visiting U of Chicago--where to stay
#41
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,253
Likes: 0
I was born at "Lying In" in 1948. I didn't stay with my Mother, nor did any of the women that were with her have their babies with them. It might have been different later. But I heard my Mother's story about 600 times in detail- as the "program" then was to stay in the hospital for LONNNNNG periods of time- not to walk/ move either. She "got to" DANGLE her legs after 3 days (lol) and she stayed in that institution the "normal" period for a vaginal birth at that time, for both I and my brother too in 1950- and she stayed TEN days for each.
TEN days- she said by the time she got home, she was so used to laying around that she couldn't stay up or walk- was pooped in 10 minutes.
Oh, how things have changed.
You had your choice about the nursery care/ baby care and at that time few mothers nursed and fewer wanted them with them. My Mom nursed but I went to some nursery- and she said one day I was MIA for about 2 feedings and she never did find out why.
That place was HUMONGOUS, you know- and it also had some considerable number of screw ups re switched babies etc.
We went from that to having to "get out" after a Caesarian in 36 hours, for awhile there. Women in the USA for birthing and birth control have been used like guinea pigs to the max.
I had 2 surgeries with 2 of my births and still never was in a hospital for more than 3 days. And now they have you "walked" almost at once just because of clots etc.
Someone needs to write a good book about that place- during the boomer birth years. My Mom said the "nursing" lesson was hysterical-a real trip- and a cleaning woman from the Phillipines solved her horrendous impacted breast milk problem (she had fever and nipples were split- red hard spots- all the worst agony symptoms of being on fire and ready tof bust- hard as hot rocks to the tough)- by getting some of her just laundered cleaning towels- soaking them in hot, hot water in the shower and then carrying them to her and laying them on her breasts with all of her 110 lb weight behind them. It worked. She said the nurses didn't have a clue.
It was called "Lying In" because that was the term used to describe that particular kind of agenda birthing experience- it was coupled by strict periods of rest and recovery until the uterus / organs returned to a certain size.
Your poor Mom with all those kids, probably got the only rest of her life there- and it was probably her only birth control too- it sounds like.
TEN days- she said by the time she got home, she was so used to laying around that she couldn't stay up or walk- was pooped in 10 minutes.
Oh, how things have changed.
You had your choice about the nursery care/ baby care and at that time few mothers nursed and fewer wanted them with them. My Mom nursed but I went to some nursery- and she said one day I was MIA for about 2 feedings and she never did find out why.
That place was HUMONGOUS, you know- and it also had some considerable number of screw ups re switched babies etc.
We went from that to having to "get out" after a Caesarian in 36 hours, for awhile there. Women in the USA for birthing and birth control have been used like guinea pigs to the max.
I had 2 surgeries with 2 of my births and still never was in a hospital for more than 3 days. And now they have you "walked" almost at once just because of clots etc.
Someone needs to write a good book about that place- during the boomer birth years. My Mom said the "nursing" lesson was hysterical-a real trip- and a cleaning woman from the Phillipines solved her horrendous impacted breast milk problem (she had fever and nipples were split- red hard spots- all the worst agony symptoms of being on fire and ready tof bust- hard as hot rocks to the tough)- by getting some of her just laundered cleaning towels- soaking them in hot, hot water in the shower and then carrying them to her and laying them on her breasts with all of her 110 lb weight behind them. It worked. She said the nurses didn't have a clue.
It was called "Lying In" because that was the term used to describe that particular kind of agenda birthing experience- it was coupled by strict periods of rest and recovery until the uterus / organs returned to a certain size.
Your poor Mom with all those kids, probably got the only rest of her life there- and it was probably her only birth control too- it sounds like.
#42
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,253
Likes: 0
Sorry for the completion of hijacking the thread. sorry, kflodin- but I just had to tell them about that place.
There are so many of us born there that if I got the book going- if one of two of those people bought one, it would be a best seller.
I know a writer and don't you think it could be great?
Kind of like a "Devil in White City" but with a baby switcheroo and some detective work on someone's identity as the side story to the secrets held in that place. There has to be 10,000 at least.
There are so many of us born there that if I got the book going- if one of two of those people bought one, it would be a best seller.
I know a writer and don't you think it could be great?
Kind of like a "Devil in White City" but with a baby switcheroo and some detective work on someone's identity as the side story to the secrets held in that place. There has to be 10,000 at least.
#43
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,741
Likes: 0
JJ5, I can't account for your mom's experiences there. My mother was an RN, so I suspect she may have had different experience.
She DID tell me she was there 10 days and that it was the first hospital that would let you have the baby in your room.
Now, my Mom's been gone 20 years so I can't go back and clarify.
But I suspect it would be fun to learn a little history about the place. How bizarre that 3 of us reading this post were born there. That is just too wierd!
Paula
PS My mother was a good Catholic girl. Guess she and my father just didn't have "rhythm".
She figured it out after #7 came 18 months after me. She demanded a hysterectomy and got one... along with an ex-communication from the Catholic diocese.
She DID tell me she was there 10 days and that it was the first hospital that would let you have the baby in your room.
Now, my Mom's been gone 20 years so I can't go back and clarify.
But I suspect it would be fun to learn a little history about the place. How bizarre that 3 of us reading this post were born there. That is just too wierd!
