I don't know where this should go but it just pissed me off! - Page 5

[wombjuice]

Originally Posted by LotusBirthMama

Wow. Ok. 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.

Oh my. This thread is going dangerously off topic.

[pookel]

Originally Posted by LotusBirthMama

Wow. Ok. I guess I am just shocked that a forum dedicated to unassisted childbirth,

*looks at forum header*

Whoops, I didn't see we were in the UC forum. Sometimes I just see things pop up in New Posts. Didn't mean to invade.

[JessicaS]

Originally Posted by LotusBirthMama

Wow. Ok. 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.

I don't believe I used the word "legislation" in my post

[JessicaS]

Originally Posted by pookel

*looks at forum header*

Whoops, I didn't see we were in the UC forum. Sometimes I just see things pop up in New Posts. Didn't mean to invade.

Yeah the New Posts function is fun like that.

This really belongs in B&B though.

[LotusBirthMama]

Originally Posted by abimommy

I don't believe I used the word "legislation" in my post

Back up. Did I say "Abimommy said...?" No. I am referring to the poster who said elective c/ses should be illegal. Which involves legislation, no?

[JessicaS]

Originally Posted by LotusBirthMama

Back up. Did I say "Abimommy said...?" No. I am referring to the poster who said elective c/ses should be illegal. Which involves legislation, no?

You said

Wow. Ok. 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.

Which implies a consensus. I only saw one person state that, but I did skip a page.


Oh and I am moving this to B&B

[LotusBirthMama]

And I only saw one other person say that limiting someone else's birth choice may not be the wisest move for birth freedom in general.

[JessicaS]

Originally Posted by pookel

Yeah, I decided I was just going to stop until you were done responding, to sort things out. I was mostly trying to make a point about US law and how banning "elective c-sections" doesn't mean what people here would think of it as meaning.

Thank you for clarifying the MDC definition; I've never been sure whether it was acceptable to talk about my ERCS here.

Even if you did have an elective c-section you could discuss it, it would really depend on the context.

I don't mean you have to run around kicking yourself for it but you could post your birth story and such. It wouldn't be good to run amok suggesting everyone have a c-section for no reason (oh and get a tummy tuck at the same time!!) but a c-section doesn't mean you have to wear a scarlet letter of vagina failure on your profile.

Even Ina May Gaskin has transferred people, it doesn't always go perfect. That doesn't mean anyone fails.

[pookel]

Originally Posted by abimommy

but a c-section doesn't mean you have to wear a scarlet letter of vagina failure on your profile.

[felix23]

Originally Posted by Unoppressed MAMA Q

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

Yes. I've had to cut ties with several crunchy friends because of how nasty they were about my c-section and the fact that due to the type of cut I have I am not comfortable (and neither is my dr) having a vbac. Even mainstream people go on and on about how it "must of been the worst experience in my life". Um, no and calling the birth of my child the worst experience is kind of insulting. Actually having my wisdom teeth removed was the worst experience in my life. But for some reason most people don't want to believe that I wasn't traumatized by my c-section.

[JessicaS]

Originally Posted by felix23

Yes. I've had to cut ties with several crunchy friends because of how nasty they were about my c-section and the fact that due to the type of cut I have I am not comfortable (and neither is my dr) having a vbac. Even mainstream people go on and on about how it "must of been the worst experience in my life". Um, no and calling the birth of my child the worst experience is kind of insulting. Actually having my wisdom teeth removed was the worst experience in my life. But for some reason most people don't want to believe that I wasn't traumatized by my c-section.

I wasn't traumatized by mine either.

Far more traumatizing is those moments of terror before I heard dd cry.

[barefootpoetry]

I personally am against, let's call them "vanity C-sections" instead of elective, since I know how fuzzy that terminology can get. But would I ever back legislature to ban them? Hell no. I think it's appalling that more and more women are choosing them, but they have every right to do so, just like I have every right to birth my baby at home even with no one present if I want to. Although true medical evidence is technically against the women who choose vanity C-sections (and very much in favor of vaginal birth), there are just as many - if not many many more - women who think homebirth (let alone UC!) is just as dangerous and awful and selfish as there are women who think that about vanity C-sections. So really, it's not helping the birth movement at all if you ban any kind of choice. It's bad enough that homebirth with a midwife is already illegal in some states. I'd hate to see that trend continue.

