Quote:
Originally Posted by GuildJenn  I'm sorry but the NBC does eventually need to take responsibility for minimizing risk, where the medical community needs to take responsibility for maximing risk.
|
Well, my experience with
NCB is that it's all about making smart decisions in the face of risk. There are risks on both sides, & a mama should be the one to weigh those risks & make her own decisions.
A key example is routine induction at 41 or 42W. Just an hour ago, I posted (for probably the 100th time!) that the risk of still birth
does go up at 41W and again at 42. I'd never deny that fact - but it's still a low risk, whereas the risk of induction leading to CS, particularly in a FTM, is very high. But, again, I'm not denying there are risks on both sides. A mama should be the one to weigh the options & make her choice. Obviously having a HCP she trusts who advises her on what s/he thinks is best is great - so it's a collaborative effort & the HCP serves as a trusted resource - an adviser & 'guide' of sorts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuildJenn I don't think pro-reform people are idiots at all, but I can tell you that my PERSONAL experience is that the attitude exists both offline and off. I have heard people say that NO ONE needs a c-section ever if they only trust birth and get in the right position.
|
Well, that person is an idiot. Period, plain & simple. Unless she simply misspoke & misrepresented herself. But if that really was her intention, she's a total idiot. Even Ina May Gaskin's famous "The Farm" still has like a 3% or so CS rate--& they only take low-risk women!
As a matter of fact, just yesterday I was chatting with a friend expecting her first & she seemed to think the idea of a CS was awful. She was particularly concerned about bonding with the baby immediately & the disruption that a CS might cause to that. While I wanted to encourage her that odds of CS were indeed slim, I also thought I'd try to help her get comfortable with the idea that CS didn't have to be horrible & she could still bond with the baby - so I sent her
this link about skin-to-skin post CS.
I guess what I'm saying is, if everyone in the NCB-movement were just exactly like me, we'd have no problems & things would be perfect.
Ha - kidding, kidding!!!
Idiots are everywhere, unfortunately. But I still say such a "camp" simply does not exist. The isolated existence of such morons is not indicative of the birth-reform movement on the whole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GuildJenn My BIRTH EDUCATOR said that she believed there was "almost never" a reason to get one. And refused to discuss them because it was "bad energy."
That's not education, that's propaganda. "
|
I'm in total agreement with you! I'm sorry you had such a bad birth 'educator.' I hope you've posted about this in your tribal area & spread the word- people should know so they can avoid her pathetic excuse for a class! That's really terrible!
I admit I was reluctant to consider the possibility of having a CS but my Bradley teacher & my doula (who was also a Bradley teacher) both encouraged me to get educated, include CS details on my birth plan, etc.
& I'm sorry she continued to be a so awful after the loss of your daughter. There's something extra sinister in that - something especially horrible in someone who is supposed to be an educator- someone who is supposed to HELP people - having such a negative, and damaging influence.
I had a bad experience with the lactation consultants at my hospital. They were AWFUL! I have no doubt I would have been better off with books & the internet, but I knew nothing, so I kept going back to these women & they only made it much worse. That makes me angry & it makes me angry for the women who would come after me & suffer like that at the hands of people who are supposed to be assisting them.
Again, all of this being said, I still say
the "0% intervention is ideal/ birth is always perfect if you just trust" is not a "camp." It's not a movement. It's not even a subset within the NCB/maternity-care-reform group. It's only something a small, small handful of morons say.
And to act as though it is indicative of the NCB movement or even a legitimate subset within the NCB movement is insulting to the movement.
& - I could be way off - this is just a guess- but it seems reasonable to me to presume that some of the people who were insulting & insensitive behaved so because they just don't know what to say. They probably do not honestly think that the bad outcome was your fault. They just don't know what to say. It's really difficult to know what to say to someone who has suffered any tragedy, no matter what it is. It's awkward. It's socially difficult.
It also IS difficult to simultaneously expect the best from your own upcoming birth, while rectifying in your mind the fact that bad outcomes are possible. It's emotionally very difficult to hold an optimistic view in the face of the reality that tragedy is possible. (But obviously a degree of optimism is crucial. It does no good to allow anxiety & fear to cripple us throughout our entire pregnancy!)
So perhaps some of what you've encountered are people who are just not emotionally able to handle this paradox.
I would also venture a guess that some of them are scared for their own upcoming births, and that's why they're quick to write off your tragedy as your own fault.
It is exactly because they realize tragedy is possible, that they put blame on you - they're rationalizing to try to comfort themselves. They want to believe, "Oh, it won't happen to me."
It's not that they truly believe tragedy only happens to those who "don't trust" it's that they WANT to believe that because
it's too scary to accept the reality that birth is unpredictable, can't be controlled, and nothing can guarantee perfect outcomes. This is a scary reality. Particularly scary for a pregnant woman (who has those oh-so-fun hormones messing with her emotions too!)
Not that this excuses their behavior. To even vaguely imply that it was your fault is awful. I'm just saying, I don't necessarily think they acted that way because they truly & sincerely believe that bad outcomes happen only to those who don't trust.
If they DID really believe that, they would all UC! If they did really believe that all you needed was perfect trust, why would they have a midwife come to their home or go to a birth center or hospital? Even if they DO UC, why would they get a doppler & be prepared with meds like pit for PPH?
But, again, the presence of bad apples in any group shouldn't be considered the norm - and that group shouldn't be written off as being represented by those idiots! Particularly when the idiots truly are a very, very small minority.
& on the maybe 2 occasions I've seen people post something that subtly implies, "I was fine because I believed" others have corrected them! here within MDC - a very pro-NCB community, we jump on those statements & point them out as idiotic myths.
Although the 2 posts I recall were not long posts. I still doubt the woman making the post honestly would believe that CS was NEVER actually necessary. It was more a case of a woman importing excess credit onto herself for a successful outcome, and others getting offended by the resulting
implication that a not-perfect outcome was their fault.
Again, the women did not say, "If you had a bad outcome, it was because you didn't trust." The women said, "*I* had a good outcome *because* I trusted." While that is still misguided, it's certainly not the same statement, and others corrected her.
Not sure how I could have forgot to mention this too, but my Mom is a nurse & also fairly drug-averse. She also taught me to question things, think for myself, use my brain, foster my intellectual curiosity. So it was a natural extension for me to get educated about birth (and, of course, subsequently become appalled at the chasm between evidence & practice in the US today.) So I have a great Mom to thank too! 
I currently have 5 kids in 8 years, and think there is a good shot that I will keep having them, even going past 10 kids. I honestly do not have much of a drive towards "birth as awesome experience" because I've never actually HAD a simple, straightforward birth. But birth, and how it works, is a diagnostic challenge. I don't trust birth, and think it frequently sucks. But I do think there are things that can be done to control for, prevent, and minimize problems as much as possible, and I really enjoy working with that aspect of things.
), but that it was invented from a standpoint of Man over Machine. 'Man' being doctor, 'Machine' being woman/baby....this idea is at the root of Allopathy, not just about birth but the overriding vision of our bodies being machines that doctors must control--and to whom, 'patients' must surrender power for their own good.
