Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Birth Assault. Appalling actions by doctors and hospitals Options · View
lafayettemister
Posted: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 1:36:22 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,431
Location: Alabama, United States
Mom- to- be tricked into C-section despite wishes of vaginal delivery

Before I start writing this post out, I want to take a moment to warn my readers about a story that contains graphic birth trauma. This could be a trigger for those of you who have had trauma, or bad experiences. I encourage you to read with caution.

Yesterday afternoon I caught a tweet about Birth Rape from one of the women I follow on twitter. Emily had a c-section a little over a year ago, and as time went on was not happy with her experience. While her blog is mainly about her son who is super cute, she posts some birth stuff, like the birth rape post.


We have all seen some serious doozies when it comes to birth stories on websites like Baby Center, or The Bump, but after reading this one myself, I literally cried for the mother, and wondered to myself, how is this happening in the United States?


The actions of the hospital in this case were illegal, and it often makes me wonder what kind of ego a provider has to have to batter a woman in this nature. The mother, Dawn, had wanted a VBAC, and had changed providers several times during her pregnancy to ensure she would have the most VBAC friendly provider and greatest option of having a Vaginal Birth after a Cesarean section which people take fore-granted in many parts of the country, because for some women, they are simply not that easy to get at all.


When I read the title of the post "VBAC Denied, Horrid Experience" I knew I needed to read this in more than one sitting.


Dawn arrived at the hospital on January 30th, in active labor and dilated to 4cm. Within a short time of her arrival, her water broke on its own, and she was then dilated to 6cm. Beautiful progress for a mother, especially with a previous c-section. Something most VBAC mothers hope for.


She shares in her own words:


Since I was laboring on a birthing ball, the midwife wasn't confident about the fetal heartrate monitor, it was showing decels, so I was asked to consent to an internal monitor (screws into the baby's scalp during labor). I refused the first time I was asked, then consented the second time they asked. I consented because I thought my husband was beginning to panic and hoped that it would ease his stress. When I consented to it, I looked at my husband & said "That is medical intervention #1″.


Clearly she was informed about her birth, and really knew and understood what she wanted. She was not blindly going into the hospital, she had done her research and really knew what she wanted, and what would possibly set her back. Something all VBAC mothers should be doing.


But this is where the story took a turn for the worse. Again, this is a warning for mothers before I continue!


After consenting to the monitoring, she continued to share:


Before the monitor was even plugged in, we were told that we were going to be moved to the OR "just in case" while being monitored more closely. The midwife had called an OB to consult & we expected to meet him in the OR.


On the way to the OR, my husband was sent to a dressing area to change into scrubs & I was sent straight into the OR. My husband & I were seperated.


Another warning sign, but sadly many women don't have any other options. It sounded like the mother was being prep'ed for a c-section but was not being told that. The only time a husband or partner is changed into scrubs tends to be for a c-section.


And then the worse imaginable form of mistrust I have read in a while happened…


As soon as I reached the OR, the staff began prepping me for surgery. I stated that I did NOT want a c-section. I demanded to see my husband and stated that IF I was to receive a c-section my DH & I would make that decision together. I was told that my husband was on his way. I was also told that my baby needed more oxygen & I was told to breathe deeply in a new mask because it had a better seal on my face (the oxygen I was breathing before was thru a smaller mask). The new mask wasn't oxygen, I was gassed against my will. I am unaware of what was done to me from the time I was gassed up until I awoke in recovery. I am assuming that I only had a c-section. Any further details have not been shared with me.


Not only was she lied to, but she was put under general anesthesia without consent. Alone, with no support from her husband, not knowing what was going on. One minute thinking she was getting some oxygen, and then the next thing she knows she is waking up in the recovery room after major surgery she never consented to!


Have you heard of something like this happening before?

============================

Every person in that Operating Room should go to prison for a very long fucking time. What an awful experience. This is the kind of stuff where politicians should be throwing their weight around.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
MissyLuvsYa
Posted: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 2:31:23 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 3/12/2011
Posts: 550
Location: somewhere on the coast, United States
C-Sections have been proven to lead to fatter babies with a propensity to be obese. Doctors want to do C-sections because they are less likely to have any complication and be sued. C-Sections benefit the doctors, NOT the mother & child!
redlips
Posted: Thursday, June 14, 2012 9:10:14 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 5/21/2011
Posts: 147
It use to happen quite frequently and was almost the norm. I think today there is better education and more information available to prospective parents. To add one thing to what MissLuvsYa wrote, C-section is faster for the docs thus allowing them more clients per day, thus making more money that day, thus leading to more days available to be on the golf course. Concern for mother and child is not usually the major consideration.

