UC Survey - Page 2

[Linnaea]

Originally Posted by dayiscoming2006 

I'd say the percentage doesn't sound so great. The other issue I see with recruitment though is that there are a few people that come on this board just because they don't like UC and would like to cause problems or go make fun of it on rant boards. I've seen a rant board before and it was sad.

 There are definitely quite a few people who are vehemently against UC.  They know they can't say much on this forum because it's for the purpose of supporting those who choose to give birth unassisted, but sometimes they try.  I'm sure even more lurk, foaming at the mouth, wishing they could "stop all this nonsense once and for all".  What better opportunity than an anonymous survey?? They can pretend that they had a UC, say that they're baby died and claim that this was because it was unassisted.  I don't buy it.  It's simply too easy for someone to lie, especially given how many people are passionately against it.  I don't think there is a way to get statistics that we know, beyond a doubt, are 100% true and accurate.  Here's another UC survey that was done, again, I don't know how accurate it is, but it shows that it's not necessarily all doom and gloom: http://www.unhinderedliving.com/stats.html

[Devaskyla]

I'm aware there are people who are vehemently against UC. I know there's a chance they could skew the results but I'm hoping *most* of them would prefer to have accurate stats because they believe that will give them ammunition and they'll be so bad, they won't need to mess with the results.

This isn't the only place I've posted the survey, most of the others are less open, and I know of several people who've shared it with friends IRL who had a UC.

[Linnaea]

I understand why you hope for that, if these people truly believe UC is dangerous then they won't feel the need to skew the results.  Unfortunately, I know how people are, especially on the internet where there's so much anonymity and people being aholes that I wouldn't put it past them to want to tamper with the results.  It's not even a matter of them believing that UC statistics will speak for itself to show how dangerous it is, it's simply a matter of people wanting to nip things in the bud, so to speak.  Why wait to see if the stats will be what they imagine they will be when it's so easy to have some fun and ensure the results?  I guess we'll never know, that's the problem with these types of surveys.  That's good that people have shared it with others who've had a UC, that certainly helps with its credibility.  And I'm not saying that complications and deaths don't occur in a UC, but from the results you've gotten so far, you've either gotten a bad batch, so to speak, or there's some tainting going on.  Maybe a bit of both.  It makes me scratch my head, though, considering the large number of UCs I've read about that turned out beautifully.  Or even those that weren't a successful UC, still turned out good for the mother and baby.  Also, the survey I linked to above shows that out of the 264 who responded, none of the babies died nor did any of them need to be transferred to the hospital.  The fact that there have been 12 deaths out of 175 reported in your survey with 80% the culprit being the birth was unassisted, definitely seems fishy to me.  That is way out of the norm compared to the survey I mentioned plus all the wonderful stories I've read.

[L.A.mama]

I had similar thoughts Linnaea and appreciate coming back to see someone has already given voice to them. You make an excellent point in comparing the surveys.

It would be great if it could be verified that all of those participating truly had family or solo births unattended by professionals.

[BlessedJess]

I agree, I'm very skeptical about the high number of bad births as well. I've met a lot of women online who've had UC births and despite knowing one who had a SIDS baby die within the first month (a very rare event itself, not related to place of birth, so I must have run into plenty of variations to have met her) still I have not met a mother who has actually lost her baby to UC birth itself yet. I even met one mom who had twins UC, with one being a stillborn, passing more than a month before birth. (again, obviously one of those rare events not related to place of birth)

I really have to wonder where all these bad births are coming from and why the moms aren't talking more in forums and on the blogosphere or even in the news if they are real. I mean, if they can take the time to fill out a survey... it really begs the question. If they actually are reading here on a UC board, nothing prevents them from talking to other UC moms on forums they were frequenting before and why wouldn't they?

I can't imagine them having a bad birth and not coming back to tell their friends. There are lots of boards filled with UC moms who will start threads, not only during pregnancy but also during labor and shortly after the birth with announcements and they have friends they talk to over the phone on these boards who personally know them and everything. Pictures, everything. Yet despite these hundreds of active participants, time and again they either come back and say they transferred or had their baby UC at home as planned. I'm not seeing them coming back in tears, or their spouses and children who often post for them postpartum, crying about a birth loss. Sometimes they come back crying they wish they hadn't transferred or wish they had used a midwife so they wouldn't have been so quick to panic and use the hospital but I've not seen a friend on the various boards reporting an actual death.
 

