or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Unassisted Childbirth › giving birth the "most dangerous thing a woman will do in her lifetime" ?!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

giving birth the "most dangerous thing a woman will do in her lifetime" ?! - Page 5

post #81 of 89

I had no complications in the hospital and I think childbirth is dangerous.  All of my friends did except two who had transverse lay and needed c-section after very long and patients labor with their OBs.

 

I actually think that in USA, UC is much safer way to go than homebirth with badly educated CPMs.  American CPMs would never be accepted as MW in England, Netherlands or many other countries where homebirth is practice on national level.

 

Majority of people, when not influences by badly educated provider who preach "trust birth" ideology, will know when they are in trouble  and it is time to call 911.

 

Positive thinking helps one deal with adversity. Positive thinking does not stop bleeding, move babies into the right position or prevent placenta abruption. Believing that positive thinking can move molecules and change physical reality is not positive thinking, is it called "magical thinking" . Magical thinking is at best a sign of a mind that has no scientific background and at worst, a feature of some degree of mental illness.

 

Simply thinking about thing in certain light will change one's mood or attitude but not the actual physical reality.

 

There is lovely book on the subject 

http://www.amazon.com/Bright-Sided-Positive-Thinking-Undermining-America/dp/0312658850/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1331254824&sr=8-1

post #82 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alenushka View Post

Positive thinking helps one deal with adversity. Positive thinking does not stop bleeding, move babies into the right position or prevent placenta abruption. Believing that positive thinking can move molecules and change physical reality is not positive thinking, is it called "magical thinking" . Magical thinking is at best a sign of a mind that has no scientific background and at worst, a feature of some degree of mental illness.

 

Simply thinking about thing in certain light will change one's mood or attitude but not the actual physical reality.

What does this have to do with UC? Are you implying all ucers think so?

 

Alenushka, it is pretty clear you are opposed to UC/nonvaxing/unschooling/some diets... and yet you feel the need to come and tell us, regularly, your opinion on the matter, like we are unaware of the criticisms to whatever choice the board is discussing. 

 

You should go post this and the book in the thread on the birth boards about the myth of "perfect birth," it would be really relevant there. There is talk over there that some women are led to believe that perfect preparation = perfect birth, 100%. I'm not really sure why anyone who has been educated or studied birth would think so (but that's a topic for that thread), I think a lot of people understand complications can arise no matter how low risk the mother or her preparations. Before and during my uc I was extremely aware of the fact that sometimes during birth, things can just go wrong, no matter your preparation/beliefs, and I made sure I knew the signs of complications I could not handle myself, to know when I would have to transfer if necessary. I have a feeling most uc'ers do understand and do quite a bit of research about complications, how to avoid, how to detect, how to deal, when to get help.

 

 

post #83 of 89

It DOES seem to me that throughout this thread, there is a lot of "something can go wrong and so a hospital is the place to be" fearmongering. 

 

There are people on this board that have made it clear that they are so afraid of the birthing process that the only place they would deliver is in a hospital.  And I'm glad that if they are that afraid, then this is what they chose because if you're freaking out, you will NOT be able to pay attention to what needs to be done and you need someone to do it for you--even if it comes at a fluctuating 30-50% c-section rate because for them, hospital births are clearly the safer choice.  For them a possible hospital trauma or tragedy is preferred over any other birthing tragedy because they would rather it be made by the "knowledgable" professionals than themselves.  And I would NEVER EVER tell them different. 

 

However, the rest of us on this board do seem to be lumped into an all or nothing polarizing side which we are NOT advocating--which is clear from the responses on this thread alone.  We don't seem to be saying NO HOSPITALS EVER, we seem to be saying that the risks could be better IF the hospitals would stop interfering so much.  And they're right.  We choose this route for many reasons, sure, but then so are the many reasons to choose a hospital birth.  You have to remember that it was we rebels that caused strange practices like no husband at the births and being strapped down to a table and drugged out of our minds with twilight sleep to stop being common practice.  We still have a long way to go. 

 

And for the record, there are NO reliable studies on the safety of well-planned unassisted births to compare to hospital births.  Believe me, I checked.  ALL of the "statistics" are estimates and theories based on too wide a scope to be useful--such as death rates in third-world, impoverished, unclean countries and whatnot.  Look further for yourself.  We ONLY have rates for midwife assisted births. 

 

I think it would benefit those who feel the need to weigh in on the dangers of unassisted childbirth if they would understand what we are ACTUALLY saying, and understanding that we are NOT saying this is the right decision for everyone--ESPECIALLY those with KNOWN high risk factors.  It's ironic that those afraid of UC would tell us that we HAVE to accept the many unsafe and unproven practices or they are going to question our sanity.  It's strange to me further that they keep saying "well, that was 100 years ago in the medical field" and it's much safer now.  But, that's not what we're finding out.  It stands to reason that if they were practicing unsafe procedures 100 years ago and they continue to become safer, then they are still practicing unsafe procedures NOW and it will become safer in 100 years more.  This is the same logic that the DANGER group is using.  If it was unsafe to give birth 100 years ago, then it is still unsafe to do it now and yet THAT particular thread of logic is widely accepted, and the other is not.  I can't help but wonder if it isn't the DANGER group that's turning a blind eye to facts instead of us. 

