Considering any non-c/s birth "natural" ? [Archive]

gurumama

12-24-2002, 10:42 AM

Yes, I had the same experience. I was talking to a mother at my son's preschool and said I was on my way to a midwife appointment. (Her husband is an OB/GYN, but I didn't know it at the time. I aso didn't know that her three kids were all delivered via c-section--planned). She looked alarmed and said, "But you're having the baby in a hospital, right? Not at home?" I told her my midwives are CNMs, and yes, I'd go to the hospital for the delivery, but I was having a doula stay at home with me for as long as possible.

I told her I was planning a natural childbirth. She asked if I'd had one with my older son and I said "No, I had a shot of Nubain and then an epidural after being on Pitocin for four hours." She got this confused look on her face and said, "But you didn't have a c-section, did you?"

"No."

"Oh, so you had a natural childbirth."

Boy did THAT confuse me for a while, until I told the CNM the story. That's when I learned that many women consider any vaginal birth a "natural" childbirth. On a continuum, it involves fewer medical interventions than a c-section, sure. Then again, I've been told by two homebirth advocates that any birth in a hospital is not a "natural" childbirth, even if I didn't get any drugs, epidural, etc. Go figure.

Mel

KeysMama

12-24-2002, 10:58 AM

Originally posted by zombiemommie
It seems that in my neck of the woods, anybody and everybody who has had a non c/s birth considers themselves to have gone "natural Yes, it is frustrating. Not only for those of us that actually did have a totally natural birth ( 0 interventions at home) but also for pregnant women that do not understand the differences. As a doula, I am polite when I tell women that I have never seen, heard of , or expect to see a natural birth in a hospital. I have doula'ed plenty of unmedicated( no pain meds) births, but even most of those had Pitocin at some point.My childbirth students usually call me right after birth in a hospital to exclaim" we did it all natural!" only to later tell of the morphine, pitocin, episiotomy, fetal monitoring, IV, etc....I don't and no one can, change a womans perception of her birth, But I do usually congratulate the woman like "I am glad you had an active birth without an epidural" or " wow, you had an unmedicated birth". It does need clarification, but each womans perceptions are so culturally intwined that it becomes hard. Even on this board I see women tell their birth stories with sidebars of "mine was unusually hard to I had to take meds/epidural/c-section" as if natural birth is all luck and conditional or an unattainable ideal....well I guess it will be for some.

I think that women that say they are going to have, or had a 'natural birth in a hospital' may think they did, but the standard by which they are comparing it to ( c-section or epidural) is birth, via medical extraction of the fetus.

Mom2baldie

12-24-2002, 01:36 PM

I *think* I had a natural vbac. I gave birth 12 minutes after arriving at the hospital so I had no interventions during labor, but I was given an IV when my daughter was about 20 minutes old so I dont know if that counts as natural???

Anyways, I know one girl who never misses any oportunity to say she had her kids naturally even though they were both induced/augmented, 1 had AROM, both times epidural and vacuum extractor deliveries. :confused: Drives me nuts, but I never say anything to her. Makes me too mad to even think clearly.

I worked SOOO hard to get my vbac and I love telling people that
I was in labor for 31 hours and still did it unmedicated/natural, whatever. Of course thats all because I stayed at home with my doula. I cant even think about what would have happened if Id have gone to the hospital. I am so proud of myself.

Lynsey
chapter leader, ICAN of N. TX

zinemama

12-25-2002, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by KeysMama
As a doula, I am polite when I tell women that I have never seen, heard of , or expect to see a natural birth in a hospital.

With all due respect, KeysMama, you may think you are being polite, but as someone who gave birth in a hospital, I find your statement very dismissive. It's like you are trying to make women who had empowering, positive birth experiences - and this can happen in hospital settings - feel like their experiences were less than ideal simply because of where they occured.

I understand that this thread is about the fact that some people believe any non c/s birth should be considered "natural", (and I agree that this is kind of strange!) but there seems to be an undertone to this discussion that any intervention at all is not only not "natural" but probably completely unnecessary, and something to feel guilty about.

Completely "natural" birth is unattainable for some women. Not most women, but some. No matter how much we plan, read, work with our midwives, etc., real life sometimes just doesn't cooperate. I had the most wonderful, supportive, "natural" midwife I could have hoped to find. When it became clear that intervention was needed, I trusted her. And both ds and I are alive today. A hundred years ago, we'd both be dead.

I think it's time we stopped being so judgemental of each other - and especially of ourselves - for the kinds of births we have.

KeysMama

12-25-2002, 09:31 AM

Originally posted by zinemama

With all due respect, KeysMama, you may think you are being polite, but as someone who gave birth in a hospital, I find your statement very dismissive. . should have clarified. This is what I tell new clients when we are talking about birth planning and where to have a natural birth. In my experience, I have not seen a natural birth in a hospital so I let them know that as nicely as I can.

MysticHealerMom

12-25-2002, 10:44 AM

No offense to you, zinemama, but I didn't read anything or pick up any undertones that anyone said anything that should make another person feel guilty or judged.