[Linnaea]

Originally Posted by BlessedJess 

Yet despite these hundreds of active participants, time and again they either come back and say they transferred or had their baby UC at home as planned. I'm not seeing them coming back in tears, or their spouses and children who often post for them postpartum, crying about a birth loss. Sometimes they come back crying they wish they hadn't transferred or wish they had used a midwife so they wouldn't have been so quick to panic and use the hospital but I've not seen a friend on the various boards reporting an actual death.

 I agree with everything you said, blessedjess, but I thought I'd highlight these last few sentences because they really hit at the core of the matter, imo.  The worst case scenario in hundreds of these UCs has been transferring to a hospital, usually due to exhaustion and/or fear.  This is a new account for me, but I've been around since 2006 on this UC board.  I have yet to see any mother come back and say that her baby died.  And, like Jess said, they almost always come back to let us know what happened (or someone they trust comes back and lets us know).  I would have noticed if there had been a death, either of the mother or the baby, since that's obviously going to stand out.  So the results of the survey really are fishy and I wish that if some or all of these deaths really did happen, these women would actually speak up about them.  

[Devaskyla]

Somehow my entire post vanished, so this will be a lot shorter/less detailed.

There have been deaths and some of the mothers have come back and posted about them. Some of those threads have been deleted.

I found this post http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1088000/uc-and-death-sensitive-topic#post_13808509 and this one

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/251972/my-baby-died-at-my-uc of UC deaths.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that women who have a baby die are less likely to post about it, but might be a lot more willing to take an anonymous survey.

Way back in 2008, a poster worked out the stats for this board based on  births posted in the roll call http://www.mothering.com/community/t/980529/our-uc-stats

These are now available in the Wiki

http://www.mothering.com/community/a/u-c-roll-call

Feel free to go add your own info to it. I would love if everyone who has births on the roll call took my survey, it would mean a lot more responses for better stats, since there were over 400 births.

I haven't seen any evidence of anyone trying to affect the stats in an obvious way, but I don't want to give anyone ideas.

For the record, of the ones with details,  2 of the 3 are quite probable & result in deaths in hospital. The other I need to read the whole survey instead of just the comment.

And, just to clarify, I didn't say that 80% of the deaths/injury were thought by the respondent to be caused by UC, but 80% of the baby complications. Some of those are minor or could have been major but ended up fine.

[Linnaea]

I realized something a little while after I wrote my last comment, but I was unable to come back and edit it until now.  I remembered a very small handful of deaths mentioned between 2006 and now, no more than 4.  For some reason I didn't recall them until after I left my comment.  If I recall correctly, the reasons for the deaths had mostly to do with not noticing signs of distress that should have resulted in a hospital transfer.   After reading Devaskyla's latest comment, my memory seems to have coincided with what she has found in the forum.  I don't know if I read the threads that were deleted or not, but I do know there's been 3 or 4 active threads in which a baby died during a UC.  Thank you for also pointing this out, Devaskyla.  I knew that it was a small number, which is probably why I didn't remember them until after I commented.  It looks like the UC stats thread in 2008 coincides with what I remember as well.  These figures don't match what's being seen in this latest survey, not even close.  4 vs. 12 is a big difference, especially because this survey is only looking at 175 births, not the 485 births that the 2008 stats included.  I'm still wondering why the large number, if that is real and not tampered with whatsoever then why aren't we hearing about it?  It might be because, overall, women who UC don't feel very comfortable sharing about themselves due to the societal stigma, ESPECIALLY if their baby happened to die during the UC.  Also, women who UC are often private people as it is, so they probably don't feel comfortable sharing anything private on a forum.  This would explain why they're only comfortable sharing it anonymously in a survey.  I'm trying to give the survey the benefit of the doubt, but there's still the real possibility that the results have been tampered with which is a shame. I tend to lean more towards the stats in the 2008 thread as being the most legit since they were taken from birth stories and roll call, not surveys.  It's easy to take 2 minutes to complete an anonymous survey, it's not as simple and easy to write a birth story or be an active member of a forum.  