Love your nurses, they may save your life while your doctor is putting.

If you ignore beauty, you will soon find yourself without it.................Frank Lloyd Wright

I always practice obedience, when it's in my best interest.
TheDevilsWeakness
Posted: Friday, June 15, 2012 8:38:44 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 7/19/2011
Posts: 1,333
Location: I'm the girl that your father hoped he could date.
I inadvertantly eavesdropped on one woman after my son was born.
This woman was adamant that she was going to follow her birthing plan and be damned the consequences.
When the Doctor and Nurses tried to explain to her that her baby was in distress and the she MAY need to go for a C-section (it wasn't the only option but it was presented to her just in case) the woman went absolutely batshit nuts.

"SHE had a birth plan. And SHE was going to follow it! And THEY weren't going to tell HER what to do!" She ranted and raved til finally they had to sedate the silly bitch because her blood pressure skyrocketed and the baby went into full-blown distress.

All I kept thinking was "This baby is going to die and she will turn around and sue the hospital for following her unreasonable request."

Nothing is written in stone when delivering a baby. Anything can happen. The only concern I had about my children when I was pregnant was they were born safe and sound. I did not give a shit if it was vaginal or caesarean.

This may have been kind of sneaky and underhanded treatment by the Dr and hospital but sometimes the rights of the unborn child should come into play and the wants and needs of the mother can go right to hell as far as I'm concerned.

OH... and in Canada... it's much more financially viable to deliver vaginally than by caesarean. Our healthcare is provided to us whether we have insurance or not. Caesarean deliveries means the mother and baby have to stay in the hospital longer whereas vaginal deliveries are out in under 2 days. Our hospitals want people in and out as quickly as possible.

LadyX
Posted: Friday, June 15, 2012 8:53:51 AM

Rank: Artistic Tart
Moderator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,813
The 'birth assault' story is awful. In all my reading, I've either read that one before, or another similar one. I also see TDW's point, and my doctor has sort of made it a point to encourage me not to go overboard on the whole "birth plan" thing, and if I want to actually create a plan, I need to be prepared to not flip out when things change on the fly as they often do.

But that also has to do with the fact that I'm not super gung ho about having a natural-everything birth. I was in the birthing class with women whose "birth plan" is probably longer than the Magna Carta ("I'm going to soak in essential oils...then we're going to listen to Mozart in the labor room...I'm going to walk every five minutes...I'm going to push on my hands and knees, it's better for his allergies..."). As for me, I have a preference and desire for a vaginal delivery, my doctor's explained to me that conditions will have to be right for that to happen, and I trust my doctor to do what he can to honor my goals.

Unfortunately, like in any profession, there are less-than-honorable ones out there that we all hope to steer clear of.
lafayettemister
Posted: Friday, June 15, 2012 9:12:04 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,431
Location: Alabama, United States
TheDevilsWeakness wrote:
I inadvertantly eavesdropped on one woman after my son was born.
This woman was adamant that she was going to follow her birthing plan and be damned the consequences.
When the Doctor and Nurses tried to explain to her that her baby was in distress and the she MAY need to go for a C-section (it wasn't the only option but it was presented to her just in case) the woman went absolutely batshit nuts.

"SHE had a birth plan. And SHE was going to follow it! And THEY weren't going to tell HER what to do!" She ranted and raved til finally they had to sedate the silly bitch because her blood pressure skyrocketed and the baby went into full-blown distress.

All I kept thinking was "This baby is going to die and she will turn around and sue the hospital for following her unreasonable request."

Nothing is written in stone when delivering a baby. Anything can happen. The only concern I had about my children when I was pregnant was they were born safe and sound. I did not give a shit if it was vaginal or caesarean.

This may have been kind of sneaky and underhanded treatment by the Dr and hospital but sometimes the rights of the unborn child should come into play and the wants and needs of the mother can go right to hell as far as I'm concerned.

OH... and in Canada... it's much more financially viable to deliver vaginally than by caesarean. Our healthcare is provided to us whether we have insurance or not. Caesarean deliveries means the mother and baby have to stay in the hospital longer whereas vaginal deliveries are out in under 2 days. Our hospitals want people in and out as quickly as possible.