KeysMama, I thought, was very clear, without a clarification, of what her experience was and what her personal definition of natural was. I didn't find it judgemental at all. I thought that her account of discussing after the fact w/moms who choose to believe they went ala naturale was sensitive. I know that a lot of people would like to believe that they are having a natural birth in the hospital, and I don't blame them one bit for claiming that they did. We (aka: science) know that just transporting and being in the hospital interrupts the birth process (http://www.mothering.com/11-0-0/html/11-2-0/ecstatic-birth.shtml). There's a lot of cultrural dogma to be overcome, obviously. And no offense to KeysMama, but a lot of BA's (birth attendants) on this board take a lot of hits because their specialized background gives them a different perception of birth than someone who's on the other end of the yoni. Their views about birth tend to be pretty stark, but I appriciate it when they identify themselves as BA's so we have a perspective of where they're coming from.

It's distressing to me that when someone starts to discuss what is basically semantics and their personal views, someone invariably has to tell them that "other" people are hurt by their "judgements".

I think that is pretty sad that we all have to define our place in this continuum to everyone we speak to. But, it's part of the education and erradication of outmoded views of childbirth. I'm proud to be a part of this community because we care so much. I've learned a lot and I think that I bring something to the party, as well.

When I first started paying attention to discussions of childbirth, I realized they were referring to all vaginal as natural. And while that struck me at the time as a little odd, I went with it for some time. Until I did my own research and discovered that I didn't feel natural childbirth simply ment no major surgery. I think a lot more women can do it than think they can. Having that backup and encouragement (at the hospital) makes it tempting, perhaps too much, for women who are in the temple of technology, and are used to technology in their lives and the everyday convenience devices. As Pam England says in BFW, a lot of women in our culture have never done anything particularly physically challenging, or sweaty, vomity and ungainly as grunting and yelling in a public place. I think one of the closest things to compare to is running a marathon, and all the training leading up to it, and the mental letting go, the walls and valleys and highs during the run, but no one sees your privates.

We have a lot to overcome in our culture, and it's no wonder we don't "do" natural childbirth well. But, we're getting there, and there is no shame in wanting a little help, or a lot of help, but part of the education and erradication process is to acknowledge what we had chosen and not feel so intimidated by labels and continuum issues related to a natural birth.

I think if someone you don't particularly know brings up in conversation, you are justified in saying - yes, I had natural childbirth. But if you're discussing the whole thing, you could bring up the fact that you had some pain killers and an episiotomy or some oxygen, so it was pretty natural. And not feel ashamed or judged because it's your experience - good, bad. Everyone can just keep their negative opinions to themselves if they can't be supportive.

I'm planning a homebirth attended by 2 naturopaths (doctors) in May. They can use vacuum extraction and oxygen and of course can do episiotomy. They don't and haven't used vacuum extraction, but it is a tool they have available. I think this is going to be a very natural birth. But, I've also had surgery for removal of a polyp on my cervix during pregnancy, so it's about as natural a process as I suppose I can get. I'm trying my darndest to become educated for the marathon part of pregnancy. So that when the time comes I'm not birthing in my mind, but in my body. I wouldn't be able to birth at home as naturally as I can if the polyp were there, and it may still be an issue, because only the part sticking out was cut off. But, I am attempting to go as non-interference as possible. Not for my sake, but for the baby, because I believe he's the one that will benefit the most from a non-interrupted, non-medicated birth and an intact mom after the outcome. If I didn't think that recovery from a medicated birth took more time and just wasn't generally good for the body's natural recovery system, and I didn't know about the impact to the baby in all this, I'd probably opt for twilightsleep. But you can't even get that anymore.

KeysMama

12-25-2002, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by MysticHealerMom
I didn't find it judgemental at all. Thanks MHM, if anyone reads judgement into my post, then I feel that any guilt trip is already been placed upon them, perhaps by themselves, but not by me for sure. I had 1 hospital epidural birth, and 1 natural at home. To imply that I have judgement is false. I only tell of what I see and know.

CanOBeans

12-25-2002, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by KeysMama
Even on this board I see women tell their birth stories with sidebars of "mine was unusually hard to I had to take meds/epidural/c-section" as if natural birth is all luck and conditional or an unattainable ideal....well I guess it will be for some.

I think it's important, though, to understand and acknowledge that there IS a certain amount of luck, chance, lack of control, whatever you want to call it, about birth. I know many women who did everything "right" to prepare for a natural birth and still had interventions or c-sections for very good reasons. Some women seem unable to recognize that just because they had a natural birth themselves doesn't mean that it was because they did everything right and someone who didn't have a natural birth didn't. Birth is not within our complete control. We have more control if we stay home, but planning a home birth, or having a doula, or taking Bradley classes, or eating perfectly, or doing yoga -- none of these are guarantees of a natural or even a vaginal birth.

I don't like the competition between women over birth. For heaven's sake, I had a totally natural birth at home but some women would say I had an interventive birth because I had midwives present -- who didn't do much of anything, but I've been told by those who favor unassisted birth that even the presence of someone besides the mother and father (and some even object to the dad being there) is not natural. Trying to pin labels on birth is an exercise in absurdity, because no two births are ever the same.

BTW, I do know a woman whose midwife bailed on her at the last minute -- she ended up having a totally natural, totally non-interventive VBAC in the hospital with an OB present (the same OB who lost her hospital privileges for not following the standard obstetric line; her story has been posted on MDC recently). It can happen -- but it is very, very rare. Women should understand that going to a hospital almost surely means having some kind of intervention or institutional protocol that becomes a part of their birth -- even if it's just putting on a hospital gown.