[savithny]

I remember reading one UC birth/death story here, about a footling breech.  It was posted very early in the morning by someone who had been regular poster since before her pregnancy (years?).  For some reason, it was deleted within a few hours.    The poster posted a few times again a few months later but never mentioned her loss again.  

It's possible that some people with losses are uncomfortable posting the stories here, either because they're afraid the anti-UC lurkers will  use their story as an object lesson -- or because they're afraid to tell the story to UC supporters who truly believe that bad things only happen in UC if mom doesn't have enough positive thoughts.  I've seen birth stories be dissected for all the things Mom could have and should have done differently; if a story ends in tragedy, it may be that Mom doesn't want to open herself up to that.

Someone who has been posting about planning a UC and has a bad outcome is very much stuck between a rock and a hard place as far as revealing that fact here.

[Devaskyla]

bumping for those who've had their babies

[phathui5]

The down side to you not asking for contact information is that you can't do followup research on reported complications.

[onyxravnos]

I came back and took it again as in oct I had my 2cd UC another perfect birth

[onyxravnos]

Double post

[onyxravnos]

Triple post

[BlessedJess]

"I realized something a little while after I wrote my last comment, but I was unable to come back and edit it until now.  I remembered a very small handful of deaths mentioned between 2006 and now, no more than 4."

I hear what you are saying. We are not seeing a 10% death rate, but not a 0% death rate either. And like you said, a lot of the time it was due to a serious complication. Based on what you said it would be around 1% which is much like the 0.7% rate of hospital deaths. Good health is critical as well as awareness and preparedness.

I do hope that all potential UC moms understand that they are taking responsibility for their births. People will likely see them as somehow responsible for the deaths, even though doctors are seen as having "done all they could" (which might include doing things that worsened the outcome!)

And speaking of the footling loss, vaginal births with breeches can be safe. I myself just had a complete breech. a 3.5lb 36 weeker in water with no complications or trouble breastfeeding. I wish the survey included a question about what complications the moms avoided by avoiding the hospitals.

Babies die before during and after birth.

Those wish to manipulate surveys to bully women out of UC and homebirth should consider what women are using their God-given liberty to avoid -

Birthrape/medical abuse

hospitalization or extended hospitalization beyond necessary

genital mutilation

major abdominal surgery

humiliation

antibiotic resistant bacteria

flesh eating bacteria

faulty drug testing

meddling in the natural family bonding process

increased morbidity

premature cord clamping

excess pain

stress

PTSD

drugs

interruption of the natural birth process, which is a psychological process of transformation for all involved

If people want to trample on womens' ability to choose what birth setting they choose or scare them off because of the responsibility involved, they should consider what women would lose. Less birth options mean more control for the medical teams involved in hospital births, so it affects women everywhere when women are frightened away from UC and homebirth. Do we want birth to serve hospitals or mothers and children?

[amberskyfire]

I think that a better way to do the research would be like the roll call that was done before, have women sign up for the study during their pregnancies, follow with their contact information and speak with them over the phone about their actual experience. This would give you a much better way to get information because you would see the actual number of fetal deaths instead of just the number of the women who are willing to post about it. You would also see actual maternal deaths as, sadly, a mother who has died is unable to hear about or fill out a survey. It would also limit incomplete surveys because the person taking down the information can ask for clarification.

For something like this, a general UC survey roll call could go out where women could contact an email address, fill out a questionnaire and then get a followup phone call from the surveyor. It's not perfect, but it would limit a lot of the variables that could go wrong in this type of a study.
 

[A2JC4life]

Done - x3!  I specified no children present at my births, 'though there were children IN THE HOUSE at the last two, because they were not in the room.

[A2JC4life]

Does anyone know what the neonatal mortality rate is in the US, overall?  (I've tried to find it, but my computer is being slow and not cooperating.)
 

[amberskyfire]

6.81 per 1000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
 

[A2JC4life]

Originally Posted by amberskyfire 

6.81 per 1000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate
 

Thanks!  Just thought it would be good to have numbers to compare.  We don't necessarily have to expect a certain type of birth decision to have BETTER outcomes than everything else ('though that's certainly preferable if possible!), but we do want it to at least not be WORSE.