I understand what you're saying DW. But it's interesting. Are you saying the doctor is allowed to perform a surgery on a person against her will and choice? Any patient dying from cancer or anything can decline life saving surgery. Doctors must get consent before operating. They can't say to someone, "this surgery is going to save your life. we're going to tie you down, sedate you and do the surgery anyway." No one would agree with that.

So you say, but it's for the good/health of the baby. So, that means a doctor can remove a child from a woman against her wishes? For the good of the baby? That is directly opposite of our abortion laws.

In reality, my biggest issue with this is the way the doctor and hospital lied and tricked this woman and her husband. They could have taken just a couple minutes to explain the situation. "Listen lady, if you don't have this C section your baby WILL die." I'd rather them be blunt and direct than to seperate her from her support person (husband) and trick her into it. That's my issue. Secretly gassing someone isn't right. Just my opinion.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
TheDevilsWeakness
Posted: Friday, June 15, 2012 10:06:40 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 7/19/2011
Posts: 1,333
Location: I'm the girl that your father hoped he could date.
lafayettemister wrote:

I understand what you're saying DW. But it's interesting. Are you saying the doctor is allowed to perform a surgery on a person against her will and choice? Any patient dying from cancer or anything can decline life saving surgery. Doctors must get consent before operating. They can't say to someone, "this surgery is going to save your life. we're going to tie you down, sedate you and do the surgery anyway." No one would agree with that.

So you say, but it's for the good/health of the baby. So, that means a doctor can remove a child from a woman against her wishes? For the good of the baby? That is directly opposite of our abortion laws.

In reality, my biggest issue with this is the way the doctor and hospital lied and tricked this woman and her husband. They could have taken just a couple minutes to explain the situation. "Listen lady, if you don't have this C section your baby WILL die." I'd rather them be blunt and direct than to seperate her from her support person (husband) and trick her into it. That's my issue. Secretly gassing someone isn't right. Just my opinion.

Very true and I won't disagree with you there. This woman had an awful situation happen to her, I won't deny that.
But when your in the delivery room, your thoughts are not your own. What you see and hear can be totally different from what is actually happening. I barely remember what happened during my labour with my daughter and what I think I remember and what happened are slightly different.

Now let's say for the sake of comparison we stick your nuts in a vice and then give you details of what's going on while your in a considerable amount of pain. How much of that are you going to actually remember. While this is a crude comparison, this is the reality of trying to comprehend something while you feel your being ripped in two during a contraction. Now try making an informed decision... it's difficult to say the least.

This woman's aftercare was abominable and it's apparent from the lack of information she was given. The treatment she received during and after was atrocious. Where did her doula/midwife disappear to? She has every right to be there for the c-section. And because she's "supposed" to be acting and caring for the mother did she wash her hands of the whole situation and walk away? There's too many unanswered questions for me to side right away with this woman. Her husband could've fought to be in the room since he dressed in scrubs. But what was he told? I've seen psychotic mothers-to-be. *shudders*

This story is just a little too questionable to be the absolute truth. At least in my own eyes it is.



lafayettemister
Posted: Friday, June 15, 2012 10:19:38 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,431
Location: Alabama, United States
TheDevilsWeakness wrote:

Very true and I won't disagree with you there. This woman had an awful situation happen to her, I won't deny that.
But when your in the delivery room, your thoughts are not your own. What you see and hear can be totally different from what is actually happening. I barely remember what happened during my labour with my daughter and what I think I remember and what happened are slightly different.

Now let's say for the sake of comparison we stick your nuts in a vice and then give you details of what's going on while your in a considerable amount of pain. How much of that are you going to actually remember. While this is a crude comparison, this is the reality of trying to comprehend something while you feel your being ripped in two during a contraction. Now try making an informed decision... it's difficult to say the least.

This woman's aftercare was abominable and it's apparent from the lack of information she was given. The treatment she received during and after was atrocious. Where did her doula/midwife disappear to? She has every right to be there for the c-section. And because she's "supposed" to be acting and caring for the mother did she wash her hands of the whole situation and walk away? There's too many unanswered questions for me to side right away with this woman. Her husband could've fought to be in the room since he dressed in scrubs. But what was he told? I've seen psychotic mothers-to-be. *shudders*

This story is just a little too questionable to be the absolute truth. At least in my own eyes it is.