Edited well after the fact because my typos are now getting quoted, yikes! ;)

CanOBeans

12-25-2002, 02:32 PM

Oh, I also meant to say, in reply to the OP -- I think a lot of people refer to a non-c/s birth as "natural" because they can't bring themselves to say the word "vaginal" out loud! :LOL I've gotten so used to saying "vaginal" that I don't even think about it anymore -- I've gotten some weird looks from people. :wink

crazy_eights

12-25-2002, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by CanOBeans
Oh, I also meant to say, in reply to the OP -- I think a lot of people refer to a non-c/s birth as "natural" because they can't bring themselves to say the word "vaginal" out loud!

I think this is *so* true. I'll come "out" here before I start - I'm an RN who works in hospital L&D (and very much agree that walking in our door is the first intervention - but that's another discussion...). You wouldn't believe the lengths to which people will go not to say "vagina", "penis" or other anatomical words. I had a woman *spell* n-u-r-s-i-n-g b/c she didn't want to say "breastfeeding" in front of her kids! :eek

MysticHealerMom

12-25-2002, 04:21 PM

:LOL

that's amazing!! when my mom was teaching us sex ed, we used vagina and penis. my mom had no idea what to do, so actually bought some books at the time, and this is what they said to do. our friends were so weirded out. :eek and so were their parents :Winky sometimes I use more descrete terms, esp when I think I'm starting to sound like a dictionary :) Or I get that stare :eyes - that indicates I've "lost my audience" - silliness!

Was discussing Spiritual Midwifery w/my docs, and they were telling me how the book is a little dated now, they call it, hm, "yoni" I offered? no. Um, the c-word?, no no. ah, "pussy" - sorry if that's offensive, just using it in the contex of the book... :) :angel

peace this holiday season! :sunshine

kama'aina mama

12-26-2002, 01:55 AM

I only encountered this once, while I was pregnant. It was a comment from an elderly lady so I sort of assumed it was a generational thing. I had no idea it was an actual attitude!

Greaseball

01-18-2003, 12:22 PM

:OT About "vagina" - a lot of people just can't bring themselves to say it. I had an English teacher who was reading a selection to the class and she read the words "d!ck" and "mother-f" but when it came to the word vagina, she just said "blank-blank-blank."

It is subconscious hatred of women such as this that is partly responsible for the state of sOBstetrics as it is today. Grr...

Anyway, I read that ACOG (A-COG in our wheels) considers "natural childbirth" to be any birth where the mother remains awake and delivers, you know, blank-blankity.

But when people ask me, it's always meant "did you have drugs." But, get this, some people don't consider the epidural to be "drugs!" I have asked people "Are you going to have drugs?" Only to hear them say "No, just the epidural."

I've been reading Open Season again, which reminds us that it's impossible to have a hospital birth with no interventions, and that being in the hospital is an intervention by itself. Even my dh knows better - when people asked me if I had a natural birth, I would say yes, (meaning no drugs AND no epidural-type drugs! :p) and he would say "What about the forceps?" Even he knew that I did not have a "natural" delivery.

So when talking about a completely, intervention-free, homebirth, I use the term in Open Season - purebirth.

MysticHealerMom

01-18-2003, 06:53 PM

Good words, Greaseball!

I think people might be getting used to the "word", what with the Vagina Monlogues - but I know people hae trouble with that one :D

It all just reminds me of that scene in Boys on the Side where they're discussing the "worst" word - the c-word. BLANK, blank, blank, blank. *giggle*

Purebirth sounds cool. Now I've got another book to buy!! :tsk

:thumb

oh, and

VAGINA

abimommy

01-27-2003, 01:34 AM

Even on this board I see women tell their birth stories with sidebars of "mine was unusually hard to I had to take meds/epidural/c-section" as if natural birth is all luck and conditional or an unattainable ideal....well I guess it will be for some.

I did find this to be a little judgemental. This is the VBAC board so I am assuming that several people on here have had c-sections. I dont know about "unusually hard to take" but it sounds a little dismissive when some of the women on this board were facing life or death situations. Just my MO. There is a thread about why people had c-sections on this board...

MysticHealerMom

01-27-2003, 10:58 AM

that's true, abimommy. i try to be respectful of this forum because I have read around to see what was going on and had not previously posted because I didn't have anything to add that was supportive or informative.

I kinda thought this thread belonged in a different forum... I don't think anyone in this forum promotes a c-sec because it's convenient or fun, and I'd like to appologize if my comments in this particular thread were insensitive, considering the forum it's in.

:blush :love

Lori

zombiemommie

01-28-2003, 08:20 PM

As the originator of this thread - the reason I put it here (which I guess isn't in the first post) is that I am trying for a VBAC, and I had a c/s the first time, and when I tell anybody that I am attempting a VBAC (which I also hope to be non-medicated) this is the response I hear often. I guess MY thoughts on what a natural birth are, vs. what the general public (not MDC) thinks are so different. I guess I was very frustrated when I wrote the post because of non-medicated VBAC not getting the recognition and getting lumped into the "natural" because it is vaginal category = does that make sense ?

Anyway, this thread did get interesting :)

MamaOui

01-28-2003, 08:57 PM

I don't like the competition between women over birth. For heaven's sake, I had a totally natural birth at home but some women would say I had an interventive birth because I had midwives present -- who didn't do much of anything, but I've been told by those who favor unassisted birth that even the presence of someone besides the mother and father (and some even object to the dad being there) is not natural. Trying to pin labels on birth is an exercise in absurdity, because no two birth are ever the same

:thumb Great post CanOBeans:love I loved your whole post, but I just wanted to quote my favorite part. ITA, but you said it so much better than I would have.

