I don't know where this should go but it just pissed me off!

[Sara Badger]

I'm beyond words for this! The last sentence just sickens me!
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...731904,00.html

[Collinsky]

Originally Posted by Sara Badger

I'm beyond words for this! The last sentence just sickens me!
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...731904,00.html

So annoying. I agree that women shouldn't feel defensive about their choices, and that women should have any and all choices available to them. But the article is so one-sided seeming, minimizing the risks of Cesarean whle focusing on the risks of vag birth. There's a reason that the maternal mortality rate in the US is going up and up... and it's not because of vaginal birth.

Women should have all the facts, so that they can make a really truly informed decision that meets their physical, emotional, and spiritual needs (and their baby's)... and glossing over the risks of abdominal surgery isn't all that upfront. And it would help if drs didn't have a vested interest in promoting the "safety and ease" of C-sections!!

[barefoot mama]

. In an increasingly technological and medicalized society, maybe even childbirth is losing some of its magic and becoming less about the miracle of life and more about simply getting a baby out safely and without incident.

This is one of the saddest things I have ever read.

[zoebird]

the assumption in that quote, Jen, is amazing!

The assumption is that medical methods are there to get the baby out safely without incident, and yet interventions cause incidents and are not necessarily getting the baby out safely.

what an assumption!

[wombjuice]

Originally Posted by barefoot mama

This is one of the saddest things I have ever read.

Me too. :

[CherryBomb]

I feel a lot of pity for that woman, really. So terrified of her own body, you know?

[kalisage]

that was just.... horrible. I do think women should have every right to make their choices, but last I checked when you stub your toe you don't just cut off your foot to avoid the pain

[laoxinat]

This reminds me of one of the things Michel Odent said in the Business of Being Born- that medicalized birth interferes in bonding and therefore, affects ALL of us. Mamas who don't get that 'after birth' rush have a harder time bonding, and sometimes never do. In my own small sample of two, this was exactly my experience. DS - hospital birth, no rush of oxytocin, poor bonding and lots of heartache. DD - homebirthed, awesome birth high, bonded deeply, we get along great. It is a societal issue. I would be most interested in seeing stats to get a feel for how birth intervention correlates with bonding issues and problems later in baby's life.

[logcabinmomma]

So sad. My DH works in the health insurance industry and he'll find this fascinating. Add to the numbers of people who are having planned inductions, and it seems no one is having a "normal" birth anymore. Someone mentioned in passing the other day not to schedule anything for Wednesday, that his wife was having a baby that day, but Tuesday would be fine for the meeting... DH was taken aback! Poor guy's not used to birth being fooled around with! Ick.

-Kristi

[Joezmom]

Originally Posted by laoxinat

This reminds me of one of the things Michel Odent said in the Business of Being Born- that medicalized birth interferes in bonding and therefore, affects ALL of us. Mamas who don't get that 'after birth' rush have a harder time bonding, and sometimes never do. In my own small sample of two, this was exactly my experience. DS - hospital birth, no rush of oxytocin, poor bonding and lots of heartache. DD - homebirthed, awesome birth high, bonded deeply, we get along great. It is a societal issue. I would be most interested in seeing stats to get a feel for how birth intervention correlates with bonding issues and problems later in baby's life.

Michel Odent has no facts to back up his claim that mothers who don't get "the birth cocktail" have a harder time bonding with their babies. I think that kind of comment is a huge insult to any woman who has not had a baby "naturally". No CS, no IV of any kind, no NICU, no ADOPTIVE mothers?

Pure woo

[Joezmom]

Originally Posted by laoxinat

This reminds me of one of the things Michel Odent said in the Business of Being Born- that medicalized birth interferes in bonding and therefore, affects ALL of us. Mamas who don't get that 'after birth' rush have a harder time bonding, and sometimes never do. In my own small sample of two, this was exactly my experience. DS - hospital birth, no rush of oxytocin, poor bonding and lots of heartache. DD - homebirthed, awesome birth high, bonded deeply, we get along great. It is a societal issue. I would be most interested in seeing stats to get a feel for how birth intervention correlates with bonding issues and problems later in baby's life.

Michel Odent has no facts to back up his claim that mothers who don't get "the birth cocktail" have a harder time bonding with their babies. I think that kind of comment is a huge insult to any woman who has not had a baby "naturally". No CS, no IV of any kind, no NICU, no ADOPTIVE mothers?

Pure woo

[wombjuice]

Originally Posted by Joezmom

Michel Odent has no facts to back up his claim that mothers who don't get "the birth cocktail" have a harder time bonding with their babies. I think that kind of comment is a huge insult to any woman who has not had a baby "naturally". No CS, no IV of any kind, no NICU, no ADOPTIVE mothers?

Pure woo

Unless you believe that humans are completely different than all other mammals on the planet, then Michel Odent does indeed have facts to back up his claim that mothers who don't get "the birth cocktail" have a harder time bonding with their babies. Nowhere does he say that it's impossible for mamas to bond with their babies if they do not get a normal birth, he just says it's more difficult.