I'll reply with my nuts protected in an athletic cup and my legs crossed.

I've never given birth so I can't speak to the pain. However, if I were giving birth or if my nuts were in a vise and I was in such dire pain, in that compromised way of thinking I WOULD choose the less pain route. Anything to STOP the pain. If this woman was unable to comprehend something and was only reacting because of the pain, then she would have stopped the pain. Out of pure desperation she'd have chosen to end her suffering and pain and taken the Csection.

Her midwife had gone away to call for a consult from an OB. The hospital then, without any sort of interference, moved her to the OR for safety reasons. Sending the hubby away to put on scrubs "just in case". I'd wager had he known their true intentions he wouldn't have left his wife's side. Could be by the time he'd learned what had happened, it was too late.

This story could be a fabrication. In part or in whole. But taking it at face value, I think the mom was clear and coherant in her desires and wishes. If she'd been influenced by discomfort or pain, she wouldn't have resisted the option to alleviate the pain. Had she been in pain and been begging her husband and the doctors for pain medication against her previous wishes, then I'd agree she was consumed by it.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
elitfromnorth
Posted: Monday, June 18, 2012 3:26:02 AM

Rank: Brawling Berserker

Joined: 2/12/2012
Posts: 1,635
Location: Burrowed, Norway
If it's true that doctors prefer the c-section because that lowers the risk of complication and thus also the risk of being sued, doesn't that mean that the system has brought this upon themselves? Seems like in this sitution the medical team had some worries that things were not as they should be, and when you're in that much pain are you really in a position to actually give an informed consent. Listening to the Birth plans that Lady is mentioning and hearing other stories about batshit crazy mother's to be it wouldn't be surprise me if there are those that would rather stick to the plan than make sure that the baby is ok. In my opinion the interest of the baby should come first, regardless of any plan that's made on beforehand and the mother's wishes. As the military saying goes; when the war starts all plans are scrapped.

I've had some rather painful medical episodes in my time and if giving birth is as much worse as they say(I don't doubt them a second that it is) then I know I would not be capable of making an informed decision at that time. I know that if I was given a series of numbers and suggestions I wouldn't understand shit and I might end up with something amputated at that time, so I can't even imagine how your mind is when giving labour. Not only the pain but also the intensity of the situation, especially when the docs thinks something is wrong and is rushing you down to the OR. I know I was confused going down there, and I was in no real pain at the time. Add that your body is producing it's own painkillers that pretty much makes you high what you end up with is a person who is in increadible pain from the contractions as well as being only a few notches from legally high.

So since we only got the mother's version I think it's impossible to pick sides. What if there were serious concerns about the wellbeing of the child and the mother refused to listen? What if the medical team had to put her under so they could save the kid and avoid complications? There are too many unknown factors to this, and unless this stuff ends up in court we will never know the hospital's side of the story, because medical records are rightfully sealed to the public. Remember that there are always three sides to a story. In this case it would be the mother's, the medical team's and what actually happened...

"It's at that point you realise Lady Luck is actually a hooker, and you're fresh out of cash."
Ruthie
Posted: Monday, June 18, 2012 4:03:13 PM

Rank: Story Verifier
Moderator

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,698
Location: United States
When does a woman have the right to decide, elitfromnorth? Conservatives very badly want control over women's wombs. There is no indication in this story that the c-section was done for the welfare of the child, yet you assume that the doctors were right and the wishes of the mother shouldn't have mattered. Many C-sections are done because the doctor wants to do them, women are coerced or talked into unnecessary surgery for the convenience of the hospital staff or the protection of the doctor. This is fact that can be easily checked out.

I am so tired of institutions and governments thinking that they have the right to make reproductive decisions for women.
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, June 19, 2012 6:55:34 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 671,583
I think there are a lot of details missing from this story.
Most doctors prefer when a baby is delivered vaginally and the fathers are usually dressed in scrubs for vaginal deliveries as well.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 8:12:19 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,462
Location: Cakeland, United States
MissyLuvsYa wrote:
C-Sections have been proven to lead to fatter babies with a propensity to be obese. Doctors want to do C-sections because they are less likely to have any complication and be sued. C-Sections benefit the doctors, NOT the mother & child!


Can you provide 3 concrete links to this hysterical commentary you've plastered above, Missy?

