I don't know where this should go but it just pissed me off! - Page 6

[barefootpoetry]

Originally Posted by Joezmom

To quote Skyastara, "Wow. Just wow." Your lecture certainly tells me where you're coming from (no lack of hormones there!). I can appreciate your passionate defense of Odent, especially after reading your post about your experience at the "Trust Birth " conference, but I still don't feel the love. I'll read more though.

While I do understand the hormone thing, I still feel the emphasis on it, in terms of bonding, does a disservice to mothers who have not had a "natural" birth, for whatever reason, suggesting they are now at a disadvantage and will have to work harder to connect with their baby than the mother who gave birth undisturbed, in a darkened room, with a midwife/mother-figure "knitting" in the corner.

Anecdote: My friend has a toddler who was a full term breech, large baby, via CS on recommendation from her midwife (she had planned a homebirth). Recently, a (now ex) friend (BTW she posts on MDC and has had 2 homebirths and is planning a third) said to her after seeing "The Business of
Being Born", "You didn't get the love cocktail" (and by implication) "and
I did." Just an anecdote, but very hurtful.

For the record, I have never said hospital birth is better than at home. I have said, several times, that I think it is a personal choice.

Your "friend" sounds like an exception to the norm, like the kind of woman who jumps down the throat of any mother who bottlefeeds in public and rants about how horrible formula is. Bad manners transcend both sides of any argument, it doesn't mean that the argument itself isn't legit.

If you had no trouble bonding with your baby, then don't take offense, because I don't think anyone (other than your rotten excuse for a friend) is trying to make it offensive. I "didn't get the love cocktail" either, yet as I said in an earlier post, I bonded with my son very easily and intensely. To compare it to breastfeeding again, I don't take offense when people talk about how awesome breastmilk is even though I did use formula from time to time. I know that breastmilk's awesomeness is a proven fact, just like the "love cocktail" is a proven fact. It doesn't mean that babies fall over dead if they don't get breastmilk, and it doesn't mean that mothers who don't get the love cocktail will hate their babies. It's just science, but even science has its exceptions.

P.S. As a woman, you ought to know better than to blame anything another woman does on "hormones."

[ccohenou]

The "love cocktail" is an Odent hypothesis, not a proven fact, so far as I know.

It makes sense that bonding may be delayed after a cesarean, because of the physical recovery and the possible trauma of surgery. It can also be delayed after a completely natural vaginal birth of a very ill or premature baby, because of the need for recovery and the trauma of separation.

Love as hormonal cascade is a very reductive view of what love is. And it is an opinion - "love" is not a scientifically measurable quantity.

[laoxinat]

:

Jeez, mamas, no one is saying c-section means you can't bond with your babe, but as a pp said, bonding can be affected by any birth circumstance. I would rather see a mama have an epidural IF that resulted in less pain and more bonding. The trouble is that many times a simple intervention turns into a cascade of them, which can, and often does end in CS. My own (statistically insignificant) experience was just that, my own. I don't think for a minute it can or should be extrapolated to mean anything for anyone else. JME.
I love how some people suddenly become a (insert profession of convenience here) when they don't agree with posts but that's another convo altogether.

[barefootpoetry]

Originally Posted by ccohenou

Love as hormonal cascade is a very reductive view of what love is. And it is an opinion - "love" is not a scientifically measurable quantity.

That's a very good point. But I guess it is easier to call it a "love cocktail" than an "estrogen-adrenaline-oxytocin-dopamine-seratonin cocktail." Lots of others have studied this, though, not just Odent...Google "love cocktail" or "love hormones." And yeah, we can't say that releasing these hormones means you instantly fall in love with your baby (and that not releasing them means you never do!), but they are part of what stimulates the feeling of love in our brains. Just like eating chocolate stimulates that same part of the brain because of certain chemicals in it. It doesn't mean we're really "in love" with chocolate. It's just the same neurological reaction.

