or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Unassisted Childbirth › UC Forum Concerns - Please read and share your thoughts
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

UC Forum Concerns - Please read and share your thoughts - Page 2

post #21 of 51

Here's my take on things...

 

I felt in my heart that after a homebirth-transfer and then a homebirth, that I need to do a UC.  No anger, no angst, just felt like I needed to.  Poured over information, education, websites and forums for 10 months or more (and having some birth support experience as well) and we placed a few safety nets, and had our baby 5 min after the doula arrived.  Next birth, same choice but we had the baby before our doula arrived, but it was all of 40 minutes from first contraction.  In my opinion, I would have had a UC whether intentional or not, and the fact that I had information, belief in ourselves and the safety nets in place, I think that made the difference between a traumatic experience for us to one of joy.  It's not for everyone, it's not for every birth... but just like there is demise in hospital or homebirth, U/C does not automatically warrant the brush aside of stupid-people-do-that and it only happens there.

 

When I was here a few years ago last, there were trolls or angry people posting (when they obviously don't WANT to be here or remotely believe UC is even sort of, possibly a birth option that "real" people use), people still shared, and it was moderated.  I stopped in recently and I was SHOCKED at the first few posts here.  You don't believe in UC?  Don't be here, don't post here.  It's not like the "it can be dangerous" isn't something EVERY SINGLE UC'er doesn't already know.  Obviously every UCer has thought of it.  Seriously.  I mean seriously.  So the public-service-announcements don't serve to do anything other than incite, and it's not like it serves to further educate.  People who do UC are not uneducated, it's likely they know more about birth than most homebirthers and some birth supporters (doulas).  It does mean they made a different decision.  But it IS their decision to make.

 

How is it handled when someone goes to the Homebirth forums and starts talking about how irresponsible it is?  I would say whatever happens there should happen here.  IMO.

post #22 of 51

I have to say, that since I first entertained the idea of UC, most if not ALL of my fellow UCers that I've come into contact with here, on Yahoo groups, and other forums, are SUPER-educated about birth, and all manner of alternative forms of healing/remedy, like herbs, homeopaths, placenta, birth position, etc.  I always wonder where the "stupid reckless UCer" idea even comes from, because I have yet to meet one, to be honest. 

 

The funny thing is, it's the "smart ones" anyway who are actively seeking more knowledge, support, etc. here and in other forums, yet they're also the ones afraid to share, because of fear of being "found out, " etc.  I mean, many of us who don't UC do other things that might be considered fringe, in our eating/clothing habits, not vaxing, not circing, co-sleeping, babywearing, extended nursing, gay parenting, homeschooling, homebirthing with midwives, etc.  It's not hard to understand why so many moms get nervous about hostile criticism and then clam up.  But it seems to me that the "stupid ones," would also probably be the ones for whom there would be most cause for criticism, etc.  And they're not here

 

I just think there's a lack of respect toward UCers, and that's really sad.  Mothering.com moms as a whole make several different lifestyle choices that are in the minority or on the fringe of society.  We should be taking care of each other, respecting each other, championing each other's right to choice and freedom, and offering truly helpful discussion and support.

post #23 of 51


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by MittensKittens View Post

Personally, I do not at all believe that solely following intuition, God, or the "self" (which is arguably the same thing as intuition) leads to positive results - I believe that we need knowledge, too. But I simultaneously believe it is not my duty, or anyone else's, to push that knowledge down someone throat where it is unwanted. I do agree that most who need medical help will seek it, but to know you need medical help, you sometimes need knowledge (sometimes not - where there is pain, for instance, it may be obvious to anyone that help is needed). 

 

 

In my experience, intuition often leads people to information. What I mean is this. At some point toward the end of my pregnancy, I felt "uneasy" about breastfeeding. I couldn't explain the feeling, and I hadn't done a lot of reading on breastfeeding per se because everyone was expressing how it's rather easy, babies just do it, etc. Yes, women have problems, but very few women have problems. No need to worry about things. I was told this on many boards, and most people wanted to focus on the emotional side of my feelings.

 

So, I spent some time reading about breastfeeding problems -- common issues and their solutions -- and then I amassed a list of LCs, the local LLL group, etc.