Here's one from WebMD - C-Section May Raise Child Obesity Risk : Obesity Rate Twice as High in Surgically Delivered Children... (note the small sample number)
In the newly published study, investigators followed 1,255 children from birth until after their third birthdays, during which time 16% of children delivered by C-section became obese, compared to 7.5% of children delivered vaginally.

ScienceDaily quotes the same study.

Reuters - quotes a different Brazilian study.

I think the studies are fucking flawed. I was born C-section but have never been close to chubby, let alone obese. (I guess I could've been been in the other 84% delivered C-section who never became obese?) The study numbers quoted / presented are whack as hell.

I know plenty of other people who were born via C-section, and children of mother's who delivered via C-section and I've never seen anything like what these stupid fucking studies are suggesting.

The only real way to be sure I think is to let all mothers to be...not have access to hospitals and be told to go out in the forest or on the beach, etc... and deliver their newborns the way it was done for the previous 250,000 years.

Incidentally, Coops - I'm not one of those fucktard conservatives who want to dictate to all women (or any woman) what she's to do with regard to her body and her pregnancy. I'm 169% pro-choice.

It's this study which Missy proclaims as fact...that I take issue with here. I call - Fucking Bullshit.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
Guest
Posted: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 8:53:21 PM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 671,583
Firstly, what kind of OB did this lady sign on with? The hospital that the OB had privileges in would be equally questionable. Any founded medical care providing institution would have dotted the I's and crossed T's before even thinking about gassing a woman without consent. There's much to this story that is not conveyed.

2. C-Section's are sometimes safer for both parties involved. Pre-eclampsia.

3. My little one is C-Section and she ain't fat.

Boosh!
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, June 21, 2012 8:11:37 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,431
Location: Alabama, United States
WellMadeMale wrote:


Can you provide 3 concrete links to this hysterical commentary you've plastered above, Missy?

.


WMM, I don't have three but I have one with several different sources. I didn't want to believe it myself. Several months ago I saw this discussed on Discovery Channel or something liek that. A nurse there was talking about doctors performing C-sections for several reasons. Many that had nothing to do with the health of mom or baby. And she was afraid to show her face.

C-sections are all about money

Most of the data in the link is from Nevada. Smaller sample size than whole country, but enough to see a trend. Which is probably happening nationwide.

Between 1996 and 2007 C-sections rose 72%. Nearly 1/3 of all births in Nevada are via C-S.
World Health Organization says the ideal rate for C-S should be around 15%
C-S rates in 1965 was 4.5%

Hospital stays and costs of women who have C-S is double that of vaginal births.

In 2010 there were 34,000 births, 12,000 were C-S.

In one hospital that mainly caters to insured patients, over 41% of births were via C-S.
In hospitals that cater to the UNinsured (pays less), the C-S rate was just 29%.

Dr. K. Warren Volker heads the largest ob-gyn group in Southern Nevada, with more than 39 providers at eight locations. He agrees there are "un­fortunately" doctors doing C-sections for convenience and on demand: "Even though it is a common surgery, there is an increased risk of complications. It is, after all, major surgery."

In Clark and Washow counties 90% of women who are insured receive C-S. While the rate of uninsured in the same counties is 29% (edit, 90% of women who received a C-S were insured... not 90% of insured women had C-S)

Costs for a C-S is <$25k
Costs for a vaginal deliveray is $12k

C-S's can be scheduled well in advance allowing the doctor to see more patients.


Malpractice premiums are extremely high. Leading to more C-S...
"You can wait, and most of the time everything will turn out all right," Reynolds said. "But we're told that we'll seldom get sued for doing a C-section when there could be trouble, but we'll always be sued if we don't."

WMM, you were born in a time when doctors cared more about the health and safety of mother and baby. There are times when C-section is absolutely needed. But it seems as though things have gone a bit overboard. I hope I'm wrong.

