Article at MSNBC

[Peppamint]

I was reading this article (morbid curiosity I suppose) and I'm wondering about this statement:

For example, one common injury — trauma during vaginal childbirth without use of forceps or other instruments — resulted in virtually no extra hospitalization costs or deaths but probably led to other complications in mothers or their infants, the researchers said. There were 51,223 such injuries studied.

Quoted from: http://www.msnbc.com/news/977139.asp

What do they mean? : Are they speaking of tears or what? I assume because they say no other instruments that they are not referring to episiotomies.

Anyone have any ideas?

[Greaseball]

I think this is another attempt to point out to the ignorant public how "dangerous" vaginal birth is.

I don't get it either...it doesn't lead to extra days in the hospital or to increased costs, but it "probably" caused problems later? Based on what?

I'm sure there are far more complications from cesareans, or from forceps deliveries.

[pamamidwife]

What? You all don't know? A baby's poor little head - it cannot, just cannot withstand the harsh battering against bones and rigid tissue that a vaginal birth entails.

And, for mother, a vaginal birth can only mean one thing: that she will live her life constantly peeing herself uncontrollably while trying to hold her uterus in her panties.

/sarcasm

[Greaseball]

But if you're peeing yourself all the time, at least you're probably laughing! Or sneezing a lot...either one is good by me!

[Peppamint]

LOL... yeah it doesn't make any sense to me... probably?!

I'm sure it is more of the "vaginal childbirth can be so dangerous" crap. :

I remember when I told a co-worker that I was planning a homebirth with ds, she pointed out how many women used to die in the old days from childbirth. I pointed out that many of those women were overworked, poor nutrition etc.

[pamamidwife]

Originally posted by busybusymomma
LOL... yeah it doesn't make any sense to me... probably?!

I'm sure it is more of the "vaginal childbirth can be so dangerous" crap. :

I remember when I told a co-worker that I was planning a homebirth with ds, she pointed out how many women used to die in the old days from childbirth. I pointed out that many of those women were overworked, poor nutrition etc.

yeah, many women didn't make it to their 50th birthday - and it wasn't their birthday's fault! Many children didn't survive their first year.

It wasn't until WWII that antibiotics were created. This changed maternal and infant death for the positive, but so did better nutrition, sanitation conditions, etc. We tend to think everyone lived as we do today.

[Greaseball]

People will point out that even among extremely wealthy families, there was a lot of infant and maternal death, but in those families, girls were corseted at very young ages and would wear the corsets through pregnancy! The babies couldn't move around and many of them were deformed, and the corsets also damaged women internally. Women were also shut-ins when they started to show, since upper class women were not to be seen in public in "their condition." They would then get "hysterical" after being shut in the house for months, so their husbands would call the doctor and have him come over and drug their wives with opiates. And breastfeeding hadn't really caught on for these women, since "proper ladies" couldn't nurse their own children. True, if the children were lucky they'd get a wet nurse, but not bfing has risks for the mother, such as cancer.

Also, among wealthy families, women were drugged with chloroform and had high-forceps deliveries. It was often believed back then that if labor was not progressing, the safest thing for the mother was for the doctor to kill the child. (All this from Immaculate Deception.)

[Peppamint]

That's so sad. We've come a long way, but we have a long way to go.

A friend of mine is going to be induced next week the day before her edd because her ds was 2w late and big and she had a rough delivery (also in the hospital with an epidural). I know every birth is different and the circumstances around you can change how things go, so I wonder if they just left her alone if she might not just go into labor on her own and have a beautiful birth? From her comments, I think she doesn't quite trust her body to do it's job.

I just wish that those Drs and nurses would empower women the way our midwives do (most anyway). My midwife was awesome, ALWAYS encouraging and trusting in my body to do what it needed to do.

[moonglowmama]

Originally posted by Greaseball
People will point out that even among extremely wealthy families, there was a lot of infant and maternal death,

I recently read a fiction book called Midwife. The main character is a midwife and studies at a prestigious hospital about the 1880s in Europe. A wealthy woman comes to the hospital and her husband insists that a midwife care for her, as he doesn't want a man to see her vagina, I suppose. Anyway, her life and her baby's life are quite possibly saved because of the midwife's care- her baby is transverse, will not descend and the woman has considerable fears to overcome. Then, the midwife tells the woman that when she goes to the nicer recovery ward for the priveledged, to not allow her baby to go to the nursery, as was the custom, but to instead breastfeed her baby herself (a big no-no back then). Meanwhile in the nursery - where they have plenty of wet nurses to feed the newborns- babies are getting serious infections and dying because it is just before the protocols are developed for sanitation (washing hands) and so they are spreading germs from one to the other via the wet nurses' breasts. Poor mothers who are under the care of the midwives fared better because they breastfed their babies and did birth naturally.

It is so obvious to me that unneccessary intervention will always result in a less-than-ideal outcome for mother and/or child.