TreeLove

01-29-2003, 08:58 AM

Originally posted by CanOBeans

I think it's important, though, to understand and acknowledge that there IS a certain amount of luck, chance, lack of control, whatever you want to call it, about birth. I know many women who did everything "right" to prepare for a natural birth and still had interventions or c-sections for very good reasons. Some women seem unable to recognize that just because they had a natural birth themselves doesn't mean that it was because they did everything right and someone who didn't have a natural birth didn't. Birth is not within our complete control. We have more control if we stay home, but planning a home birth, or having a doula, or taking Bradley classed, or eating perfectly, or doing yoga -- none of these are guarantees of a natural or even a vaginal birth.

CanOBeans- you rock, mama! Yup, that's me. Did EVEYTHING right and ended up w/ to preemies (one was a micro-preemie-under 2 pounds) and now I will have all my babes by c-birth. and I'm FINALLY at a point that I don't give a crap what people think about the way I give birth. It's MY way and I FINALLY don't feel in competion with other mamas. They can justify all the reasons why such a traumatic event CAN'T happen to them, when I know deep in my heart that our situation could happen to ANYONE. It was nothing I did or didn't do that made my placenta form weird. It's just the way it was. And I'm thankful for the classical c-birth that saved my 2 precious boys. If it means I'm different, so be it. It won't be the 1st time, nor the last!:D

abimommy

01-30-2003, 10:59 AM

(((mystichealermom)))))

We are all very passionate about our causes...sorry if it seemed that I was nitpicking..:)

AmyB

01-30-2003, 11:47 AM

I agree that this issue should not be about competition for whose birth was most "natural".

I actually think hospitals are responsible for confusing the meaning of the term "natural birth". the hospital where I gave birth swore up and down that they knew how to assist at a natural birth, but when push came to shove they obviously didn't have a clue.

Probably they were using the term "natural" to mean "vaginal", but when I said it I thought it meant being allowed to give birth without being unnecessarily tortured or annoyed.

Sad to say, it probably is impossible to do that in a hospital.

--AmyB

MysticHealerMom

01-30-2003, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by abimommy
(((mystichealermom)))))

We are all very passionate about our causes...sorry if it seemed that I was nitpicking..:)

not at all :) I try to be sensitive, and appriciate it when someone can let me know if I've gone too far. I definately wouldn't want to make any assumptions on this forum. I think it's kinda sad that in some hospitals in the US the c/s rate is 25-50%, and I certainly don't hold the women who get them responsible. it's pretty obvious watching those birth infotainment-u-mentaries that some women are being fed a line when they're in a compromised position. i think some women erroneously take on the responsibility and guilt for that. And it masks the incidents of women who have legitimate c/s needs.

I hadn't really thought of it as a competition, but I suppose it is. Heck, on the other end of the spectrum, some women even brag about the amount of intervention they had - esp if it related to "no pain". That would be the goal for them.

A friend of mine told me that the point was to have a healthy baby at the end, not to have some selfish transcendental experience. I told her for me it wasn't about my experience, it was about what was best for the baby. And i thot that ment as little intervention as possible, based on my studies. But we both agreed when it came down to it, the end result should be a healthy baby. And the healthiest baby includes a healthy mom, however she needs to be "delivered". After all, you can't plan, really. Even a scheduled induction is going to go the way it goes. You have to do what's best in the moment.

best wishes to all.

Lori

bec

01-30-2003, 08:24 PM

ended up as a C/s anyway. I took the Bradley classes, I ate the right food, I did the exercises, and I learned how to breath. Labor started in a crappy way, with my water breaking with meconium staining. Now, with 20/20 hindsight, I have reasons and justifications for it. But, somehow, I had a hard time getting past the thought that I had failed. Nevermind I went for over 6 hours on pitocin with no pain medication. As a result, she was medicated for about 5 minutes while I was given the spinal and cut open, and was very bright and alert. Nevermind I was one (well, 3 if you count my equally inexperienced husband, and non-confrontational but very sweet mother) laboring woman against an entire institution. Nevermind that I had to take care of a new-born and recover from major abdominal surgery at the same time. Nevermind that we had an incredibly rocky start to nursing. Nevermind I persevered, and am still nursing her as she gets ready for her 2nd birthday.

A friend from my Bradley class also had a c/s. She got a "congratulatory" phone call from our instructor. She left a message on their machine, "Congratulations on the...uhh...umm, I guess 'birth' of your baby." :eek Of course, 3 out of the 5 couples in her class had c/s, so I guess she was a little grumpy about it. I was the last to give birth. I never got a phone call. This might have something to do with my sense of failure.

I guess I didn't realize I felt this strongly until I got it written out. I have seen a lot of judgement of laboring women. The fact is, until you go through it, regardless of whether it's at home or a hospital or in the woods, you don't know how you're going to react. I'm ttc our next child, and I don't know how I'll handle the next birth. I have a much better idea, and am taking steps to not repeat what went wrong with the first, but until I get there, I don't know. My hope is that I will be less judgemental and gentler with myself than I was with the first birth, and than most of the general public is.

Sherricp

01-31-2003, 03:53 AM

I think it just shows that you need to spell out what you mean. It's not like anyone owns the word "natural", and if it could be patented, I'm not sure who I would want to own it. I do understand the frustration it can lead to when you express a desire for natural childbirth, get gungho enthusiasm from your prospective care provider and/or support people, and later get advised "not to rule out an epidural, cause this stuff can hurt and there's nothing to be ashamed of..."