Think about it. Do you know anyone who has given birth at 3am? Doctors aren't "on call' like they once were. Nowadays, they get the mom in the room. If it's early in the morning, they'll give her Pitocin to speed up the process. Hopefully to get the doctor home at a reasonable hour. If the mom comes in in the evening, they don't help "induce" labor at 8pm knowning the baby could come at 2am when her doctor would rather be home asleep. I no longer believe in the altruistic doctor that does everything possible for the patient, but I do beleive a doctor would perform a C-section on a woman if it meant he got to go home at 5:00 rather than 9:00. And make more money in doing so.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, June 21, 2012 8:34:48 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,431
Location: Alabama, United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:
When does a woman have the right to decide, elitfromnorth? Conservatives very badly want control over women's wombs. There is no indication in this story that the c-section was done for the welfare of the child, yet you assume that the doctors were right and the wishes of the mother shouldn't have mattered. Many C-sections are done because the doctor wants to do them, women are coerced or talked into unnecessary surgery for the convenience of the hospital staff or the protection of the doctor. This is fact that can be easily checked out.

I am so tired of institutions and governments thinking that they have the right to make reproductive decisions for women.



There is no indication in the story that the c-section was done by a Conservative. What does that have to do with this? This is all about money. Blue and Red party affiliation loses out to GREEN every time.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Guest
Posted: Thursday, June 21, 2012 9:44:27 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 671,583
I started writing a big long post on this the other day, but my internet crashed and I lost it all, so... I'll try again...

Hmm, where to start...

Well, when I had my first child, the birth was greatly held up, my labour delayed, by the inaction and disinterest of medical staff, well some members of them.

Instead of a straightforward delivery, I ended up with a 48-hour labour and a venthouse delivery.

It was pretty traumatic to be honest. At one point, they decided that, although the baby was almost ready to deliver, they would give me a c-section, pulling the baby back up the birth canal.

Thankfully, I had a rottweiller of a midwife, a woman of huge experience, who refused to let them do that. (I should point out that at no point was baby in any distress - this was simply because the whole process was taking too long and a c-section would have been more convenient to the hospital)

A venthouse delivery is similar (although less traumatic and potentially damaging to baby) than a forceps delivery.

It did mean that I got cut to pieces (afterwards, they stopped counting my stitches, when they got to 60) - I never had any drugs while they did that either.

My second child was born naturally, in my living room, in a birthing pool.

In stark contrast to the first, it was a beautiful experience. I felt completely safe and relaxed. I had no drugs, only homeopathic remedies.

My point being that (when there are no particular problems with the pregnancy) the best thing we can do is go along with nature.

From what I have seen, the single biggest impediment to a natural birth is fear. Animals tend not to give birth when they are frightened - waiting until it is safe to do so - horses for example mostly give birth at night, when it is quiet and safe)

A lot of women have no idea what they are letting themselves in for when they get pregnant. They happily submit to, what they think are, the superior opinions of doctors.

Now, in days gone by, giving birth in hospital tended to constitute a woman lying on her back, feet in stirrups, so that the doctors could see what was happening. Now, I agree that in some cases this was necessary. A lot of women and children used to die in childbirth, so it made sense to understand what the dynamics of giving birth were, so that they would ultimately be able to intervene and save many lives. They did this. However, this position makes actual birth more difficult for a number of reasons; the woman tends to feel much more exposed than is necessary (causing fear, tension, shame... whatever), it doesn't allow gravity to help the baby be born - a squatting position is naturally way more effective for getting a baby out, it limits the woman's mobility - sometimes, changing position and moving around is all that is needed to get the labour going again...

Statistically, giving birth has never been safer. We now understand how birth and pregnancy work, we have relatively non-invasive ways of monitoring mother and child throughout the process (if necessary). There are emergency measure which can be taken if need be.

Really, in this day and age, we should be able to give birth, feeling safe and confident in what we are doing...

I agree that in some instances, a C-section is necessary. In my own birth plans I took this into account, saying what I wanted and hoped to happen, but all the while being aware that this isn't always the case and if a C-section were necessary, then so be it.

We fight nature too much. Birth is a natural process and not something to be feared, rather to be embraced. Again (as it often does when I rant a little) it all comes down to education. And money of course. Because birth is a natural process, it can be dangerous, it differs from individual to individual, it is hard work (they call it labour for a reason). There is room for human error. Sometimes babies still die, as do mothers, but that is the chance we take, when we decide to procreate. Sadly, we have become so litigious, so unable to accept responsibility, that what should mostly be a beautiful experience becomes fear-filled. C-sections seem to take away some of the risk.

(FYI, I am absolutely NOT advocating natural birth over C-section every time - it DOES have it's merits, but only in certain situations, in my opinion)

A c-section has it's down sides (as some have mentioned before). The process of a baby being pushed and squashed through the birth canal serves to 'jump start' their breathing, their circulation - here's a quote, which probably says this better than I can:

Quote:
Normal, straightforward, intervention-free, healthy, natural birth is still the safest, most practical and advantageous way for a baby to be born.