 

My intuition lead me to reach out and ask for information, and when told to just go with it, not worry, my intuition said "no, keep digging" and so I did. Glad I did, because when my son was born, his tongue was strong and he was pushing the nipple out rather than drawing it in. Within a week, we'd trained him and got him on the breast -- but I needed an LC to do it. And it's good that I had a whole list of numbers, because everyone was on holiday, and finally, on Wednesday (he was born on Saturday), I got a return call from one who'd come home from holiday early and could see us right away. By Saturday he was on the breast!

 

So, the process isn't just "intuition only" in the sense of "you don't need any knowledge" but rather that intuition is going to guide a woman to certain information before she's pregnant, as she's pregnant, etc. For example, I did not spend a lot of time studying PPH. I did get the basics -- what to look for blood-wise, what symptoms to look out for (faint, dizzy, blood pressure issues, etc), and some ways of handling minor problems (herbs, eating the placenta, etc) and when to get help. But, I spent far more time -- oddly enough -- studying malpositioned births, and in particular posterior, which is ultimately how my son was born. 

 

I also agree with Sara that most UCers whom I know are very educated about birth. I was looking over the information to become a doula (DONA and CBI) and their reading list says "choose 5 of these books." Other than the two required doula books (which I haven't read), I'd read every-other book on the list. I did most of this before getting pregnant. I went and visited a friend who is a midwife (just graduated! congrats to her!) and I'd read most of the books on her shelves as well (there were a few physio books I haven't read, but I did borrow one of them to help me out with a pregnancy/yoga thing). I would say that most UCers are probably in the same boat, and I'm well acquainted with online medical and midwifery journals on the topic, too. 

 

So, I assume that following your intuition means that you're already gathering information, that your intuition is leading you to that information, and that if you're asking on the board -- you're already in the process of gathering that information to do the risk assessment.

 

But the idea that there would be a checklist, that is just nuts. What? We have to read 5 books on this list in order to be ok UCers? who chooses the canon of texts from which to choose from? What if my PPH research wasn't enough (it was about 2-3 articles), but my posterior birth research was not considered relevant? Makes no sense, really.

 

Which is why I go back to "follow your intuition." I believe it leads people to the information and knowledge that *they* need, for their birth and for their decision making process around it. And at the end, you take that knowledge and you take how you feel, and you come up with a decision. And that may or may not be getting medical help. :) 

 

 

 

Quote:

Quote from Adaline'sMama 

 

The idea that you get to decide if you are okay with living with the consequenses of what could potentially be a child's death or birth defect. It is super strange to me that some people hold the idea that they will trust their bodies or trust god about a problem during birth and whatever happens to the baby is just a consequense that you have to deal with. So its okay not seek medical advice and potentially harm your child, but dont circ because as parents we dont have the right to make that choice for our kid?

 

 

I think this is really about a shift in perspective about birth.

 

People seem to believe that if they go to a doctor or midwife, they are "safer" or that babies won't have birth defects, injuries, or die. This is simply not true. 

 

 

Foremost, birth defects are not a consequence of birth. They are a consequence of genetics, of developmental issues, etc. Having a doctor or midwife is not going to change the fact that a child has a birth defect. Having an ultrasound can inform a parent of which birth defects their infants may be born with, and some parents may want that information. A large number of UCers do get ultrasounds (and do have shadow care), so it's not as if a UCer is eschewing this information. 

 

Likewise, having an attendant present does not mean that a birth defect would be identified right away. A friend of mine had a hospital birth, and it was four months before the valve situation was discovered. The mother seemed to notice an issue, but everything "looked and sounded fine" to the doctors. Mama finally got baby into her father's cardiologist, who diagnosed the condition, and then sent her to a pediatric cardiologist for consult and ultimately surgery. 

 

In addition, I know of three UCers off the top of my head who had children with birth defects. One's child had a heart defect, another's has spina bifida, and yet another had a different heart defect. In all cases, the parents noticed issues within an hour of birth and ultimately got medical help for their children. All three children are fine -- most now over the age of 4. The mode and place of their birth did not cause these defects. The heart defect was undetected in u/s both cases, so likely that the doctor or midwife would have been just as surprised by the defect as well. And I'm not aware of the situation of care for the SB baby prior to her birth, but after, she had most excellent medical care. 