 

I doubt the DANGER group will listen.  That's fine.  But I can't help but be amused by some of the stories I hear my grandmother tell me about her births.  She STILL can't get over the fact that husbands/partners are allowed in the delivery room or that breastfeeding is best.  My mother in law can't handle the fact that her daughter's OB no longer suctions babies mouths and noses routinely, even though her grand-daughter was delivered in a hospital. It's just funny to me that we UCers (or attempted UCers) are accused of shunning "new" break-throughs and technologies when many of the things we speak out against are very VERY slowly and sporatically becoming routine in the hospitals now. 

 

 

post #84 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by MeepyCat View Post


Quote:



Originally Posted by Sijae View Post

I don't buy it.


Here are the leading causes of death for females of all ages in the US from 2006 according to the CDC. I don't see birth injury on there.


All Females, All AgesPercent*

1) Heart disease25.8

2) Cancer22.0

3) Stroke6.7

4) Chronic lower respiratory diseases5.3

5) Alzheimer's disease4.2

6) Unintentional injuries3.5

7) Diabetes3.0

8) Influenza and pneumonia2.5

9) Kidney disease1.9

10) Septicemia1.5


If you break women down by ages you will see pregnancy complications pop up on the charts between 15-34 years of age but the percentage is very low and you are more likely to be murdered, commit suicide, die from an accident, from cancer or, believe it or not, die from HIV (25-34 years). http://www.cdc.gov/women/lcod/06_all_females.pdf



The reason you don't see birth injury on this list is because of modern obstetrics. Check out the top ten reasons why young women died 100 years ago - birth and related complications will pop up much higher.


Also, don't discount the relationships between kidney disease, septicemia, and childbearing.


Quote:


But pregnancy and birth are designed to work and be relatively safe. A small percentage of women and babies are biologically designed to die (we try to prevent this through intervention) but it is much smaller than people seem to think.


Pregnancy and birth were not designed. These processes are the messy result of evolutionary trade-offs between upright walking, pelvic diameter, brain size, and infant head size (this is not a complete list), and the way that these conditions interact with environment and events.


And "biologically designed to die"? I prefer the notion that birth is risky to the notion that some people are *supposed* to die in childbirth. FWIW, I would be dead if not for modern obstetrics, but that's not an indicator of my general health or ability to bear children. I had placenta previa, which is kind of like having a passing plane drop a brick on your head - you can totally die of it, but it's just random lousy luck.


Your "modern obstetrics" have put the US number 33 on the infant mortality rate list, behind Sweden and Norway where home birth is normal. The US infant mortality rate is twice what theirs is!
post #85 of 89
I have 2 younger cousins in medical school. One just posted on participating on a c-section. I told her "wow! I can't imagine needing an emergency c-section! So glad mom and baby are ok!" Then she told me it wasn't an emergency, neither mom or baby were in imident danger. Now THAT scares me! I almost ended up with a c-section with my hospital birth because the doctor didn't want me to labor too long. Why? Because he had other patients.

The US has a high infant and mother mortality rate and a high c-section rate. I think that needs to be addressed! I would say in the US birth is very risky!
post #86 of 89

Infant mortality rate has nothing to do with birth.

 

The stat you want to use is neonatal mortality.

post #87 of 89
I see the difference now, thank you.
post #88 of 89
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alenushka View Post

Infant mortality rate has nothing to do with birth.

The stat you want to use is neonatal mortality.


My bad. On that list the US is number 41. Still behind Switzerland, and far behind Norway.
post #89 of 89
I had a hospital birth last time, with complications, that ended in an emergency c-section. This time around I have some complications as well and I am planning a VBAC in a hospital with an OB. I'll probably be at the hospital from the beginning of labor and on the monitor the whole time.

Even so, I read this board sometimes to feel inspired by women who birth without fear. I feel a little sad because I won't have the opportunity to birth outside the medical model, but I'm also grateful it's there. If only I was "low risk", but I'm not. I just feel such admiration for the women here.

I think this should be a place for UCers to come and vent if they want and to find support. I don't think fear mongering or lecturing have a place here. Isn't that against the guidelines anyway? THIS IS THE UC BOARD for goodness sakes!! Sheesh.

Ugh... Anyway, I wish all you beautiful UCers the best and most beautiful births and I celebrate you. And I'm sorry for the times when you feel like you have to defend yourself just because you acknowledge your right to feel that birthing is natural and that you have a choice of how you want to do it.

That is all. :-)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Unassisted Childbirth
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Unassisted Childbirth › giving birth the "most dangerous thing a woman will do in her lifetime" ?!