Babies born vaginally have a lower risk of respiratory problems. It is widely accepted that the contractions of labour help prepare the baby's lungs to breathe air. Babies born by caesarean section have a higher risk of respiratory distress syndrome than babies born vaginally at the same gestational age.3 Adults with asthma are more likely to have been delivered by caesarean section compared with adults without asthma.4

It is also widely acknowledged that the baby plays a part in deciding when the time is right to be born. It has been commented that babies born by elective caesarean section can show signs of being angry and do not appreciate being delivered before they are ready.

The passage down the birth canal also gives a baby a wonderful all-over massage that wakes up various systems in the body - cranial osteopaths claim to be able to detect whether a baby was born vaginally or by caesarean.

Mothers who feel safe, confident and well supported rarely find the level of pain reaches the point where it becomes unbearable. Their hormonal state supports the process rather than fighting against it. Labour is not perceived as being a trial, the pain is more like that experienced by athletes when they are giving their all and trying their hardest. Labour and birth are often the hardest physical work a modern woman ever has to do, but can also be the most rewarding.

A mother who has experienced a natural birth can generally walk unaided after the birth and can begin caring for her baby straightaway.

A mother who has experienced a natural birth is usually able to become involved in family life within hours of the birth and can get back to normal daily life within just a few days. Diary appointments can generally be attended, albeit with a baby present!

Mothers who have experienced natural birth are often able to drive very soon after the birth. It has been known for mothers to drive the same day of the birth and most feel fully confident after just a couple of days.

When the birth has gone well, the baby is often peaceful, quiet and relaxed.

When the birth has gone well mothers feel stronger, both physically and emotionally. There is a wonderful sense of achievement and peace, of strength and control, of health and completeness, of being able to cope and get on with life in general. It is a very positive life-changing experience.


http://www.aims.org.uk/Journal/Vol14No1/csdifference.htm

If we educate ourselves, it takes away a lot of the fear. It allows us to be powerful and sure of what we are doing...

Remember, we are built to do this. It's one of the most natural things in the world...

Let's take back our power here, educate ourselves and let nature run it's course...
Guest
Posted: Thursday, June 21, 2012 9:51:06 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 671,583
Marvellous synchronicity!!

Just finished posting and this popped up on FB!!



WellMadeMale
Posted: Thursday, June 21, 2012 11:14:52 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,462
Location: Cakeland, United States
lafayettemister wrote:


WMM, I don't have three but I have one with several different sources. I didn't want to believe it myself. Several months ago I saw this discussed on Discovery Channel or something liek that. A nurse there was talking about doctors performing C-sections for several reasons. Many that had nothing to do with the health of mom or baby. And she was afraid to show her face.



This morning, I read a comment from the President of the University of Missouri / Columbia, where he claimed that the obesity rate for 100% of college graduates with 4 year degrees, was less than 3%.

I don't know what he was trying to imply. Perhaps that educated people who have children and parent those spawn - are less likely to feed them crapola? Or more able to afford (thanks to the degree and a better paying job) food that is not crapola. I know a lot of under-educated people who grew up in the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s - who worked their asses off in agriculture in this country - ate the foods they grew and took to market, and never were or became obese.

But I've also read @ several locations over the last 25 years, that genetics plays a larger role in hereditary obesity than any other factor. In other words, if there is obesity prevalent within either of your parent's familial lineage - there's a chance that you or your offspring, might become obese. Makes sense to me.

I also am familiar with one reason why C-sections are performed for some women. Their birth canal is simply too small to allow (even with expansion) a 5 to 9 pound bowling ball with appendages to pass through it. You want the potential mother to become a mother and the viable fetus to become a born baby - you go for the C-section if there is no other way for the child to appear...or someone(s) are going to suffer a horrible death.

I've observed that even in families where there has never been much obesity, yet their offspring are obese - those parent(s) obtain a lot of the food/junk/crap being ingested by their children from fast food locations, or they purchase crap foodstuffs inside grocery stores....and then they just constantly eat and eat and eat and never fucking exercise.