 

So, birth defects are a straw man in this sort of issue.

 

The relevant issues, therefore, are injury and death. It is important to note, foremost, that injury and death happens in all settings. This is something that UCers say over and over, and it is true. But those who disagree with UC see it as an extreme and unnecessary risk because you don't know which seemingly low-risk woman is going to have a major issue. Somewhere around the various statistics is that 3-5% of low risk women will have an issue in birth -- that may cause injury or death to them or their children. Of these, a certain percentage will be injured or die no matter what a person does -- even doctors and midwives admit this. But, the greater percentage of these can be saved.

 

So, the question then arises -- if one doesn't know which woman will have an issue, would you really risk your life on it? your child's life on it? why not have someone there "just in case" so that if it is you, then you could be the one person who is saved by the attendant and technology.

 

I love the way Laura Shanley put this in her book. Paraphrasing: 5% of women who give birth will have an issue during that birth, therefore ALL women should birth in hospitals/with midwives (choose your chosen community) is like saying 5% of men will be rapists, and since we don't know which ones, ALL men should be imprisoned for life.

 

A UCer looks at the numbers and goes something like this: 5% of women will need help during birth; 95% of women will not. Those are good odds. Of those 5% of women who need help, 5% of those will die or their child will die or both regardless of medical help, and the remaining will make it with medical help. Those are good odds. Most of those conditions of the 5% of women who will be need medical intervention have a buffer of 30-45 minutes or more before a problem happens (this is a massive generalization, not actual, just the way I thought about it), and i can get emergency medical attention in less than 15 minutes. Therefore, it is a very small risk of death or injury to me or my child.

 

I literally saw it as 5% of 5% risk of death/injury. It's a very small risk relatively speaking, and particularly in comparison to, say, driving a car.

 

I felt that it was a risk that I could tolerate.

 

I also think that an element of this is the real ownership of death/injury. In our culture, we are really, truly freaked out about death. Anything we can do to avoid it, really, and it's very scary (to me). Death is a part of life. For pregnant people, it's a 5% of 5% from natural causes for which no medical care can make a difference. It's that BEFORE you choose to get pregnant.

 

For me, it's like choosing to go skydiving. You can mitigate the risks, but there is still inherent risk in jumping from a plane. The next question, then, is how you mitigate those risks. 

 

It's ok to choose medical care to mitigate those risks, but medical care (today) also brings it's own risks -- which we see over and over. And, truly, those can also be mitigated. If i needed to birth in a hospital, I would be fine because I would know what I needed to know in order to have a positive experience there -- even down to having a scheduled c-section. I could do it. I could mitigate the risks because I know what the risks are.

 

I think that UCers do the same. At least, this is my experience of us.

 

 

The game -- whether a woman is choosing medical care or UC -- is about mititgating those risks. UCers mitigate the risks of harm from intervention -- which is more likely and quite common if you go through medical care -- by avoiding it. Just as women avoid alcohol during pregnancy. We know the risks, to mitigate, we don't drink alcohol. UCers will also mitigate the natural risks (those 5%) through self education and self reflection. "Am I really at risk? and if I am at risk, what can I do to mitigate *those* risks?" Everything from having shadow care, to making sure she's X minutes from the hospital, to actually getting help as soon as she feels there is need all mitigates these risks.

 

Another common accusation -- to which you have vaguely alluded -- is that the mother is choosing her birth experience over the child.

 

For me, as a UCer, I was choosing this mode of birth *for* my child. I truly believe that it was the safest mode of birth for me, unless there was evidence to the contrary (eg, I felt/thought/believed that there was an issue that required medical care). 

 

During my pregnancy and my birth, I never experienced any need for medical care. I truly believe that had I been in midwife or hospital care, there would have been interventions that would have injured me, and interventions that could have inhibited birth and endangered my child. Therefore, my UC was safer, and in fact the safest, birth for my child -- and for me.

 

And this is part of the underpinning of not understanding why it is ok to 'not care about the child' before birth and therefore UC and then turning around and talking about child autonomy and physical integrity. 