It makes perfect sense to me, because this is what is designed to keep us procreating. Oxytocin gets released when you breastfeed too, which makes us feel good. If breastfeeding didn't feel good, humans - in the most very primitive sense - might not want to do it. We still do, but all I'm saying is that nature put that hormone release there to encourage us to do it so we don't die out as a race. And I think it's the same with birth - which in general is a painful, strenuous affair, but you get the "birth high" afterwards, and that makes us want to keep doing it!

[Joezmom]

Originally Posted by ferretbees

Your own ignorance about homebirth should answer your question.

In today's society, women have no idea it's an option - "just do what the good doctor tells you to do, sweetie". How many of us have ever witnessed a homebirth IRL, let alone a birth sans interventions?

Most importantly, it's not a realistic option for the majority of women in the U.S. Depending on where you live, you may not be able to find a homebirth midwife, let alone afford one. I live in southeast PA, where homebirths are not highly accessible. However, I am lucky to have the means to afford a homebirth, regardless if insurance covers it - CPMs are much cheaper, yet they must fly under the radar due to the current legal atmosphere.

I've done the hospital "birth" and I want a better experience next time (read - no surgery). I want to choose every single person that is there during labor. While you may have met your OB a few times prior to birth, you have not met any of the L&D nurses, whom are responsible for your "care." The OB just shows up to "catch". How can anyone work through their labor like this? We do it because this is what society tells us is the norm, however, consensus does not mean that it is good for the mother and baby.

I want a practitioner who can recognize 'variations of normal', not pathology and for me that means a homebirth midwife.

While I have not had a homebirth, I have researched it alot during the past 9 months - lots of reading (on-line and otherwise), and speaking with midwives, and homebirthers IRL. So...... I don't actually feel ignorant, even though you may disagree!

I have also done the hospital birth - twice - both completely natural (who knew?), and while neither may have perfect, they were certainly fine. Nobody in my face about IV's or epi's, or pushing, etc.

Midwives of all stripes are legal in my state. One the things I have been struggling with, however, is when does a midwife determine a 'variation of normal' is in fact an emergency?

[JessicaS]

Joezmom, I would say you have been extremely fortunate to have had the experiences you have. I certainly didn't have similar experiences and I am sure many on here would say the same.

All midwives are legal in my state as well but just across the border from me in Missouri only CNMs may "legally" attend homebirths.

[JessicaS]

Just posting a reminder that the article in the OP is not about homebirth and the intent of the OP was not to debate homebirth and midwifery.

Such discussion is off topic from this thread.

[cottonwood]

Originally Posted by tjjazzy

i know this is off-topic but could you explain what you're referring to for me? thanks

Well, you know, perfumey-smelling douches and "feminine sprays" and the like.

Originally Posted by barefootpoerty

I throw a wrench in the black-and-white scheme too, because I had a rotten C-section birth and yet my son and I bonded like Krazy Glue. There's exceptions to every rule, no one would be arrogant enough to say that there's not.

Yes. You know, what it seems like to me is that there are just people who want it to be either-or. Either hormones are crucial for bonding or they don't have any effect at all, and they assume that everyone who isn't at the extreme they're at must be at the other extreme. It's so frustrating to acknowledge that hormones have a role in feelings and behavior and then get jumped all over because someone infers from that that you're saying that they must have not bonded with their baby at all. It is so tiring. I'll offer the following disclaimer here: http://fourlittlebirds.blogsome.com/...-the-instinct/

We are all starting from different places. A long, long time ago I read a story here at Mothering about a woman who had been planning a homebirth, but they decided to transfer to the hospital via ambulance. The birth happened before they reached the hospital, and in an unfamiliar place, with strangers around, siren blaring, she had an orgasmic birth. That wouldn't have been me. My body would have shut up tight, I would have been tense, I probably would have been feeling sick and with a headache. I am ultra sensitive, which is one reason even a very mild intrusion and distraction interfered with my own hormonal release and therefore my bonding process. Not everyone is like that. But for those of us that are, it is reasonable to take it into account.

Originally Posted by LotusBirthMama

Because, dontcha know, c-sections are the devil and its perfectly ok to bash anyone who ever even thought about having one, no matter the circumstances leading up that choice.