Paula
PS My mother was a good Catholic girl. Guess she and my father just didn't have "rhythm".
She figured it out after #7 came 18 months after me. She demanded a hysterectomy and got one... along with an ex-communication from the Catholic diocese.
#44
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 16,253
Likes: 0
It's always been a "conscious" part of faith, and has never been the determining factor within the religion- quite different. Lord, is that interpretation just plain mis-interpretted by her and by you too. Excommunication is something the pope does to kings or persons of power per temporal examples of "power" and control- when they disobey. LOL!
In my entire 60 years, I have never, ever heard of any person who didn't follow the birth control "rules" being excommunicated.
Your mother could never have been "excommunicated" because she had an hysterectomy. If that was her understanding of any confession or chiding by any priest anywhere, personally to her, it is a totally wrong message and was a completely misunderstood interpretation.
And at the farthest reaches of what "diocese" interpretation/ rule is to individuals that are not "religious order", that is just not possible. Now or ever.
Where or when have you gotten your ideas about the "legality" of censureship or excommunication within Catholicism? Honestly, that's exactly the precise kind of thing that gets circulated through generations as "true" that is absolutely not.
Your Mom was dissed at the prospect of a chiding or some direct confessional priest to Catholic conversation and refused the Church because of the emnity felt-believe me, she had a right to feel that way and probably 3 out of 10 did then. But she was NOT communicated for having a hysterectomy.
Even if she was truly rigid or rules within conscious herself made her feel excluded because of "attitude", that wouldn't have been a mortal sin in the first place- that kind of operation especially (temporary birth control either). If you wanted to be top religious connected and felt the need to be reconciled/ live the letter of the dot the i's and cross the t's - then she herself could have always made a confession of "motive" and she wouldn't even have had any sacremental "blame" or any dis at all.
Believe me, I know about that hospital, and that's what the "Lying In" part of the name means. You don't need any other sources to ask. It's not about having a baby in the room, but about the length of time and method to post-partum care.
It's not an accident that there are 3 of us born there. I read somewhere, a LOOOOONGG time ago that majority IL residents of a certain age, were born there. It was a massive, massive operation.
All of my second cousins, my first cousins and half the people I know from the Southside of Chicago- were born there or Little Company of Mary in Evergreen Park. They would have 25 or more labor rooms all filled at the same time and have you in the hallways. When my Mom had my sister, we got to go and see her looking out the window. 10 days is a llooooong time to little kids.
In my entire 60 years, I have never, ever heard of any person who didn't follow the birth control "rules" being excommunicated.
Your mother could never have been "excommunicated" because she had an hysterectomy. If that was her understanding of any confession or chiding by any priest anywhere, personally to her, it is a totally wrong message and was a completely misunderstood interpretation.
And at the farthest reaches of what "diocese" interpretation/ rule is to individuals that are not "religious order", that is just not possible. Now or ever.
Where or when have you gotten your ideas about the "legality" of censureship or excommunication within Catholicism? Honestly, that's exactly the precise kind of thing that gets circulated through generations as "true" that is absolutely not.
Your Mom was dissed at the prospect of a chiding or some direct confessional priest to Catholic conversation and refused the Church because of the emnity felt-believe me, she had a right to feel that way and probably 3 out of 10 did then. But she was NOT communicated for having a hysterectomy.
Even if she was truly rigid or rules within conscious herself made her feel excluded because of "attitude", that wouldn't have been a mortal sin in the first place- that kind of operation especially (temporary birth control either). If you wanted to be top religious connected and felt the need to be reconciled/ live the letter of the dot the i's and cross the t's - then she herself could have always made a confession of "motive" and she wouldn't even have had any sacremental "blame" or any dis at all.
Believe me, I know about that hospital, and that's what the "Lying In" part of the name means. You don't need any other sources to ask. It's not about having a baby in the room, but about the length of time and method to post-partum care.
It's not an accident that there are 3 of us born there. I read somewhere, a LOOOOONGG time ago that majority IL residents of a certain age, were born there. It was a massive, massive operation.
All of my second cousins, my first cousins and half the people I know from the Southside of Chicago- were born there or Little Company of Mary in Evergreen Park. They would have 25 or more labor rooms all filled at the same time and have you in the hallways. When my Mom had my sister, we got to go and see her looking out the window. 10 days is a llooooong time to little kids.
#45
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,741
Likes: 0
JJ5-
Perhaps my attempt to be succinct in explaining my mother's excommunication for "having a hysterectomy" was misleading. Obviously, it was much more involved than just the act of having a medical procedure.
However, I think it highly presumptuous of you to make the statements you made without knowing anything about my mother, her situtation or her history.
"Trust me" when I tell you that my mother was indeed excommunicated and was informed that she could not receive the benefits of the sacraments following said excommunication. That was in 1959.
Perhaps my attempt to be succinct in explaining my mother's excommunication for "having a hysterectomy" was misleading. Obviously, it was much more involved than just the act of having a medical procedure.
However, I think it highly presumptuous of you to make the statements you made without knowing anything about my mother, her situtation or her history.
"Trust me" when I tell you that my mother was indeed excommunicated and was informed that she could not receive the benefits of the sacraments following said excommunication. That was in 1959.