 

Philosophically, I believe that a child's body belongs to the child -- and this is true in utero as well as out. And, it is my responsibility to care for my child as best I can throughout his childhood until he becomes independent and makes his own decisions about his body and his life. Of course, as parents, we realize that there is a process of increasing decision making over time, and that parents do make decisions for their child that impact their health and well being -- nutrition, spiritual life, education. 

 

at each turn, most parents are striving to choose that which they believe will create the best outcomes and experiences for their child. Pregnant women forgo alcohol and sushi so that their infants are healthy in utero. Women choose to birth in specific environments for their own health and that of their children (acknowledging that mothers are also important for children's health and well being). Women and families choose how to raise their children -- including circ, though I personally consider circ to be an unnecessary (and in some cases harmful) practice. I am currently questioning religious freedom vs circ -- even though our culture readily rejects female circ even when done for religious reasons, so I fail to understand why male circ is truly different in such an instance.

 

The reality is -- i think -- that UCers are choosing UC because they believe it to be the safest mode of birth for their children and themselves. And as soon as they feel that it isn't -- most get care right away. 

 

But with this, we have to come to terms with the fact that sometimes, no matter what we do, babies and mamas die.

 

 

post #24 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by nursingmommaof2 View Post

I would like it if Mothering stopped deleting any mention of a UC going badly. There have been many UC deaths that have been quickly covered up. Keeping those threads alive would alert potential UCs to the real risks of UC.



 



Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthia Mosher View Post


Quote:


This was mentioned awhile back by someone in a different discussion so it's good that you've brought it up again.

 

We do not have a policy of deleting "any mention" of a UC going badly. We leave threads in place unless we have a compelling reason to remove them. 

 

We have removed some threads at the OP's request. In the case of a traumatic situation or a death some members will ask to have their thread pulled because it is too painful for them to leave it up. This occurs not only in the UC forum but also in the other Pregnancy forums. We will continue to respect this and honor the request. It is more important to us that the mother's grief and pain be eased, so if that can happen by removing her thread then we will do that for her.

 

In other cases of removal the thread was being discussed in a very disrespectful and accusing manner at other sites and the OP asks for removal. That too we will continue to honor. 


I'm with nursingmommaof2 on this. Even if you just pulled to OP's post, but left the title or something it would be better than making the threads disappear. It makes UC look a lot safer than it is if you only leave up threads with positive outcomes.

 

Covering up deaths that occur in UC's is irresponsible, especially when the deaths can be very nearly conclusively linked to bad advice given on this board.

 


 

post #25 of 51

My last baby was a UC birth and so will this one be. I used to post here but I stopped because people who did not believe in Uc would post. Not in a respectful manner but in an accusatory or an "you-are-an-idiot" manner. A lot of the posters are not like this but enough to make me stop. I would like a place where the posters are not anti-uc.

post #26 of 51


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by leahsmama View Post





 




I'm with nursingmommaof2 on this. Even if you just pulled to OP's post, but left the title or something it would be better than making the threads disappear. It makes UC look a lot safer than it is if you only leave up threads with positive outcomes.

 

Covering up deaths that occur in UC's is irresponsible, especially when the deaths can be very nearly conclusively linked to bad advice given on this board.

 


 

 

I'm not on this board enough to know what threads you are referring to, BUT I do not think that pulling a thread at someone's request is the same thing as "covering up deaths that occur in UC's" at all, nor that a single UC forum which may have mostly positive UC birth stories gives the impression that "UC is safer than it is," nor that it is fair to say that the death always most likely occurred as a result of advice given on the forum.  It's not like this is the only resource UC'ers use anyway and I know that I have definitely come across less than positive UC stories, but that doesn't lead me to believe it's so unsafe as many believe.  Yet if something went wrong in a hospital, people would often believe that all that could have been done was done - or that a C-section saved someone and/or their baby's life - among other things, when that isn't necessarily true at all.  There are risks to ANY method of birth, not just UC.  It's also really easy to believe that an attended birth is safer than it really is.   I used to think that an attended birth was safer.  I don't any more.  It is because my mindset has changed, not because I've "only" read positive UC birth stories.  A UC may be safer for one woman.  An attended birth may be safer for another.  It's not fair to say it is simply "not as safe as UC'ers believe".

