What Women Aren't Told About Childbirth - Page 4

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by applejuice

In Canada, (as I was told by American doctors) doctors are paid the same for a caesarean section as for a normal delivery because of the national healthcare system, yet their caesarean section rate is the same as the United States where doctors are paid more for doing a caesarean.

The infant mortality rate in Canada is lower than the U.S. yet the caesarean rate is the same. Does this extend to the maternal mortality and morbidity?

To me this means that doctors simply believe in what they do with no foundation in science. This makes their behavior and decision making regarding birth and interventions more of a religion than having any foundation in science.

I actually believe our c-section rate is slightly lower than the US. However, my OB during my last pregnancy was discussing "guidelines" for postdate babies. He told me that the official guidelines in Canada are to induce (or schedule section) at 41w, 3d and in the US, the guideline is to induce (or schedule) at 41w even. The comment he made after that was...a little scary, imo. He said, "the US has a more conservative approach (ie. more interventions : ) than we do, but we tend to follow their lead, so I expect our guideline on this will change in the next few years".

So...he was basically saying that we follow the US lead...even though you can find US OBs all over the place who state that they practice the way they do in order to protect themselves from lawsuits - a concern that doesn't apply to anywhere near the same extent in Canada. (I'd guess parents are less likely to sue for bad birth outcomes, because we do have universal health care, and they don't need a fat settlement to provide care to their special needs babies.)

To me, this is a scary state of affairs...our country is developing guidelines for obstetrical management based on the legal system in another country...:

Of course, this is all assuming that the OB I spoke to had a clue what he was talking about. In light of several other things he told me over that pregnancy, I do have my doubts about that!

[applejuice]

I agree with you, Storm Bride.

The thing that worries me about the US taking on a federal health care system is that our culture is so medical/patriarchal based that a national health care system would run all over any civil rights we have left to our bodily integrity, especially children and women in their childbearing years.

[sea_joy]

in WA

For what it's worth, my healthcare in WA (my MW, all my prenatals, optical, regular doctors visits, medicine, dental, short visit to the hospital for a ultrasound and an external version) were completely covered by the state insurance for pregnant women

Women in other places don't have it as lucky, and although the northwest is a place where it is not uncommon to have a MW, some people still thought that I was totally incompetent for making such a decision.

There is also something to be said for finding informtion that suits your opinions. I had a friend who thought that a hospital birth was more responsible and safe than an out of hospital one. Although she did not do research on out of hospital safety, she did a lot on emergency situations that would require emergency care, possibly ceseareans. Oddly enough, she ended up with a cesearean. I don't know if her intuition just told her to be in the hospital, or that her constant focusing on c-section s set her up for one.

My point is, there is so much info out there that you can find something to suit what you want.

Crystal

Oh yeah, I went off the state insurance after my baby was born because it dictated that in an emergency situation my childs major health decisions would be up to the state. Since I don't Vax or give antibiotics (unless is really is necissary) this worried me a lot.

[loraxc]

I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that sometimes midwife care is cheaper for the underinsured. I don't know if this is true if you are on Medicaid, but I think it's very true if you're in that segment of the US population that is not insured (or drastically underinsured) but does not qualify for Medicaid. The birth center I used for my first child served a lot of low-income clients for precisely that reason.

My birth center was also located in the "poor" part of town and their back-up OB was an African-American who served a lot of African-American women. I am pretty sure these were intentional decisions on their part to reach out to a lower-income community. ( I live in the deep South and the AA community here is disproportionately poor.)

Of course, that BC closed because they could not afford their malpractice insurance.

I've also heard of many midwives who use a sliding scale to determine their fees.

As for access to produce, while there is a real problem with this for some people, especially those in the inner city, it's not an issue everywhere. The nutrition/income issue is more complex than just access.

[applejuice]

Doesn't WIC provide coupons for food and for local farmers' markets? This is a way to get good nutritious food for pregnant, lactating and young mothers and children, often organic.

Free baby stuff here