I'll be going to a hospital for my VBAC, and I will have fetal monitoring, though I really hope to avoid surgery, all drugs, IV, cutting implements or forceps. If all goes as well as I hope it will (and there's no reason to think that the baby's umbilical cord will lodge securely between her head and my cervix), and I give birth to my baby without drugs, I don't think I'll be correcting anyone who asks if we had "natural childbirth" this time. If someone asks, "Was it a homebirth? Was it intervention free?", of course I would say, "No, we were in a hospital", but I don't feel like I need to say that my birth was "unnatural" nor will I deny it's "purity" for that matter.

It's not that I don't value the more "purely natural" homebirth experience. I do. I don't think that a drug free hospital birth is the same experience. I just personally think that a lot of the "nature" in "childbirth" is present in both experiences. Somehow being told that I would only be allowed to properly call it "an unmedicated hospital birth" would sell it short somehow.

Sherri
Mama to Daniel 10/10/00
another coming in May

Greaseball

01-31-2003, 02:42 PM

I guess, really, any mother can call her birth what she wants. If she decides it was natural for her, that's all that matters. Or even if she says it wasn't natural, but is fine with it or thinks it was necessary, that's good too.

Of course, a c/s or any other intervention may sometimes be necessary, but if it happened to me I still would not consider it natural. No judgment there, not saying it would be "bad," just unnatural. Nature does not say that my babies should come up out of my abdomen, or be pulled out with instruments, or be born with drugs in their systems.

Interestingly, some animal species do have birth attendants. Elephants, for example, have a difficult time giving birth without "midwives" - other female elephants that assist the laboring elephant and help with the baby. Some animals are even having c/s these days because their captors do not understand their need for a "midwife."

Remember, I'm not claiming to know what it is like to accept an intervention into birth out of necessity and then be judged for not having a "natural" birth. I'm just saying what I consider "natural childbirth" to mean for me personally.

dotcommama

01-31-2003, 03:53 PM

zombiemommie - I totally get where you are coming from with this thread. I am planning a drug free, and as intervention free as can be, VBAC and whenever I tell people that this time I want a "natural birth" people tell me I had one with my first b/c he was a vaginal delivery (as opposed to my second who was c-section). I usually point out that having an epidural with a forcepts delievery is not my idea of natural. :rolleyes:

Even when I was discussing having the c-section with my second I was telling the OB that I was very disappointed b/c I had wanted this birth to be natural and he looked confused and said, "But you didn't have a c-section with your first." and I explained what I meant by natural and he said basically that to him if the baby came out the "natural way," i.e. through the birth canal, it was a natural birth :confused:

Sandra Dee

03-06-2003, 01:33 PM

FYI - my MIL uses the term "natural" to skate around the word VAGINA - cause THAT'S normal! LOL!

I think it must just be an old-timer's thing - to say it was a "Natural delivery" means delivered through the vagina as opposed to an unnatural or surgical delivery - well, at least I agree with that correlation! ;)

Kleine Hexe

03-19-2003, 01:47 PM

Yes, most people consider any vaginal birth as "natural" birth. I find that really sad. Even my own hubby thinks so. I have replaced the term "natural" for "pure" birth. I loved the definition of it in Silent Knife and decided that was the term I'd use from now on.

Juelie's Mom

03-22-2003, 07:58 PM

I haven't had time to read every post here, but I just wanted to pop in and say, before Juelie wakes up, that I would consider "natural" to mean "without intervention". Intervention meaning anything that does not occur naturaly, without assistance, in the body.

HOWEVER, there ARE interventions that are nessecary. I had a completely non-interventive home birth. But, I still think its crazy how women who did not have a completely "natural" birth are constantly pushed to defend their experience. Don't most women feel bad enough as it is??? Interventions are not evil- most exist for good reason. The problem is that they are very often used unnessicarily. I am proud to say that I had a natural birth, but if I hadn't, or if I don't in the future, I doubt it will be any less of a wonderful experience. And I doubt I will be any less of a strong woman as a result!

Holly

alexa07

04-16-2003, 11:41 PM

Calling an assisted birth "unnatural" is a little off putting. To me it is "unnatural" for humans (i.e. not in our nature) not to use our brains to develop means of protecting us from things that will kill us.

The sad fact is that while most women can sucessfully give birth without any "intervention", historically many, many women died this way.

Do you think that a "natural" birth is always good? If you think that a natural birth means an unassited one, I hope you said no. Births that end with the death of the mother and child would fit that description.

abimommy

04-18-2003, 09:12 AM

Deaths can occur in a hospital with a room full of staff. Just because the mother is in the hospital doesn't mean she is safe from complications.

Generally, I think unassisted births are carefully planned and thought out. Mothers who are at risk for complications should not plan unassisted births. I wouldn't try an unassisted birth but I know some people do fine with it..I don't think it is a good idea for a VBAC IMHO..

I dont think assisted births is what the previous posters mean by "interventions" generally intervention implies; medication, episiotomy, forceps, c-section...ect ect

Kat20

04-18-2003, 11:37 PM

The real reason that women used to die was that doctors came straight from disecting specimens and did not wash their hands.

Today, most of the problems occur because of the interventions a woman receives by choosing to have an OB in a hospital and/or a bad diet and sedetary lifestyle. So, yes, it is the mother's fault most of the time.