If women as a whole deserve the freedom to birth wherever, however, and with whoever we want, then that includes vanity C-sections. Yes, I think they're a bad choice, but it's that woman's bad choice to make. Just like it's my choice to stay the hell out of the hospital to avoid having another C-section myself.

[JessicaS]

Originally Posted by barefootpoetry

I personally am against, let's call them "vanity C-sections" instead of elective, since I know how fuzzy that terminology can get. But would I ever back legislature to ban them? Hell no. I think it's appalling that more and more women are choosing them, but they have every right to do so, just like I have every right to birth my baby at home even with no one present if I want to. Although true medical evidence is technically against the women who choose vanity C-sections (and very much in favor of vaginal birth), there are just as many - if not many many more - women who think homebirth (let alone UC!) is just as dangerous and awful and selfish as there are women who think that about vanity C-sections. So really, it's not helping the birth movement at all if you ban any kind of choice. It's bad enough that homebirth with a midwife is already illegal in some states. I'd hate to see that trend continue.

If women as a whole deserve the freedom to birth wherever, however, and with whoever we want, then that includes vanity C-sections. Yes, I think they're a bad choice, but it's that woman's bad choice to make. Just like it's my choice to stay the hell out of the hospital to avoid having another C-section myself.

I am not sure how I feel about that.

It isn't *just* a birth method it is major surgery and carries risks. Various techniques to save time and money are often chosen over what is safer for the mother. For example, double suturing is going out of style, despite evidence that shows a single layer of sutures to be more dangerous.

The entire system needs to be revamped. Something has to be done, I don't think attacking c-sections by choice is the answer, because then we get down the slippery slope of what is "choice" and what is "elective" and people having to prove things when they may have psychological reasons.

IMO, all women should join together and insist on safer medical care whether they choose vaginal birth or a c-section.

[Turquesa]

Terms like "vanity" and even "elective" are too loaded. (To a degree, isn't all surgery elective?) I would simply call them non-medical, as in done without medical indication. And I would not allow insurance to cover them. Appallingly, there's a book out there, Girlfriend's Guide to Pregnancy, that coaches women on how to dupe their insurance providers if they *want* a cesarean delivery.

But this issue, both in the book and the Time article, is moot. We know from research by Childbirth Connection that fewer than 1% of women will choose non-medical cesareans.

Bringing this back to the OP, I've read a lot of rebuttal letters to the article (and even submitted one that didn't end up published) but this is my favorite :
http://www.nowpublic.com/health/rebuttal-time-magazine

[barefootpoetry]

Originally Posted by abimommy

I am not sure how I feel about that.

It isn't *just* a birth method it is major surgery and carries risks. Various techniques to save time and money are often chosen over what is safer for the mother.

I know. That's why I frown on it. But like you said, it brings out that slippery slope of what we have the right to choose. I don't agree with it whatsoever, but if that choice is taken away, then that's just one step closer to regulating birth as a whole and there are just too many kinds of women who would like to be able to select from a variety of different kinds of birth for us all to be squeezed into one box.

I agree with you that the whole system needs a major overhaul. How could it not, when dangerous surgery is often seen as more appealing in the mother's eyes than a normal vaginal birth? Frankly, if all I had to go on was the crap pregnant women are spoonfed these days and the only choice I knew of was birthing in a hospital, I might indeed fall for the appeal of a "quick-and-easy" C-section. Isn't that awful?

Turquesa, I like your phrasing - "non-medical" does seem to be best. And I agree that maybe insurance companies shouldn't cover it. (I applaud Medicaid for not covering circumcisions! More insurance companies need to follow that lead!) The only ones left choosing C-sections because they want the baby born on its grandma's birthday will be celebs, because I don't know any normal people who can foot a $25,000 hospital bill.

[NettleTea]

Originally Posted by LotusBirthMama

unassisted childbirth, which is statistically not as safe as attended childbirth, home or otherwise

How's that?

[A_Random_Phrase]

My goodness, I've missed a lot being gone for only a few days. I wanna have my say - A nurse was telling a group of expectant parents that the hospital had only had X amount of emergency C-sections during a certain period of time, which had included mine. My spouse asked if ours was one of them, expecting to be told yes. The nurse said that ours was an emergency section but was not included in their tally. I can only think it was because it was a "failed home birth." Weird.