 

 

post #27 of 51

Rixa Freeze recently posted her PhD thesis about UC.

 

One of her observations is that over the time she studied the UC movement, there was a definite change of attitude.   Earlier, there was a lot of discussion of "If you are going to UC, you should educate yourself about birth, about what might arise, about what is 'normal' and what is 'variation of normal' and what is 'this is one of the things obstetrics were invented to deal with."   And this has changed, more recently, to a message of "experience is most important and educating yourself about possibilities is really not important compared to relying on instincts."  

 

The problem is that humans are not really instinct-driven the way that bugs or rats or birds are, and this rejection of knowledge and even elevation of total naivete is disturbing to many people, both in the UC movement and outside it.  

 

Recently, there was a poster here who argued that maternal instinct should be entirely sufficient to deal with a number of serious birth complications, who gave absolutely incorrect medical advice that was easily verifiable as incorrect, and responded, when questioned, with indignance and the call on instinct as more important than knowledge.    For people with any knowledge of birth or physiology at all, this was pretty damn scary, because someone presenting with that much assumed authority is likely to be convincing to those without either knowledge or experience.  I don't know what the answer is to situations like that, but that kind of posting tends to trigger protective urges -- whether the urge to protect mothering.com, or the urge to protect other posters.   

post #28 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by leahsmama View Post

 

Covering up deaths that occur in UC's is irresponsible, especially when the deaths can be very nearly conclusively linked to bad advice given on this board.

 


 

 

 

While I can't say that I know of every UC death or injury that has occurred over the last 8 years that i've been part of the online UC community, nearly everyone one has been completely unpredictable and therefore not related "conclusively" or otherwise to the boards or occurred when the women were under medical care. By that I mean that the woman either joined with a care provider toward the end of her pregnancy OR went in for emergency care and the outcome was still negative.

 

I have not seen any stories where a woman's or infant's injury or death could be "very nearly conclusively" linked to advice given on this board. If you could give the posting name, the birth date of the child, the cause of injury or death, the location of the birth, and the advice given and by whom, then I would be convinced. Otherwise, I think it's a ridiculous claim. 

 

post #29 of 51

ah, leahsmama has only 12 posts and has only been here since March. even if an avid lurker with a massive c/p collection, I doubt that she has enough information or authority to link UC deaths/injuries as they are reported via the UC networks online to specific advice given everywhere.

 

----

 

also, in regards to rixa's information/thesis and subsequent blogs, she actually agreed at one point with the idea that UCers should be somehow vetted. Whether she has now mellowed in that position, i don't know.

 

I think that the change in tone is because many of us are less alarmist about the whole thing. I assume people are educating themselves, rather than ahving to tell them to educate themselves. And in my experience, homebirthers and UCers *are* way more interested in knowledge, information, and risks -- both so that they can "achieve" or "protect" their homebirths and/or so that they know when there is a risk that they would prefer be handled by a doctor in a hospital setting. Most of my friends -- online or otherwise -- who go the ob/hospital route or the midwive/birthcenter route are far less likely to read a lot of material about the various risks, etc, and many don't even think about birth plans, etc.

 

though mothers on mothering tend to be more educated on these things as well. so, in general, i assume that if you are on mothering, you're already in the process of educating yourself.

 

post #30 of 51

notes2.gif

post #31 of 51
Thread Starter 

Quote:
Originally Posted by leahsmama View Post

I'm with nursingmommaof2 on this. Even if you just pulled to OP's post, but left the title or something it would be better than making the threads disappear. It makes UC look a lot safer than it is if you only leave up threads with positive outcomes.

 

Covering up deaths that occur in UC's is irresponsible, especially when the deaths can be very nearly conclusively linked to bad advice given on this board.

 

 

This thread is a subject of discussion for the UC forum members to offer their thoughts and suggestions on how to make the forum more beneficial and supportive for those considering and having a UC. The discussion is intended to also look at posts that are not from UC members but who want to give advice when there is concern about the safety of the mother and baby. Such posts can certainly be sincere and appropriate, though some will disagree with what is posted and there will be an exchange of opinion, which is also appropriate and expected in any discussion - not just in UC. However, it is clear from the language and behavior of some that an agenda is often behind their posting here and that should be considered, recognized, and addressed too. 

