or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Homebirth › Unassisted Birth in the New York Times
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Unassisted Birth in the New York Times

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 
FYI; In today's New York Times:

HEALTH | May 7, 2002
When Giving Birth, Opting to Go It Alone
By RANDI HUTTER EPSTEIN (NYT)
A close-knit network of parents are choosing do-it-yourself deliveries, demonstrating a dissatisfaction that many women perceive with obstetrics today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/07/he...html?tntemail0
post #2 of 11
Okay I am not registering to find that article! *LOL* can you paraphrase what it said about unassisted?

Heartmama
post #3 of 11
It was remarkably positive about a growing number of people choosing UC, has anecdotes about a few. Trying to show both sides, it includes a short quote from an anti guy from the acog, and stuff like that of course. It evens mentions lotus birth! Worth registering to look at, since it's free. Put it this way, I've never seriously consider UC. This made me think about it!
post #4 of 11
if anyone wants to write to the editor supporting this
kind of article the email is:

scitimes@nytimes.com

also, letters can be sent to:

Science Editor, The New York Times,
229 West 43rd Street, New York, N.Y.


I wrote right away just to let them know I appreciate this
type of article and how necessary birth options are. I really
wanted to encourage NYTimes for taking such a respectful
and balanced view. I expected an article like this to cast the
Shanleys and Jaspers as dangerously careless hippies, but they
really stress the thoughtfullness and care that goes into such a
decision.

I was a little confused by the line that said lotus birth left the
umbilical cord attached to both mother and baby:
I thought it stayed attached to the baby and placenta....

kudos to nytimes.

-v.
post #5 of 11
That was an awesome article! They quoted the medical establishment being all negative but they really didn't give their opinions a lot of weight. So cool! I can't believe the one doc (head of acog maybe?) who claims that 20% of births include "serious complications". Damn, if that's really what doctors believe no wonder birth is in such a bad state!

I had the article emailed to me. If anyone wants to see it but has some issue with registering (for free) at the Times, send me a pm and I will forward it to you.
post #6 of 11
That was great! In New York Times... i'm still stunned, and curious about that documentary too!
post #7 of 11
Good article, especially for the Times. Thanks for the tip.
One thing though, about the lotus birth - "They did not cut the umbilical cord. It stayed attached to the mother and baby for two days and then fell off." Huh? While I know this is refering the the placenta, I think this statement may make many people envision - literally - the mom and baby still attached through the cord, not the expelled placenta. Quite a vision for the mainstream public who might just now becoming comfortable with the concept of giving birth while squatting, much less wandering attached the the baby by the cord!
post #8 of 11
Thread Starter 
Thanks Victoria, for the email address.... I sent them a kudos letter too - and mentioned the lotus birth description error - I didn't catch that until you all pointed it out. But yes, i can see the mainstream folk freaked out by that - but then i think they'd also be freaked out just by the attachment to the placenta idea too.
post #9 of 11
The article did have a respectful tone, and that was what made it okay in my mind. Otherwise, it was a bit simplistic, but oh well. It would be nice to see them do something more in depth!

Also, one of the women who was interviewed was misquoted, I know it happens, you would just think that the NYT would be more careful about that sort of thing.

And yeah, "20%", oh brother! :

Mamarain, the documentary is not bad, a little plodding, but it does show some absolutely beautiful footage of unassisted births.
post #10 of 11
sweetwater... Exactly. Respectful.. not 'hey look what these freaks are doing'. I take it you are aquainted with one of the families. What was the misquote? What did she say?
post #11 of 11
I also thought the article was decent, especially considering it's a mainstream newspaper and the reporter is an MD. Lotus birth was misrepresented - the cord doesn't stay attached to the mother (sheesh) and Lori felt her comments was taken out of context (re: "We just didn't think about it.").

I was a little (well, maybe more than a little) disappointed that there were no quotes from me, as I spent hours with the reporter on the phone (and they left the "Shanley" off the end of my name in the caption under my photo). But I think much of what I tried to convey was said by other people. Yes, much more could have been said. This was basically an introduction to UC. But I'll take it! I believe you can read the article without registering if you click on the link to the article on my site - http://ucbirth.com/new.htm

As I wrote in another post in this forum today, ABC News contacted me after seeing the article, and Fri. they interviewed me for an article that will appear on their site. So I think good things will come from this!

Laura Shanley
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Homebirth
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Homebirth › Unassisted Birth in the New York Times