or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Homebirth › This Dr. Amy Tuteur woman drives me crazy.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

This Dr. Amy Tuteur woman drives me crazy. - Page 8  

post #141 of 168

Women have a right to make their own risk assessments and valuations, but they also have the right to know what and how much they are risking.


I always thought I couldn't handle more trauma in my life, that I was already broken by my experiences, and then my baby died (a birth injury, insufficient interventions were available to help her in the situation we found ourselves) and I managed to not lay down and die.  Not everyone feels this way but for me a living breathing mother and baby is the bottom line.  


Yes, caregivers must be compassionate and respectful when they communicate risk and they should not assault their patients.  


But the bottom line for me (yes I understand not everyone feels this way & they have a right to a different valuation) is always going to be coming out alive.  That is what I care about when it comes to my "birth experience."  I can heal from my experiences but I can't heal dead; my daughter is not coming back to life.  And I reject the idea that the availability of interventions and skilled providers increases the risk of death because there is no proof that is true.  

post #142 of 168
I'm sorry for your loss.

I think a live baby is the bottom line for everyone. I can't imagine there is anyone who would let a birth "experience" trump that. If we all had a crystal ball we'd make the choices that had the best objective outcomes.
post #143 of 168
I just want to clarify that I wasn't literally strapped to the bed. What happened is I asked for food, they said no, I explained that I was edu hingry as it had already been about 30 hours since my last meal, they said no food until after baby is born. I cried and begged for food, they continued to refuse. I then stated that I was going to leave to go feed myself, they said i couldn't do that. I then asked them to remove all the tubes that went into body, they indicated not until after baby is born. If it was just an iv in my wrist I would have taken it out myself but there was a direct line into my spinal cord from the epidural rant I could neither reach nor remove safely. So from that moment on I felt like a prisoner shackled to the bed, but my shackles were the tubes.

As for all the talk about informed consent, I think that there needs to be some recognition that there's a difference between providing information so a woman can perform her own risk assessment versus coercion. Also, in my case I was only ever informed of risks associated with not following advice (other than the epidural which I had to sign a separate consent form for). I was not told of a single risk associated with induction, and the nurse told me that there were no risks to a c-section (and then got really mad when I refused to believe her). So informed consent needs to be respectful and it needs to include an awareness that some women may prefer a riskier path or one that is not advised, otherwise what's the point? Informed consent also need to happen even if there's a good chance that the information will change a persons mind - like had i know the risks of induction I would never have agreed.

Finally, it is a fact that going to the hositpal increaes the risks of various interventions and that these interventions carry risks including the risk of death for both mother and baby. Babies die from induction, it happens. Mothers and babies die from c-sections. I know a woman whose baby was dead for 4 minutes because the same horrible hositpal in my area accidentally gave her a dose of med that was 400x the max limit for humans. These things do happen.

And to suggest to a woman that she should knowingly put herself in a situation where she is likely to be abused and assaulted because a small decrease in absolute risk of death is terribly offensive and decidedly anti-feminist.

I cannot go back to that hositpals (unless
There's a medical reason to, which pregnancy in itself isn't), I will not condone those kinds of things nor will I say "it's all for the greater good" and collude with that form of institutional violence against women.

Also, there are lots of stories like mine online. Obviously if you are "good" and just say yes to everything then this will never come up for you, which is how some women deal with it. But try saying no or talking to someone who dared to question.
post #144 of 168

Yes, obviously we'd all choose to have living babies.  


We don't have control over the world, but we do have the power to make some choices.  There is a wide wide world of difference between making a decision based on a faulty understanding of risk and of what can be done to mitigate those risks and making a decision that takes all the information into account.   We're not seriously going to have the discussion that all actions carry equal risk (no) and therefore no choices really matter, are we?

post #145 of 168

Also, I'm not saying other women should make the same choices or have the same values I do.  I'm saying that the bottom line looks different for me and that's not anti-feminist.  If life worked that way, I would relive every moment of abuse I have ever experienced in order to have my living child.  I have already experienced it once and survived it.  But life doesn't work that way.  No one gets to bargain like that.  Viola, I have not suggested that you turn yourself over to be abused. You and I have different experiences and different values.  I have no doubt you love your kids as much as I do.  But not everyone who feels differently than you do is suggesting you need to do differently.

post #146 of 168
I just wanted to lend another voice to the idea that safety for mom and baby is often a package deal.