 

The language that you and nursingmommaof2 use in offering your opinions to this discussion is along the lines of what creates the atmosphere we are concerned about in the forum. "Covering up deaths" is an insinuation and attack, as is defining someone's post as "bad advice" and implicating it as something that caused death. Coming into this discussion to speak in this manner does not set the stage for a conducive and beneficial exchange of opinions and suggestions with members of this forum. If you cannot post in a way that is comfortable for and respectful of everyone, please step out of this discussion. 

 

We will continue to honor the mother's request that her thread be removed. The only way to achieve what you suggest via a thread title and posts removed is to edit or place a thread title to clearly state a message as an announcement. Announcing traumatic outcome or loss in such situations is not ours to do. If the mother wishes to do that she can post in one of the grief and loss forums which are support only. 

 

In most cases it is not simply the mention of the loss or trauma that leads someone to make a thread removal request but the manner in which some members post to the thread and/or copy posts to paste elsewhere to accuse, insult and blame. If that behavior would stop we might not have requests for removal and the threads will stay for everyone to read and be aware of. 

post #32 of 51

I just wanted to offer my thoughts on the consequences of "bad advice". I agree that there is bad advice here sometimes, and that giving advice that is nor factually correct is not desirable. However, individuals are responsible for deciding what the quality of advice is. They are aware that the advice or opinion comes from someone they know nothing about. It is up to the individual to verify or disprove opinions given. To say that bad advice is directly responsible for causing bad outcomes is dubious - even though bad advice should not be offered. 

post #33 of 51

I agree with Olivia, above. 

 

I had my first child before the advent of googling and before internet researching and forums exploded.  All I knew about birth was from books written by doctors (Glade Curtis, I think is the name), "What to Expect When You're Expecting," (the first edition probably, where there is ONE page on homebirth and it says nothing, referring to it more as precipitous labor and birth), etc.  I live in a university community, where there are a LOT of hospitals, teaching hospitals, HUGE medical population here.   I was never exposed to anything alternative, certainly not in birth.  I have a huge Italian family.  So does my husband.  I have dozens of cousins.  I am still the only homebirther among us.  And two of my close cousins, who are sisters, though they were both delivered naturally in the 70s, between the two of them they have 10 kids, and every single one of them was a c-section.  All I ever heard from anyone about birth was that it was hell, I heard horror stories of course, and then the sewing-circle jokes about getting the epidural as soon as you walk in the door.

 

If that's not bad advice, at least for someone with the heart of a homebirther, I don't know what is.  I had my first two babies in the hospital with all the "bells and whistles" (I'm talking internal fetal monitor, vacuum suction, etc.) because I was labeled "failure to progress."  I truly believed my body was broken.  My woman's body couldn't do what a woman's body should be able to do.  It almost felt like a disability, when all that was really true about me was that I did NOT belong in the hospital because I was only in prodromal labor, and my body would readily and victoriously bring forth the baby it had nurtured for 41 weeks if left the hell alone!

 

We all get bad advice.  I've learned to take what advice I get, then research it myself to see if it's good or not.  That's what any thinking woman should do.  Not that I wasn't a thinking woman in the beginning, but I think age, wisdom, experience, and maturity helped to grow that in me. 

 

 

post #34 of 51

I agree.

 

Most often, advice is given sincerely. Sometimes that advice is bad. Sometimes that advice is good.

 

I believe that more women could have painless, pleasurable births -- if they knew it existed, believed it could happen for them, and did what they could to create it, and did so with non-attachment to the results (eg, it didn't matter to them if they had pain or not). But, whenever I bring this up, some women flatly refuse the information ("You cannot tell me that birth isn't painful") or I am told by other women that it is not supportive/healthy/appropriate to tell them about the possibility of something "so rare." Both of these have to do with beliefs around birth, imo, and not necessarily biological realities. This is not to say that all women at all times will have painless, pleasurable births, but that it is possible for more woman than the number who experience it in our culture currently.

 

Essentially, my "advice" about the possibility and how one can help create the situation of a pleasurable birth is considered "bad advice" for many people. 