I don't agree with hipmummy, but she didn't say "no matter the circumstances". And I'd really like to see you come up with a quote from anyone at MDC who has said or implied such a thing. It's just untrue, and adding unnecessary fuel to the fire.

Originally Posted by LotusBirthMama

I guess I am just shocked that a forum dedicated to unassisted childbirth, which is statistically not as safe as attended childbirth, home or otherwise, would be so agreeable to legislation to limit choice and freedom in birth.

The forum isn't agreeable, or not agreeable, to it. That was the opinion of an individual, who doesn't represent the forum or any other individual who has had an unassisted birth.

[cottonwood]

Originally Posted by Joezmom

Your lecture certainly tells me where you're coming from (no lack of hormones there!).

Excuse me? Exactly how is my hormonal status relevant?

I still don't feel the love.

Well, my responses to you weren't intended to get you to feel the love. I'm not concerned that people dislike Odent or think he has a big ego or whatever. I'm concerned with correcting misconceptions and inaccuracies.

While I do understand the hormone thing, I still feel the emphasis on it, in terms of bonding, does a disservice to mothers who have not had a "natural" birth, for whatever reason, suggesting they are now at a disadvantage and will have to work harder to connect with their baby than the mother who gave birth undisturbed, in a darkened room, with a midwife/mother-figure "knitting" in the corner.

I understand what you're saying. But the solution to that is not to simply write it off altogether. Because that would be a disservice to those who do have to work harder to connect with their baby and deserve to know that it's not their fault and that there are things than can be done to help the situation. The solution is to be honest, and at the same time not absolutist or dogmatic about it.

Originally Posted by ccohenou

Love as hormonal cascade is a very reductive view of what love is. And it is an opinion - "love" is not a scientifically measurable quantity.

Yes, it's reductive, and no, love is not a scientifically measurable quantity. And yet -- estrogen, adrenaline, oxytocin, dopamine, seratonin (thanks, barefootpoetry!,) prolactin, etc. -- do you really believe these chemicals have no effect on mood, feeling, and behavior?

[A_Random_Phrase]

Originally Posted by Collinsky

Yeah, that. I was thinking, that alcohol hurts mothers, it hurts children and families and society... but making it illegal - taking away the choice - isn't prudent. Or "right" IMO.

Also, we've seen just how many situations are considered to be "emergencies" and a Cesarean is done. Now - sometimes that is absolutely necessary, don't get me wrong! But other times... how many times do women have a C-section for breech, for a "big baby," for CPD and dystocia, and fetal distress? All these are considered to be emergencies. I think if elective cesarean were illegal that drs would simply widen the "emergency net" and THEN women who were going to escape with a vaginal birth would find themselves falling into the "medically necessary" category. I think the c-section rate could potentially go UP... defeating the purpose of that law. For cases now considered "medically necessary elective C-sections" like VBAC, either that would be permitted under the law (can't see them outlawing that) *OR* drs would be doing "emergency" c-sections on VBAC women and writing on their chart: Signs of imminent uterine rupture.

It's so difficult. I would like to see it be the social norm to have homebirths...but I do NOT like stigma attached to women who have hospital births or Cesareans. I hate that women who had what were truly medically necessary Cesareans feel looked down on or that that is seen as a failure. I hate that women who had a Cesarean that may or may not have been necessary, but was the best choice they could make with the information they had at the time, feel looked down on.

:

People should have freedom to choose even if we don't agree with them.

As for the bonding discussion. It seems like some people are really irked with each other. I expect some women would like everything to be as perfect as possible because it makes the bonding stronger, but that doesn't mean bonding is nonexistent otherwise. I nursed a friend's baby for a week and felt more bonded to that little girl than to any child that was not mine. There are many ways to bond. IMO, it doesn't hurt to go for the strongest, best bonding possible. If you "fall short" of the "perfect" experience, it's okay. No one is condemning you (at least they shouldn't be). I actually feel closest to the child I c-sectioned and not so close to the "natural" one - but if I'd been able to do a home birth or a UC, I may have a stronger bond now. I don't know because I have not experienced it, so I can't judge correctly. I still am closer to all of my children than some parents are to theirs. We usually get along great. My point is, do we need to argue? If we haven't personally experienced the "stronger bonding experience", how do we know what we have is as strong as it gets? We can say there is a bonding, but we can't say it couldn't be better. And those who have only had the "best" cannot say that bonding is impossible under lesser circumstances because they haven't experienced that.