You sleep in the bed you make is what I usually tell people.

MamaOui

04-19-2003, 06:01 AM

Today, most of the problems occur because of the interventions a woman receives by choosing to have an OB in a hospital and/or a bad diet and sedetary lifestyle. So, yes, it is the mother's fault most of the time.

Kat20, Would you mind siting the resources where you got this information? I am sure there are plenty of women on this board and perhaps this thread that do not fit your description. I hope that you never have to go through what some of the women here (including myself) have had to go through.

I certainly hope if you give birth (I don't know if you have been/are pregnant or have children or not, but I am assuming you don't considering the harsh judgement that you are making towards so many mothers) and if you ever have complications that warrent intervention that women don't say to you "You made your bed, now lie in it."

This is the VBAC forum at MDC. This a place where women who have had C-sections go for support and information. Until you have walked a mile in these women's shoes, you have no idea what their circumstances are. I hope you think about that before you come here to play the blame game.

edited for spelling

alexa07

04-19-2003, 08:00 AM

Kat,

I do not know where you studied history, but your information is not correct. Dying in childbirth long proceeded doctors. This is a simple and well known fact. The death of women in childbirth was recorded in the earliest historical records. I don't know what has made you so afraid to face this fact, but you should not spread untruths.

Even the most ardent EDUCATED advocates for v-bac estimate that about 1 in 100 women will need a c-section no matter what. Telling these women that they did something wrong is a lie.

This board was set up to help women who want to have a v-bac. Many women on this board who had c-sections believe that those sections were not necessary and are working to find out the best way to avoid them.

Many others feel that although they wish they did not have to have a section, that without one their baby would have died.

While feeling sad about the need for a section they certainly feel very happy that humankind was able to figure out how some babies who were destined to die, could be saved.

Your profile says that you do not have any children. Maybe when you have a precious child you will understand.

I have given birth by c-section and v-bac. The importance of my method of giving birth, pales in comparison to the importance to me that I have two beautiful healthy children.

shelbean91

04-19-2003, 12:22 PM

When I went to my (hospital run) childbirth class before my dd was born, the instructor asked how many planned a natural childbirth. I didn't raise my hand b/c I was sure I wanted my epidural as soon as I was in the door. When so few people raised their hands, she clarified, saying 'you should all want a natural birth, if you don't want a natural birth, that means you want a surgical birth'. Most of the rest of the class was describing all of the possible interventions (even though they are *hardly* used, they want you to be prepared for the 'just in case').

I ended up being admitted at 32 wks for PROM and dd was delivered at 35 weeks w/no pain meds and epis that was probably not needed, as well as IV, b/c we hadn't gotten results of GBS. I consider my birth natural, even though there were interventions. With dd being so early, things were so strange and off, I'm glad they went as well as they did.

People trust their dr and the medical community to get them through and they are given misinformation. I think that's why so many consider a vaginal birth a natural birth, regardless of the interventions. They figure interventions wouldn't happen if they weren't needed b/c drs surely wouldn't steer them wrong, right?

Greaseball

04-19-2003, 05:28 PM

Even the country with the lowest infant mortality rate and one of the highest life expectancies (Netherlands) has a 4 to 6% c/s rate.

Also, due to finances, insurance or lack of availability, many women are not able to choose between an OB and a midwife, or between the nice OB and the mean one. Some women who are getting state-paid care often only have the choice of one doctor, and it's not usually the nice one.

Women also do not necessarily have the choice to avoid interventions. True, there are legal rights, but those are rarely considered. It's just about impossible to sue a doctor just because she held you down and gave you pitocin and then you had to have a c/s.

I'm fortunate to have choices and know my rights, but I don't blame the women who aren't in my position.

Kat20

04-19-2003, 10:30 PM

In "Male Practice: How Doctors Manipulate Women," the late and great Dr.Mendelsohn discusses the history of childbirth extensively. He goes into detail about how more women died when doctors took over the birth process. He actually says that childbirth would be a lot better if obstetrics were abolished.

The rate he gives for necessary c-sections is only about 5 percent.

The quality that I appreciate about the late Dr.Mendelsohn is that he tells it like it is in his books and, he is brutally honest without holding anything back. I'm beginning to think his personality was similar to mine.

applejuice

04-19-2003, 10:48 PM

Dear Kat20

May be you are right!

Dr. Mendelsohn also said that he felt a Caesarean Section birth in a hospital was safer than a vaginal birth because the way OB's intervene in vaginal births, and Caesarean is definitely safer.

After all, you are delivering from above, in the heavenly sense.

applejuice

04-19-2003, 10:57 PM

I remember seeing a television news show in 1971 when I was in high school; they were showing a woman delivering a baby by Caesarean Section wide awake using only acupuncture needles for anesthesia. The commentator said this was "natural childbirth".

Since then, I have come to realize that lots of people play with that term "natural childbirth". I know that most people consider it natural childbirth if the mother is awake at that point in time, no matter how many interventions the mother and baby may have endured during the birth/labor process. Many mothers leave out the fact of the drug intervention/assistance.