 

This is no different than the common refrain of "take the drugs!" Yes, it is advice. And, in some circumstances, it is *excellent* advice. But, in other circumstances, it may not be. When I was given this advice, I simply disregarded it, just as many women disregard my advice on what may create a painless birth experience for them. In fact, both the epidural and the advice I give point to the same issue -- pain management or painlessness during birth. That's interesting, now that I think of it!

 

Like Sara, I don't really take advice in a glib manner, and I assume that most other people don't either. They may ask for my advice -- what I would do -- and I would usually ask questions and then also share my logical process, explaining how it relates to the philosophical underpinnings that I hold. I feel that this tempers the advice a bit, because I know that not everyone holds the same ideas that I do, and therefore would not make the same logical inferences. 

 

Ultimately, I assume that people are only seeking information, not asking me to guide their decision. I'm not really seeing myself as somehow responsible for their choices simply because I offered my own process up for them to examine for themselves, because ultmately I expect that they will look at the advice, weigh the evidences that they have, and form their own decision.

 

I often find, too, that women who make similar decisions as I do often do so for dramatically different reasons. Diversity is cool.

post #35 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by MittensKittens View Post

I just wanted to offer my thoughts on the consequences of "bad advice". I agree that there is bad advice here sometimes, and that giving advice that is nor factually correct is not desirable. However, individuals are responsible for deciding what the quality of advice is. They are aware that the advice or opinion comes from someone they know nothing about. It is up to the individual to verify or disprove opinions given. To say that bad advice is directly responsible for causing bad outcomes is dubious - even though bad advice should not be offered. 



MittensKittens, I'm struggling to make sense of your statement.  

 

As I read it, what you are saying is that, while it's undesirable for posters to give bad advice on the UC forum, it's also undesirable for people to point out the problems with bad advice they encounter while reading the UC forum.  It looks to me like you are suggesting that it's up to the individual to evaluate advice offered, and that no other individuals should share the results of their evaluation.  Thus, if something bad happens because a mother followed bad advice she is personally responsible for the outcome, and also, no one should comment to caution mothers about potential adverse outcomes they they know or suspect might occur.  

 

I feel like I must be misinterpreting your statement.  Can you please clarify for me?  For example, what do you think should happen if someone posts something that is clearly seriously incorrect in the UC forum?

post #36 of 51

Not MK, but. . .

 

I think that if you see factual information that is suspect, it's definitely a good idea to refute it by putting up information to counter it. In my opinion, information is a good thing, and the more information -- particularly good information -- the better.

 

the issue, though, that i see or am confused about is what is being considered 'advice.' an earlier poster puts up that she thinks/feels that when a person says "I have X, what is your knowledge/experience/opinion regarding X as a UCer?" then that person is asking for medical advice. 

 

I do not see it as asking for advice, but simply more information on which to form their own opinion and decision. To me, medical advice is something that one asks a medical expert for, after doing some research, and puts forth a clear question. That might be what I recently asked my doctor: "My son will be 3 soon, and I believe from my research that it is safe for him to get chicken pox. I'm concerned about the timing with his starting school, and I'm concerned about the care he may require if it's not a simple case. I'd like to expose him so that we can be sure that he gets as mild a case as possible that is also most likely to give him life long immunity. What are your thoughts on this?" (my doctor, because they don't do chicken pox vax here, recommended a pox party, but that he was not in a position to provide a well controlled one on our schedule. He asserted that he would put me on the contact list, and that I should also put the school on notice too.)

 

I had already asked on a message board people's experience and opinions with pox parties vs simple "luck of the draw" exposure. I wasn't seeking their advice, but helping to see what the outcomes were outside of the studies that I was reading about the vax vs regular exposure vs pox parties (there are a few studies, surprisingly), and I wanted to go with clear questions for my doctor when the time came.

 

Were they advising me to do a pox party or to do a regular exposure? not really. They were saying "I went to a pox party and my kid got REALLY sick, but most the other kids were just mild." and "I did luck of the draw and it was  mild" and so on. Someone might have said "I would pox party all the way, no question!" But even that is just their *opinion*.

 

 

So, I feel like most of the UC board is not medical advice, really, but rather looking at what people's opinions and experiences around this information *is* and whether or not that information is relevant for them.