That's an almost guaranteed 100% obesity rate right there.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
lafayettemister
Posted: Thursday, June 21, 2012 12:00:14 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,431
Location: Alabama, United States
WellMadeMale wrote:


This morning, I read a comment from the President of the University of Missouri / Columbia, where he claimed that the obesity rate for 100% of college graduates with 4 year degrees, was less than 3%.

I don't know what he was trying to imply. Perhaps that educated people who have children and parent those spawn - are less likely to feed them crapola? Or more able to afford (thanks to the degree and a better paying job) food that is not crapola. I know a lot of under-educated people who grew up in the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s - who worked their asses off in agriculture in this country - ate the foods they grew and took to market, and never were or became obese.

But I've also read @ several locations over the last 25 years, that genetics plays a larger role in hereditary obesity than any other factor. In other words, if there is obesity prevalent within either of your parent's familial lineage - there's a chance that you or your offspring, might become obese. Makes sense to me.

I also am familiar with one reason why C-sections are performed for some women. Their birth canal is simply too small to allow (even with expansion) a 5 to 9 pound bowling ball with appendages to pass through it. You want the potential mother to become a mother and the viable fetus to become a born baby - you go for the C-section if there is no other way for the child to appear...or someone(s) are going to suffer a horrible death.

I've observed that even in families where there has never been much obesity, yet their offspring are obese - those parent(s) obtain a lot of the food/junk/crap being ingested by their children from fast food locations, or they purchase crap foodstuffs inside grocery stores....and then they just constantly eat and eat and eat and never fucking exercise.

That's an almost guaranteed 100% obesity rate right there.


The reasons to have a C section are many. Large baby and small momma is one of them. However a study done by Harvard Medical School shows that between 1990-2005 the birth weight of newborns actuall dropped nearly 2oz. link to study

Granted, much has changed since 2005 and those numbers could have easily climbed back up.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Ruthie
Posted: Thursday, June 21, 2012 8:21:37 PM

Rank: Story Verifier
Moderator

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,698
Location: United States
lafayettemister wrote:



There is no indication in the story that the c-section was done by a Conservative. What does that have to do with this? This is all about money. Blue and Red party affiliation loses out to GREEN every time.


Conservatives do very badly want control over women's wombs. I stand by my statement.
lafayettemister
Posted: Friday, June 22, 2012 6:33:09 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,431
Location: Alabama, United States
CoopsRuthie wrote:


Conservatives do very badly want control over women's wombs. I stand by my statement.



CocaCola is much better than Pepsi.


Both opinions are very valid. Neither has anything to do with this topc. Why politicize something that shouldn't be? It doesn't promote anything to understand or contribute to the actual topic.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Ruthie
Posted: Friday, June 22, 2012 11:48:23 PM

Rank: Story Verifier
Moderator

Joined: 10/21/2010
Posts: 2,698
Location: United States
Women's health issues have already been politicized, and it was conservatives who did it and are continuing to do it. As long as the idea is being promoted that women don't have the right to choose what happens with their own reproductive system this kind of thing is political. I was not stating an opinion anyway. I was stating a fact.
lafayettemister
Posted: Saturday, June 23, 2012 6:48:53 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/4/2010
Posts: 6,431
Location: Alabama, United States
Yes, I understand your position. It has and is a politcized topic. But in this case, it isn't. Doctors and hospitals aren't politicians. I'm sure there are thousands of doctor performingn these types of procedures that are Democrats/Liberals. The funny thing is, on this particular topic I agree with you. The woman above should be able to decide how and what happens with the delivery of her child. C-sections are being done by the thousands to women who don't need them and are being coerced and bullied into having them. But as I said, in THIS type of situation it isn't about politics. It's about doctors egos and money. You so much as said so yourself in your original post.

Are you saying that all doctors are Republican/Conservatives? Where is your basis for that? Show me some facts and I'll believe you. It is an opinion. If a study were to be done, I bet there would be jsut as many Liberal minded doctors performing unnecessary C-sections as there are Conservative minded doctors. Within the political world, your factual statement or opinion is valid. In this case it isn't. In fact, you said earlier..

CoopsRuthie wrote:


I am so tired of institutions and governments thinking that they have the right to make reproductive decisions for women.


Yet, the statistics I posted above make it clear that government run hospitals have a dramatically lower rate of C-sections. So, it's not political. It's economics. It's not politicians or beaurocrats deciding in C-sections, it's normal everyday OB/GYN doctors. Many of whom are Liberals and women.





When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser. Socrates
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.