Greaseball

04-19-2003, 11:33 PM

In Open Season, there is the story of a woman who had a c/s without anesthesia. She was screaming out that she could feel every cut and the nurses told her that there was no way she could be feeling it. The anesthesiologist was there the whole time. Finally, after the baby was born and the woman was being stitched up, still in agony, the OB started getting all mad at the woman for "tensing up" and shouted "I can't do anything down here!" so the anesthesiologist gave the patient general anesthesia. He was standing there the whole time and could have given it to her as she was screaming, but no. I guess that wouldn't have been very "natural."

alexa07

04-20-2003, 02:20 PM

Kat,

You need a little work on your logical reasoning. The fact that doctors, who had not yet picked up on the importance of hand washing, caused some mothers to die when they initially began intervening in birth (about 100 years ago) is in no way, shape or form proof for your statement that "the real reason that women used to die" was that doctors did not wash their hands. Yes, some deaths were caused by this, but not all or even most maternal deaths have occured this way in the long history of childbirth.

Greaseball

04-20-2003, 09:17 PM

One cause of death was the fact that upper-class women were put into corsets as soon as they reached puberty, and wore the corsets all through their pragnancies. This caused deformed babies, damaged maternal organs, and lots of deaths.

Among the poor, living conditions were a cause. Also, women would work in the fields all day right after having a baby, and the babies would be fed a watery gruel mixture or sometimes were harnessed to the bellies of animals and would have to nurse off them.

It wasn't only lack of hand-washing that doctors were guilty of, there were the routine high-forceps deliveries as well, with unwashed forceps of course. And the administration of chloroform for pain; there is no way to mete out an appropriate dose of that. You just pour some on a rag and hope you got it right.

MamaOui

04-21-2003, 05:39 AM

I only have a couple of minutes, but I wanted to respond to you again, Kat20.

I am not clear on how you can blame women for the c-sec rate in this country when you go on to state that there is a problem with OB's performing far too many unneeded c-sections.

I am totally agreement that this country's c-section rate is far too high, but I am still unclear how you can place the blame on women, by saying that they made their bed and they need to lie in it. Many women live in a state or area where VBAC isn't even an option for them. For some women, birth with a midwife or a homebirth is truly a "luxury" because insurance does not cover that choice in many cases. Some woman chose an OB because that is all that there is for a choice in the area that they live in. Some women chose a family practioner or a midwife and still end up having a c-sec. Many good family practioners and midwifes will not assist homebirths due to liability issues in this sue happy nation. There is a level of faith or trust that a woman puts in her birth attendent, based on research, intuition, good faith, and many other factors, but still women are c-sectioned. Many educated, fit, well researched women are still c-sectioned.

:confused: still unclear as to why all the blame goes to victim, especailly in a forum where many women who have had a c-sec go for support. A place where women are going to empower themselves and make informed choices.

weesej

04-21-2003, 06:23 AM

With all due respect, KeysMama, you may think you are being polite, but as someone who gave birth in a hospital, I find your statement very dismissive. It's like you are trying to make women who had empowering, positive birth experiences - and this can happen in hospital settings - feel like their experiences were less than ideal simply because of where they occured.

No it's the mindset of the hospital organization staff, etc that make it nearly impossible for a woman to birth normally and natrally in that setting. As a doula and apprentice midwife I have yet to see it. I would never consider changing a womans thoughts on her birth and making her feel less for birthing in a hospital. Women are intelligent beings, I am here to provide information and she can make decisions about what kind of birth she wants and what is best for her. It is not my birth!

I understand that this thread is about the fact that some people believe any non c/s birth should be considered "natural", (and I agree that this is kind of strange!) but there seems to be an undertone to this discussion that any intervention at all is not only not "natural" but probably completely unnecessary, and something to feel guilty about.

Of course not, sometimes interventions save lives and thank God for them then. And it does occur to me that these women who go around talking about thier "natural" births LOVE thier birth experience. Itr would be great to make a friend and not discount thier experience but tap into that love of birth and show them what else there can be. BTW Most of the time our hospitals use intervention routinely and it is not necessary, that is the overtone and very often it is true. The practice I work with has a 7% transport rate, usually for pitocin about 1% total need forceps/vacum) and of the 7% a 2% Cesarean rate, all with much better mortality stats than doctors and hospitals.

Completely "natural" birth is unattainable for some women. Not most women, but some. No matter how much we plan, read, work with our midwives, etc., real life sometimes just doesn't cooperate. I had the most wonderful, supportive, "natural" midwife I could have hoped to find. When it became clear that intervention was needed, I trusted her. And both ds and I are alive today. A hundred years ago, we'd both be dead.

True and that is something those women need to understand and come to terms with themselves. All women should not have the knowledge of how unneccesary and even sometimes dangerous uneeded interventions can be glossed over so that the few who truly need them fell better about themselves. I have sat with women in labor helped them adjust with going to a hospital and thought to myself "just do the damn c-sec now, or do the damn episiotomy, she needs it get that baby out."(Heartrates in the 50's and 60's on the baby) Then helped them adjust to thier experience and grieve the loss of a natural homebirth, without losing sight of the fact that the interventions were needed to have a healthy baby.

I think it's time we stopped being so judgemental of each other - and especially of ourselves - for the kinds of births we have.

I do not judge. It is not what I would choose but not my birth either. I am however convinced that the most natural birth possible is what is the safest and wonderful for both mom and baby.

applejuice

05-02-2003, 08:54 PM

To Alexa 07:

Be advised that the information that Kat 20 used is well versed and documented in any story about Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis. He is the premier doctor in developing modern medical antiseptic behavior. He was an Austrian doctor who noticed that women in his hospital developed a condition known as "puerperal fever" or "childbed fever". This disease was assumed by all of the arrogant doctors to be the result of hysterical, silly women.