[Collinsky]

Originally Posted by pookel

Can you answer something for me? I've never been clear on Mothering's definition of "elective c-sections." Obviously, you're against c-sections for the hell of it. But scheduled c-sections for medical reasons are often classed as "elective c-sections" as well. My scheduled repeat section was an ERCS even though my OB said I wasn't a VBAC candidate; was that elective or wasn't it? Where does Mothering draw the line?

I would hope, also, that a discussion of whether elective c-sections should be legal isn't construed as a promotion of them, any more than a discussion about decriminalizing drugs is a promotion of drug use.

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.

[Joezmom]

Originally Posted by fourlittlebirds

Yes.



Really? What books of his have you read? The only one that I can think of that doesn't list sources is Birth Reborn, which is just an account of the making of a birth clinic.



Are you similarly peeved that most people insist that hospital birth is better than homebirth? Because really, the homebirth movement is much more tolerant of the choice to birth in the hospital than the other way around. From homebirth advocates you'll hear a lot of, "Yes, sometimes medicalized birth is necessary and sometimes institutionalized birth is prudent, and in any case a woman should birth where she feels most supported and comfortable." From most doctors and most of mainstream society you'll hear, "Homebirth is dangerous, foolish, and selfish! Do you want your baby to DIE?"

I really don't understand why you feel the need to come here and complain that some people think homebirth is best for them. What is it to you? That their choice is different from yours is not inherently a condemnation of your choice. Trust me.



Why don't more people recycle? Why do people continue to buy crap food to put in their bodies? Why do people hit their kids? Why do they whine about poor people getting socialized assistance, but seem oblivious to the astronomically higher cost of corporate welfare? Why do people stay in abusive relationships? Why do women accept our culture's claim they aren't valuable unless they look like the photoshopped women in the magazines, buy all the latest fashions, and have vaginas that smell pretty? Why do people go along with the school system's enforcement of meaningless busywork and uesless rote memorization and teaching to the test and yet more busywork to do at home because six hours a day clearly isn't enough? Why is there an epidemic of postpartum depression, hell, depression in general in this society? Why do people unquestioningly let themselves be led to be a cog in the wheel that leads to the depression? Why why why why? Gee, I don't know... because there's such a thing as herd behavior? Because most people are terrified of rocking the boat, of not fitting in, of being ostracized? So many people are not really happy in their lives, and they know it probably has something to do with doing meaningless work and self-medicating with meaningless activities. And yet they just keep on doing what they're told.

Sure, some women do the research and they make a very careful choice to birth in the place they believe is best for them, which is sometimes a hospital. If the general trends evident in internet forums and the media could be said to be representative of the majority, most are just getting in line like lemmings, without really having thought about it. Most people I've met in my life -- that I've met from living in a middle class suburb to inner city, in a variety of schooling and social and work environments -- have been scared to question the opinion of any authority figure. Choices outside of the mainstream are routinely vilified simply because they threaten the status quo, and backed up with arguments riddled with logical fallacies like implying that someone's ego or perception of them as wise has anything to do with the validity of the information itself (because there is nothing better to base them on.) This is just social pyschology.



Successful lawsuits are exceedingly rare, because juries are made up of the general public, and the general public still believes in the sacred godhood of the medical establishment. I have a good friend who was given an episiotomy, not for a medical reason as the baby's vitals were great, against her consent. In fact, she was screaming at the doctor "I do not consent" and he did it anyway. After months of depression and shame and incontinence and inability to have sex without pain, she consulted a lawyer, and was told that it wasn't a winnable case, because 1) she had put herself under this doctor's care and signed consent forms for whatever medical procedures he found "necessary", and 2) because episiotomy is still considered by many people to be not only not a big deal, but a good thing. It protects the pelvic floor, dontcha know. Stories like this are all over MDC. They're also all over the more mainstream boards, only the women telling those stories still believe that their episiotomies were necessary, and whatever other degrading and damaging things were done to them, and so they suppress their suffering. There are really efficient coping mechanisms for those who can't afford to be raging against the terrible acts committed against them, either because it's too emotionally painful or because they know that those around them would not support it.

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.

[ferretbees]

Originally Posted by Joezmom

So.....why don't more women birth at home?

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.