I'm not arguing that people shouldn't have accurate information. Really. I'm just saying that relating that information, whatever it is, to a specific person, is more than just opening up a page of data and finding the answer.
post #147 of 168
Thank you cyclamen, i think our different assessments of acceptable risks are case in point for why it's so important to allow women to choose for themselves even if they choose differently than us.

And for those who are unaware of the extent of the problem, Amnesty International did a very thorough report:

post #148 of 168
And also cyclamen, I just want to say how sad I am for your loss. There is nothing worse in the world than loosing a child, not any kind of abuse or anything. I am quite certain that if I had the same experience as you I too would need to be in a hospital. I can't accept that you did anything wrong by choosing homebirth, even of there was a marginal increase in absolute risk. With birth there truly are no risk free options. It is not your fault.
post #149 of 168
Originally Posted by salr View Post

I didn't say that a supporter would not talk about negatives.


I know. I was responding to something Viola said (post #110).

post #150 of 168

I didn't choose a home birth; I had one by accident.  But even though I knew babies could die as a result of the process of birth going awry, I didn't believe that birth was really dangerous.  One of my last coherent thoughts during her birth was, "She's going to die" (this wasn't instinct, I noticed that something specific was wrong) and then "no, babies don't actually die like this."  Then she came out floppy and pale.  She would have had a very good shot at life and neurological wholeness with the right interventions during her birth.  She had amazing high tech interventions after her birth, but like they say, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.


Legally women are allowed to chose differently and I will always 100% support that.  But again, I don't see a lot of evidence that access to care and interventions increases women's risk.  Around the world we know that simple prenatal screenings that divert higher risk women to higher levels of care do much to improve infant and maternal health.


The amnesty document is about increasing disenfranchised women's access to care.  It is about increasing women's access to prenatal and maternity care, making it more affordable.  First story is about a woman who needed MORE not LESS post-surgical care.  The hospital made systemic changes in response to her death; this doesn't bring her back, but it is the only correct response to a death.  Other places there are clinicians talking about how women with toxemia are dying for lack of simple screening.  None of this is an argument for fewer interventions but rather more, widespread, more available, cheaper.

post #151 of 168
The only reason the woman in the first story needed more care was because her induction was killing her (and did ultimately cause her demise). The woman in the second story was a white middle class woman who died due to complications from a c-section.

Bottom line is that there are no risk free options with birth.

Again, I would not choose to put myself at risk of being abused and assaulted because of a small decrease in absolute risk. This is consistent with my behaviour throughout pregnancy where I opt to take on some known risks every day by driving a car, walking outside on the ice, and so on. It's absolutely fine with me of other women would choose differently. It all comes down to respecting women's choices even if they're different than the ones we would make.

Also, the amnesty report talks a lot about race but that shouldn't limit it's value. The findings should be alaming regardless of whether one is white/middle class or racialized and poor.
post #152 of 168

There are questions about changes in the reporting of maternal mortality. 


You keep talking about what you would choose. That's fine. But you don't know what other people would choose, and they have the right to make an informed decision. "Things happen in the hospital too" is meaningless. The statistics acknowledge that there is no perfect solution. What they say is that these things happen less often, and it includes the complications from interventions that are often pointed out. 

What MANA has tried to do with this report, however, is highlight the findings that are favorable (lower rates of C-section, although I find the comparison to the national rate to be apples and oranges) and not the unfavorable (death). That's not acceptable. 

post #153 of 168
But this thread isn't about the mana stats any more than its about informed choice.

