PP your post is great, right I get that...but statistically c section rates are higher at certain times (change of shift, when it's getting late especially...OB just wants to go home already?) and certain days of the week (Friday, heck the weekend is starting perfect time to cut you open so I can go enjoy it!) .
Cite?
PP your post is great, right I get that...but statistically c section rates are higher at certain times (change of shift, when it's getting late especially...OB just wants to go home already?) and certain days of the week (Friday, heck the weekend is starting perfect time to cut you open so I can go enjoy it!) I would not call that preventative and/or life saving...
Cite? (apologies in advance for doubleposting)
Cite?
Well I'm not going to spend hours researching it b/c I have a 2 y/o at home with me maybe someone else has something. I have heard it often though and it was the the documentary "The business of being born". A quick google showed a lot of articles that support the whole "afraid of legal issues" argument though. Here is one I liked http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/health/24birth.html
On another note have you seen this? http://skepticalob.blogspot.com/2011/09/pathetic-attention-whoring-of-homebirth.html SERIOUSLY how can you say this woman is credible in the least?
I admire the Business of Being Born for bringing up a lot of issues about the way women are treated in hospitals and shining a light on some of the stupider practices in OB. I also think it has played a part in pushing a lot of hospitals to be more natural birth friendly, which is great. The hospital where I will birth is very friendly to natural birth, avoiding separation of mom and baby, and breastfeeding. I feel lucky and grateful that I have the choice to have that kind of care AND the operating room down the hallway and level III NICU one floor away.
However, there is a lot about the Business of Being Born that is frustrating to me both as a feminist and as someone who values factual information and I don't think it is great as a sole source of information about any one topic.
Quote:
SERIOUSLY how can you say this woman is credible in the least?
Again, people are getting caught on the tone of her argument rather than the content of it (her argument as expressed in the entire blog, not solely in one post). You could argue she is unnecessarily harsh, unkind, or whatnot. But I fail to see how it impeaches her credibility. The manner in which she expresses herself has nothing to do with the validity of her points--only with how likely other people are to listen.
She called them WHORES. Seriously birth advocates, educated, well-meaning women...One of those women is in a FB group with me and it's just mean and sad. This woman is NOT a baby killer...
W/e give her all the credit you want...when 1 out of 3 women are getting cut open I'd rather take my chances at home.
I
Doctors aren't the only people who have this background. But I think it's safe to say that a lot of laypeople who say they "did research" do not have the necessary background, and thus their interpretations are suspect... which was basically the point of my post.
I don't think that's "safe to say" at all. The assumption that "laypeople" lack the competence to do their own research is an unsubstantiated and dangerously patronizing generalization. Midwives supposedly attract a highly educated clientele, women with either graduate education or at least a helluva lot of brains. You may be surprised just how competent a lot of these women can be.
But if you insist, Erigeron, that we lowly laypeople defer to physicians on these topics, I will happily do so....beginning with Drs. Marsden Wagner, Stuart Fischbein, Henry Dorn, William Sears,
Simone Buitendijk, Elizabeth Allemann..... 
I didn't insist on any such thing. You're putting words in my mouth.
My intent was not to put words in your mouth, and I apologize if that didn't come across clearly. Respectfully, however, my point is that after weighing the evidence, as they hopefully have, different doctors come to different conclusions. And I find the conclusions of the aforementioned individuals a lot more compelling than the creative sophistry and misogynistic drivel of who-know-who's blog.
I do, however, think that Dr. Amy cherry-picks her articles to some degree. I wasn't a fan of, for instance, her conclusion on EFM either. She certainly has her blind spots and I don't take her opinion, or that of any doctor, as gospel. But sometimes it's nice to read something written by somebody who actually *understands* that quoting the abstract as if it proves anything, saying "X hasn't been proven safe", calling obstetricians "surgeons", and other such behaviors that drive me batty, are Bad Science.
I'm glad to hear that you are level-headed enough not to take everything that one person says at face value. This is the kind of critical thinking that got me into the out-of-hospital birthing center in the first place. 
I agree that it is intellectually irresponsible to read an abstract, jump with glee that it confirms your bias, and then cite it as see-told-ya-so "evidence."
And on a final note, I'm sorry if it drives you "batty" to hear this fact, but obstetricians ARE surgical specialists as defined by the American College of Surgeons.
i dont care how many facts you present, if you are calling people names and being extremely patronizing, you dont deserve to have your arguement heard. At least not by me, I can see the same arguements with people who are actually mature enough to respect other people.
Quote:
Again, people are getting caught on the tone of her argument rather than the content of it (her argument as expressed in the entire blog, not solely in one post). You could argue she is unnecessarily harsh, unkind, or whatnot. But I fail to see how it impeaches her credibility. The manner in which she expresses herself has nothing to do with the validity of her points--only with how likely other people are to listen.
i dont care how many facts you present, if you are calling people names and being extremely patronizing, you dont deserve to have your arguement heard. At least not by me, I can see the same arguements with people who are actually mature enough to respect other people.
See, I really don't understand this attitude. She doesn't deserve to have her argument heard? I don't get that. If someone is presenting FACTS, as you said, (and I'm not speaking specifically of Dr. Amy, here, but more generally; I know lots of people take issue with what she's stating. Let's say information, maybe?) that could affect the wellbeing of me and my child, then I will listen regardless of tone. And if I have doubts about this person's credibility, then I will investigate it until I've determined whether she's worth listening to. But to instantly dismiss her and her message because of the delivery? I really don't understand that. To me, it's not about whether SHE deserves to have her argument heard, but rather that my child and I DESERVE to have ALL the information necessary to make the best choice possible.