We all agree that mothering is important and that we feel bonded to our own children, right? Well, then, let's put down the swords and unite in our oneness and allow the differences.

[HerthElde]

Re: Freedom to choose.
This gets a bit sticky here in Canada, where it's MY tax dollars that are going toward vanity c-sections, but I have to pay for a homebirth midwife out of pocket (well, that was the situation a couple years ago - things are really bizarre at the moment)
However, I'm a huge believer in the effect the subconscious can have, and that means that many c-sections that might appear "elective" are really done for legit medical (psychological) reasons . . .

Re: Bonding
The love cocktail. Hmm, haven't seen the movie. But hormones can be released post-birth, or in adoptive situations, or whatever. Just because a woman might have a bit of an advantage if she has a natural birth doesn't mean that hormones don't play a part in bonding - for anyone
I had a completely natural homebirth with midwife with both my girls. With dd1, I bonded easily. With dd2, it was very difficult. I did NOT get the love cocktail. Was it because of the birth? No. It was surrounding circumstances. I was in a state of pure adrenaline prior to and during her birth. It interfered with the normal cascade of hormones. IMO, it would have been worse if in hospital. But for someone else, hospital might have been better for bonding in that case, due to the removal of the home situation that was causing the stress to begin with.

[leafwood]

First, I haven't read through all the posts. However, I think the article is a sad reflection of how society views birth. The fact that, in general, women are becoming more and more disconnected from our bodies....told to live up to unrealistic societal standards and deny/quiet our inner voices that instinctually tell us what we need. Birth....the most natural of things, is portrayed as something to fear and escape instead of the beautiful rite of passage that it can be. Alsmost as if the process of birthing is a chore, a curse, or a horror that must be endured.

I get it...I really do becasue I was terrified to give birth the first time....however the thought of a c-section is WAY more scary to me than anything I imagined about birth. I have had both a medicated vaginal delivery and a completely intervention free hospital birth. I was not scared the second time, I was empowered and I truly feel lucky that I was able to experience birth the way millions of women throughout time have. I do wish more women felt safe, secure, supported, and capable regarding birth....and I think the article did a poor job of addressing this issue. It's sad, but I won't judge anyone who makes that decision as it is very personal. All I can do is offer my experiences if asked....in fact my cousin is considering an elective c/s. It saddens me that she would go that route, but it's her deal.

[lifeguard]

Originally Posted by HerthElde

Re: Freedom to choose.
This gets a bit sticky here in Canada, where it's MY tax dollars that are going toward vanity c-sections, but I have to pay for a homebirth midwife out of pocket (well, that was the situation a couple years ago - things are really bizarre at the moment)

This is a big part of where I am with this issue. I really do think that it is an individual choice but does bother me that I'm paying for an unnecessary & VERY expensive procedure. I have a close friend who chose such a c-section & although she is unaware of it being the cause it has created a big rift in our friendship. I just think it is wrong. And know at the same time she thinks I am ridiculous for wanting a intervention free vaginal birth.

This has been a delightful thread to read. So many thinking women & some good brain food to chew on.

When it comes right down to it we are several generations out from natural, intervention, doctor free births. We are not receiving that kind of information easily from the medical community or our mothers (as they didn't receive it either). Women are making decisions that are highly uninformed & they do not even realize that is the case. Their doctors probably don't feel that is the case either. It is sad, but until that foundation underlying the choice is changed the decisions are not going to change.

[thismama]

I am pro informed choice in childbirth. I have no objection to 'omgz my tax dollars paying for someone's c/s.' I DO object to the culture of fear and misinformation/lack of information re: birth which I think leads women to make choices they may not otherwise make. But I do not deny any woman's right to choose the method of birth she prefers, including elective c/s.