|all the messing with the mom's tender tissues, the panic around the next contraction after the head (yes, sometimes it takes 'that long', though it's not long at all, really - the baby is still getting O2 from the cord, remember!) and the suctioning kills me.
It is not my impression that there is any panic at this point. The midwife seems calm to me and is telling the mother that they have to wait for the next contraction before she should start pushing again.
I also do not understand what the suctioning is about but we do not know what has happened earlier in the birth. Maybe there was meconium in the amniotic fluid and they want to make sure baby doesnt breathe it in?
Since she seems to have an internal monitor as well as an external one I assume that there has been some reason for this (in Denmark it is not my experience that they will use the internal monitor unless they think there is a good reason) and that reason would most likely be meconium or dropping heartrate.
My first birth was in hospital and even though the circumstances were a bit different from this birth then I was in the same position (on my back but half upright) and it was not uncomfortable. My labor had been around 50 hours and I was so exhausted that I didnt feel like being on all fours. Also in this position they held a mirror for me and I could see everything - something I would not have been able to do on all fours. I was not in a condition where squatting could even be considered.
Even though i was educated about birth at the time (though not as I am now) I took comfort in getting advice from the midwife during pushing and crowning.
I must admit I feel there is a bit of birth snobbery around - nothing big - just tiny remarks here and there "belittleing" (is that a word) the experience of a hospital birthing unexperienced mom in comparison to a solo waterbirth (by a midwife even). Tiny remarks that honor one birth to be "better" - a "quality" birth whereas the other mother is thought to be some kind of "victim" who undergoes a hospital delivery. It is (by some) automatically assumed that one birthexperience is better - but the truth is that noone here can really know can they?
It may be that one looks more graceful than the other - but honestly who cares about looking graceful while giving birth. I sure as **** dont - and I dont necessarily think it makes for a better birthexperience either..
I personally have both a marathon hospitalbirth ending in epidural, pitocin and an "on the back" delivery - as well as an almost completely solo homebirth where the MW arrived as my daughter was crowning, I was kneeling and delivered the head on my own - the MW never even touched my perineum till after birth. All she did was catch the baby and hand her directly to me.
Was my one birth "better" than the other? I know for sure that I had problems bonding with my daughter because her birth had been so fast - whereas my first birth had been slower and I had found it easier to adjust to being a new mom from being pregnant. I do not think my one experience was "better" than the other. Just different. Even if one was (seen from the outside) a "perfect" homebirth and the other a hospital birth with the loads of intervention.