 

And as such, it's not really good or bad 'advice' so much as opinions and experiences and how people think about the factual information available to them. 

 

And from this, we expect that the person is going to continue on -- well beyond our opinions and experiences -- into more information and more self reflection and -- gasp -- truly make an independent decision.

 

post #37 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post





MittensKittens, I'm struggling to make sense of your statement.  

 

As I read it, what you are saying is that, while it's undesirable for posters to give bad advice on the UC forum, it's also undesirable for people to point out the problems with bad advice they encounter while reading the UC forum.  It looks to me like you are suggesting that it's up to the individual to evaluate advice offered, and that no other individuals should share the results of their evaluation.  Thus, if something bad happens because a mother followed bad advice she is personally responsible for the outcome, and also, no one should comment to caution mothers about potential adverse outcomes they they know or suspect might occur.  

 

I feel like I must be misinterpreting your statement.  Can you please clarify for me?  For example, what do you think should happen if someone posts something that is clearly seriously incorrect in the UC forum?


No, no, not at all. I am sorry if it comes across that way. I was trying to be diplomatic orngbiggrin.gif. Bad advice given on the UC board comes from both sides of the UC debate, but more frequently from the UC-ers themselves because the anti-crowd tends to just say "Hey, don't do it!". I don't think we should be aiming for a board where it is acceptable to say, for instance, "breech is just another variety of normal", when that implies there are no added risks with breech births. Because there are. Or that it is totally fine to give birth at home at 32 weeks (never heard this here, but well, it is bad advice). Likewise, it would be bad advice to suggest that a woman must get an ultrasound, or something similar. 

 

But... when we read on the internet that "breech is just a variation of normal, go do it!" we should obviously not take that advice at face value, and ought to research vaginal breech births in detail, and learn about their risks and how to possibly counter them. The woman who does independent research may, as I did, come to the conclusion that breech births actually carry a whole host of risks, and she does not want to UC a breech baby. OR she may decide to UC after looking at the risks in more detail. But IF she UCs solely because someone on MDC told her it was fine, that is not the responsibility of the person giving that advice, but the responsibility of the person who decided "learning about birth" ended with reading statements by random people online. It is just not a good idea to listen to one sentence by someone you don't know the first thing about, and I assume sane people know this. That is what I was trying to get across. 

 

Of course, I did not mean that when bad advice is giving nobody should point this out. That would be ridiculous. 

 

What do others think?

 

 

 


Edited by MittensKittens - 7/11/11 at 1:34am
post #38 of 51

But she UCs solely because someone on MDC told her it was fine, that is not the responsibility of the person giving that advice, but the responsibility of the person who decided "learning about birth" ended with reading statements by random people online. It is just not a good idea to listen to one sentence by someone you don't know the first thing about, and I assume sane people know this.

 

perhaps it is too much to assume! LOL

 

but, i tend to agree with you. if this is all of the person's learning, then, yeah, issues. but can i really be responsible for someone else's mental illness, insanity, or stupidity? 

post #39 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoebird View Post

But she UCs solely because someone on MDC told her it was fine, that is not the responsibility of the person giving that advice, but the responsibility of the person who decided "learning about birth" ended with reading statements by random people online. It is just not a good idea to listen to one sentence by someone you don't know the first thing about, and I assume sane people know this.

 

perhaps it is too much to assume! LOL

 

but, i tend to agree with you. if this is all of the person's learning, then, yeah, issues. but can i really be responsible for someone else's mental illness, insanity, or stupidity? 



IF, added. I was having my early morning coffee when I wrote that and just had to reply immediately, ha. Your last sentence is exactly my point. 

 

That does not, in any way, mean that if terrible advice is given, more sane or knowledgeable people should not point this out. This does happen, as well. 

post #40 of 51

wow, guess my experience here has only been positive. i had a up/uc.  never once did I feel judge or scared to share.  got a lot of great info and support on here.  I wasnt even aware that there was medical professionals trolling the board lol  Of course it's been over a year since I've had the baby so I suppose things could have changed on here since then.  i feel pretty bad that others have not had the same awesome experience on here that I have had,

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Unassisted Childbirth
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Unassisted Childbirth › UC Forum Concerns - Please read and share your thoughts