Incidentally, only the very wealthy women at this point in history could actually afford a hospital birth with an OB. Therefore there is the assumption that these women had pampered lifestyles.

The patients who could not afford an OB, but did go to the hospital, had a midwife, and the midwives had a tradition and routine of washing their hands in handling the birthing woman, and their patients did not develop the infectious problems that patients of the OB's did.

Many, many women still gave birth at home with midwives at that time, and some lived and some died. There are really no good statistics on this.

It is not the universal hospitalization of women in childbirth that has saved mothers; it is better sanitation and better nutrition.

I am not saying that the midwives' patients did not die or have any kind of problems; they just did not have the iatrogenic problems that the OBs' patients had - puerperal fever.

Dr. Ignaz Semmelweis noticed that if the doctors would actually wash their hands in an antiseptic solution as they left the morgue after working on dead bodies before they touched the laboring women, the women would not get sick. The doctors did notice a difference between the women under Dr. Semmelweis's direction and the women who did not get his treatment. Instead of following his example, the doctors drove Semmelweis out of practice and he died in an asylum for the insane. They felt they were G-d and even G-d did not have to wash their hands! HOw could anyone actually accused them of hurting and killing some of these women. The work of Semmelweis was studied and used by Jenner, Lister and Pasteur and others for whom sanitation meant something.

I am a homebirth mother and I myself was born at home.

Women die in childbirth everyday in American hospitals from nosocomial and iatragenic causes. Since the hospitals keep the numbers, no one really knows how many or why.

Greaseball

05-03-2003, 02:16 PM

In one French town, when hospital birth became the norm, literally every woman who gave birth in the hospital died shortly thereafter. The women were buried two in a coffin to disguise the rate of death.

:OT
In one New York inner city hospital, black women had babies that were healthier at birth than white women's babies, despite the black women's lack of prenatal care and health insurance. It was then noticed that during labor, when the black women asked for pain medication, they either did not get any or received a much lower amount than the white women received.

(Both from "Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution" by Adrienne Rich)

applejuice

05-03-2003, 02:29 PM

Sounds like the black women were getting better treatment even though that was not the intended outcome!

Greaseball

05-03-2003, 10:00 PM

Yep! Although I think it's rude to deny someone medication on the basis of race, in this case it helped.

But the women didn't know it was better for their babies; they thought they were getting the raw end of the deal.

miriam

05-04-2003, 12:48 AM

In CA, medi-Cal mothers were denied epidurals unless they could come up with a cash payment at the moment they needed/demanded it.

There were plenty of stories of fathers driving out while their wives were in labor to get the necessary fee.

Epidurals and the like were not covered by Medi-Cal and the anesthesiologists were rarely reimbursed by the Medi-Cal recipient, so they were demanding payment upfront in cash.

Later the State Legislature took care of this. I wonder if it was an improvement or not as far as their babies' health, the mothers' health and their outcomes are concerned.

fourlittlebirds

05-04-2003, 12:50 PM

Of course women and babies throughout the history of humankind have died during childbirth; no one is disputing this. I think that also no one is disputing that obstetrics has a rather ugly past. But knowing history does not much help us with determining whether childbirth is inherently dangerous (relatively speaking of course, since all of life could be considered dangerous from a certain perspective) or whether it is usually made so by environment, i.e., diet, sanitation, stress, social practices, etc.

The latter seems a much more reasonable assumption to me, but I do not have scientific proof that this is so; and neither has the opposite assumption been proven true (although it is generally treated as such in our society.)

We are (as a society) unfortunately not in a very good position right now to make any definitive judgements about the true risks of birth because we don't anymore know what uninterfered birth looks like. The World Health Organization issued a statement saying that "By medicalizing birth, i.e. separating a woman from her own environment and surrounding her with strange people using strange machines to do strange things to her in an effort to assist her (and some of this may occasionally be necessary), the woman's state of mind and body is so altered that her ways of carrying through this intimate act must also be altered and the state of the baby born must equally be altered. The result is that it is no longer possible to know what births would have been like before these manipulations. Most health care providers no longer know what "non-medicalized" birth is. This is an overwhelmingly important issue."

fourlittlebirds

05-04-2003, 01:29 PM

MamaOui wrote: "...still unclear as to why all the blame goes to victim..."

It shouldn't. But I think that tendency of some people here is probably a backlash against the much more common tendency to shift blame to others (or to a vague unknown) that one sees on the more mainstream boards. If a woman has a cesarean and talks about it here, she might try to open up discussion about it to try to determine how it could have been avoided; and she may come to the conclusion that she made some poor decisions, and say so. But this is not the norm. Most people are going to say, "oh it was just one of these things." Or, "the doctors said it was for the best, therefore it was." Or (admittedly more common here), "the doctors are evil, they did it to me."

Of course blaming a specific individual is wrong for many reasons. But I think that speaking generally about taking personal responsibility for the bad things that happen to us is a good thing. For me it is empowering to acknowledge and act on the fact that everything in my life is not subject to outside powers. For instance, my first birth was emotionally traumatic. I blame my midwife, sure, but I also have to take some of the responsibility for it myself. *I* hired her, *I* gave her the power to make decisions for me, *I* allowed her to behave toward me the way she did. I believe that it was only by seeing this that I was able to make for myself the most effective and edifying changes in my approach to birth.