. Vorvick, MD, Medical Director, MEDEX Northwest Division of Physician Assistant Studies, University of Washington, School of Medicine; Susan Storck, MD, FACOG, Chief, Eastside Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound, Redmond, Washington; Clinical Teaching Faculty, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Washington School of Medicine. Also reviewed by David Zieve, MD, MHA, Medical Director, A.D.A.M., Inc. Ermadog ( talk) 19:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I'm pleased to see you have returned. I've been digging around the abortion articles and archives over the last few months and was wondering if we might work together. Your original History of abortion law debate article shows a balance I find missing in the current abortion panoply of insanity. I think the Fetal rights could use this style of balance. The article is about rights but doesn't touch on what those rights might be. It gives example cases yet cites no case law. i.e. State v. Ashley, 701 So. 2d 338 - Fla: Supreme Court 1997. I can do the research, gather sources, pull summaries, produce numbers, charts, graphs, outlines, formatting, etc. Thoughts? Interested? - ArtifexMayhem ( talk) 22:47, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
"Extending such liability to the pregnant woman herself would constitute a radical and dangerous expansion of the existing law....[s]ince anything which a pregnant woman does or does not do may have an impact, either positive or negative, on her developing fetus, any act or omission on her part could render her liable to her subsequently born child . . . Mother and child would be legal adversaries from the moment of conception until birth . . . Holding a third person liable for prenatal injuries furthers the interests of both the mother and the subsequently born child and does not interfere with the defendant's right to control his or her own life. Holding a mother liable for the unintentional infliction of prenatal injuries subjects to State scrutiny all the decisions a woman must make in attempting to carry a pregnancy to term, and infringes on her right to privacy and bodily autonomy . . . Logic does not demand that a pregnant woman be treated in a court of law as a stranger to her developing fetus . . . As opposed to the third-party defendant, it is the mother's every waking and sleeping moment which, for better or worse, shapes the prenatal environment which forms the world for the developing fetus."
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to
talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should
sign your posts by typing four
tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --
SineBot (
talk)
22:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current
Arbitration Committee election. The
Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia
arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose
site bans,
topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The
arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to
review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on
the voting page. For the Election committee,
MediaWiki message delivery (
talk)
13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)