[laoxinat]

Originally Posted by Joezmom

Michel Odent has no facts to back up his claim that mothers who don't get "the birth cocktail" have a harder time bonding with their babies. I think that kind of comment is a huge insult to any woman who has not had a baby "naturally". No CS, no IV of any kind, no NICU, no ADOPTIVE mothers?

Pure woo

It would make a lot more sense if you said it was a huge insult to the people perpetrating the abuses, but how is it an insult to the women who are victims of these practices? :
And for the record, it IS hard for adoptive moms to bond sometimes. If you don't think so, please please go read about reactive attachment disorder. And he is indeed, NOT saying it is impossible, just harder. My SIL had a CS, and she is as bonded with her DD as I was with my homebirthed DD. Michel Odent has been a birth advocate very likely longer than you've been alive. I think he knows of what he speaks.

[Unoppressed MAMA Q]

Goodness, that article sucks! Is anyone really walking around being nasty to people who've had sections?

[CherryBomb]

Originally Posted by feminine_earth

Unless you believe that humans are completely different than all other mammals on the planet, then Michel Odent does indeed have facts to back up his claim that mothers who don't get "the birth cocktail" have a harder time bonding with their babies. Nowhere does he say that it's impossible for mamas to bond with their babies if they do not get a normal birth, he just says it's more difficult.

But it isn't always true, and a lot of natural birth advocates seem to portray it that way (intentionally or not). Some moms might have a harder time. Believe it or not, some moms have 100% "mdc approved" natural pregnancies, labors, and births, and STILL have trouble bonding. Some moms have totally medicalized pregnancies, labors, and births, and bond instantly.

The problem is when it gets portrayed as an inevitability.

I've had 2 c/s, a 2 week NICU stay, and a VBAC with no epidural (though I was "bad" and had one small shot of nubain 4 hours before she was actually born) and while obviously the last birth experience was more pleasant, I don't feel that I bonded "better" or easier or quicker with dd3. Actually I'd say I bonded the fastest and easiest with dd2, who was in the NICU for 2 weeks and whom I didn't get to hold until she was 5 days old, who didn't get to nurse until she was 11 days old. My protective instincts went crazy and I still feel *very* closely bonded to her.

[wombjuice]

Obviously there are exceptions to every rule. I don't believe anyone said there wasn't. As with any experience specific to you, YMMV.

[honeybunch2k8]

*shakes head*

Although I don't like it, I can understand where she and others who choose c-cections are coming from. I would bet that it will happen more and more b/c women want to save themselves from other birth traumas- being probed, prodded, given episiotimies,people sticking their hands inside you quite often, denied food and water but still expected to push and labor for hours,being in a cold,brightly lit room for hours, or very little one on one attention. I wouldnt be suprised if she were afraid of ruining her vagina and sex life. In all honesty, the way most women give birth is hard and not good for the pelvic floor. Also, maybe the fact that women have very limited maternity leave and want to have baby ASAP or at a predictable time is a factor.


It's all really sad.

While I think humans are a bit more flexible than other mammals and that mothers who have c-sections can bond as well as those who don't, that doesn't mean I'm going to choose to have one like the lady in the article without medical justification. Nope!

ETA: Wait a minute, I wonder how many women are given the choice to deny EFM, were able to choose their birth position? Last time I went to a hospital they were pretty adamant that women be on their backs with legs spread. But more and more doctors are allowing patients to have elective c-sections? Doesn't make much sense to me.

[Intertwined]

It's unbelievable to me that they portray c-section as the "less messy" option. Uh, have they actually SEEN a section? Verses a normal, non-messed with vaginal birth? At my two home births one chux pad was needed for the 'mess'.

[honeybunch2k8]

Originally Posted by Intertwined

It's unbelievable to me that they portray c-section as the "less messy" option. Uh, have they actually SEEN a section? Verses a normal, non-messed with vaginal birth? At my two home births one chux pad was needed for the 'mess'.

What's said is that they probably haven't. I didn't see one until I was 20.

I read in Pushed that some women think it's not so messy because they wouldn't want to ruin their vaginas.

I don't think people quite grasp the fact that a c-section is major abdominal surgery.

[Joezmom]

Originally Posted by laoxinat

It would make a lot more sense if you said it was a huge insult to the people perpetrating the abuses, but how is it an insult to the women who are victims of these practices? :
And for the record, it IS hard for adoptive moms to bond sometimes. If you don't think so, please please go read about reactive attachment disorder. And he is indeed, NOT saying it is impossible, just harder. My SIL had a CS, and she is as bonded with her DD as I was with my homebirthed DD. Michel Odent has been a birth advocate very likely longer than you've been alive. I think he knows of what he speaks.

I believe VERY FEW laboring women are victims of abuse in a hospital setting (abuse is a strong term that should not be used in reference to common "interventions" in hospital IMO). And yes, I believe it IS insulting to suggest that any kind of birth other than a "natural" birth, preferably at home, is somehow tainted, opening the door to all kinds of problems down the road.

For the record, I am well aware of reactive attachment disorder, and it must be devastating for families who have that experience. I have several friends and relatives who have adopted, and they all have experienced close, well-bonded relationships with their children (anecdotal).

I won't say anything more about Odent, other than I personally put very little stock in much of what he says. Extra large egos hold no appeal for me, and older doesn't mean wiser.