Does this seriously happen here? My the poster or the mods? That seems really bad.
I do realize that this may get be disciplined or what have you, but open your eyes, ladies. They ain't all bad. The reason the post initially referenced is upsetting is because it is very, very true. How many completely unsuitable homebirth candidates are choosing to put their trust, and their babies' lives, into the hands of lay practitioners that have no professional accountability? How many posts start exactly like that? Sometimes, they end up with a dead baby... but that quickly gets sanitized, here at MDC. For every homebirth death that remains here, there was another removed.
I call BULL! I have definitely read stories on here from babies dying, hospital and home birth losses, THERE IS EVEN A FORUM FOR GRIEVING THE LOSS. I have even read a few about the MW or OB screwing up and legal action being taken...Some time ago they did not have that forum and people didn't really talk about it here and I'm not 100% sure if any members birth stories were deleted before.
There was even a thread about bad home birth experiences, not long ago.
Does this seriously happen here? My the poster or the mods? That seems really bad.
I find it interesting that everyone is so concerned with the home birth death rate when the (99%?hospital) maternal death rate is ridiculous for this nice and developed country. We are number 41 on the ranking of countries....THAT IS BAD. http://www.seattlepi.com/national/article/U-S-ranks-41st-in-maternal-mortality-1252472.php
I find it interesting that everyone is so concerned with the home birth death rate when the (99%?hospital) maternal death rate is ridiculous for this nice and developed country. We are number 41 on the ranking of countries....THAT IS BAD. http://www.seattlepi.com/national/article/U-S-ranks-41st-in-maternal-mortality-1252472.php
What is bad is the fact that there are a lot of factors playing into that number: How each country records maternal deaths (did the mother die DURING childbirth or a few days after? If she dies a week later from an infection, it may count as a maternal death here where it would be considered unrelated elsewhere). Over what period of time have these numbers been gathered? What the reasons for death are. The article gives a nice summary of some reasons, it looks like the top reason is preeclampsia. OK, so preeclampsia is serious stuff. There are more cases of preeclampsia in the United States than there are in (it looks like the article is trying to say...) any other developed nation. The number one risk factor for preeclampsia is also something the US is number one at: obesity. More obese women getting pregnant=more preeclampsia=more maternal death. This has little to do with the hospitals, though it is frustrating that it seems like not much can be done for these women even in 2011.
Regarding the below post, I have seen Business of Being Born. It's awfully melodramatic in my opinion, and tries to be taken seriously by tugging on the emotions of pregnant women. What makes a talk show host a credible source of information? This is what really gets me...Ricki Lake is seen as credible because she's all 'kumbaya' as she is spewing distorted truths and flat-out lies. But Dr Amy is (ok, WAS) a medical professional, proves her points with facts and science, but since she's a bitch she CAN'T be credible! To touch on the part about doctors being "afraid of legal issues" argument: Would you not be afraid of legal issues if you had the means to save a baby's life and didn't; just for the sake of giving a mother 'the birth experience she wanted?
Quote:
Well I'm not going to spend hours researching it b/c I have a 2 y/o at home with me maybe someone else has something. I have heard it often though and it was the the documentary "The business of being born". A quick google showed a lot of articles that support the whole "afraid of legal issues" argument though. Here is one I liked http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/24/health/24birth.html
Because giving her my attention lends her credibility, and giving her credibility is giving all of her tirades and nonesense credibility. She brings up issues that people should be aware of, but she also presents biased facts and a degrading attitude toward people who disagree with her. I can attain the same information in other places that actually respect people and their opinions, so why would I go to her? I can make the best choice possible for me and any children I would be conceiving by researching those who actually seem to care about the whole thing rather then caring about arguing and bullying people.
See, I really don't understand this attitude. She doesn't deserve to have her argument heard? I don't get that. If someone is presenting FACTS, as you said, (and I'm not speaking specifically of Dr. Amy, here, but more generally; I know lots of people take issue with what she's stating. Let's say information, maybe?) that could affect the wellbeing of me and my child, then I will listen regardless of tone. And if I have doubts about this person's credibility, then I will investigate it until I've determined whether she's worth listening to. But to instantly dismiss her and her message because of the delivery? I really don't understand that. To me, it's not about whether SHE deserves to have her argument heard, but rather that my child and I DESERVE to have ALL the information necessary to make the best choice possible.
Because giving her my attention lends her credibility, and giving her credibility is giving all of her tirades and nonesense credibility. She brings up issues that people should be aware of, but she also presents biased facts and a degrading attitude toward people who disagree with her. I can attain the same information in other places that actually respect people and their opinions, so why would I go to her? I can make the best choice possible for me and any children I would be conceiving by researching those who actually seem to care about the whole thing rather then caring about arguing and bullying people.
Nope, I still don't get it. How does reading her site with a critical eye lend her credibility? That makes no sense to me at all. Believe me, I don't care in the least if you read her site or not, and I understand taking offense at her tone, I just don't understand the instant dismissal of what she says as "nonsense" because you don't like the way she says it. Whatever, we may just have to agree to disagree on this one.
Follow Mothering