What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

I'm more interested in talking about consent and the appalling treatment of women in hositpals.

Either way I'm unsubscribing again because I don't think this thread is healthy for a 37w pregnant person.

I'd really like a place where women who are choosing homebirth can get unconditional support from other home birthers. Women need information but they also need support.

I someone knows about such a place please pm me? I'd like to be able to talk with other like minded women about the positive and exciting aspects of preparing for a hb.
post #154 of 168

This thread is all over the place.  I think in many ways most of us agree on the core things: women should be treated with respect, women have a right to make health care decisions for themselves, and mothers don't make birth choices they believe would put themselves or their kids in harms' way for the sake of experience.   But people do disagree about what they believe is risky, which is why we have such an array of decision making around birth.


The main disagreement seems to be whether or not talking about risk as something that can, in fact, be measured objectively is shaming or pressuring women.  


Dr. Amy is strident and irritating.  Sometimes the way she talks about moms who've lost babies bothers me and I don't think she necessarily understands why women make the choices they do. But the mana stats do seem to give us some information about how to improve home birth and make it safer.  I think that is worth talking about and not handwaving away with "but birth is risky no matter where you do it."  


Anyhow, good luck.

post #155 of 168

OK, I have edited the posts that directly link to the blog of the person in title. If you want to talk about the MANA stats, please start a new thread.

I want to remind members of this part of the general conduct part of the User Agreement 

With that in mind, we expect our members to keep conversations civil and on topic, and uphold the integrity and diversity of the community. We value the honest and supportive exchange of ideas and opinions, and we ask that members avoid negative characterizations and generalizations about others. Examples and calm explanation are more useful than condemnation of ideas that differ from Mothering's philosophies.


and this part of the Birth and Beyond forums guidelines

 The Birth and Beyond boards are for discussion and respectful requests for information, personal experiences and evidence-based research to help mothers learn about natural birth, minimizing intervention and navigating the postpartum period.
post #156 of 168
As a (non-healthcare) licensed professional, I find the argument about Dr. Amy letting her license lapse unconvincing. Licenses (and the ongoing educational requirements associated with them) can be expensive and time-consuming to maintain.

Judy, if you retired next year and let your license lapse would that immediately invalidate your degrees, your research and your experiences/training?

Also you assume that she retired at the same time she let her license lapse. Isn't it possible that she stopped practicing earlier and maintained her license for a while in case she missed practicing too much and then finally let it lapse when she decided to stay home permanently?
post #157 of 168
post #158 of 168

She's been blogging for nearly 8 years and she's always done so under her real name. She wrote a book before that. If she had never been board certified or worked as an OB, don't you think someone would have exposed her already? People have been digging for dirt on her for years and they haven't found anything convincing yet. 

This is up there with "She's a paid shill for ACOG."


Her husband is a lawyer, and I believe quite a successful one. She has 4 kids. She wouldn't be the first woman to quit working under those circumstances. 

post #159 of 168
I'm pretty sure she commented once about the difficulties of having a reliable part time schedule while working in OB, and the fild is known for being a thing where you have to drop everything at unpredictable times when paged. You cannot reliably make after schoolpickups while being a patient care physician even part time.

So I don't find that suspicious. I'm on my phone at the moment and can't check, but would her licensure info include her board certifications? Her credentials should be pretty checkable.

I've sometimes found Dr Amy strident and abrasive, and I sometimes think her conversational strategies backfire, but I've found her data generally good, to the extent that I can check it. She makes brash and contentious statements, but not hyperbolic ones.
post #160 of 168
Didn't she appear in an article on time.com? While I don't think the journalistic profession is what it was once, I can't believe that if there was something problematic with her qualifications that Time (or one of the other media outlets that have interviewed her) wouldn't have found SOMETHING by now.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Homebirth
This thread is locked  
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Birth and Beyond › Homebirth › This Dr. Amy Tuteur woman drives me crazy.