|Originally posted by miriam
I agree with Omegamama!
Use the Nancy Reagan method to get Natural Chldbirth in a Hospital.
Just say, "NO " to the first intervention.
The problem though is often the first intervention is the EFM which is a requirement by all hospitals and their insurance companies. Being confined to your bed is not good for a healthy laboring woman.
Furthermore, actually, the very first intervention for most healthy laboring mothers is the trip to the hospital itself.
ITA. We talk about suing doctors for performing unnecessary interventions but we're forgetting it's the lawsuits that brought us here in the first place. The average obgyn pays more in malpractice insurance than I make in two years (ok, 3 yrs). How many women sue their doctor for childbirth events that studies consistently show the doctor cannot possibly control, like most stillbirths for example? Because they've bought into the fantasy of a hero using the latest technology to predict the exact moment a baby might die in childbirth, and thus dive in and cut him out just in time, that's why. That's not even plausible, much less proven, and in fact, has been disproven in study after study. That's a myth, a fantasy, 20/20 hindsight, and nothing more. Yet in court, they'll say that if only he monitored every heartbeat, he would have seen the baby was in trouble and cut him out sooner. Even though they've already done the studies that show conclusively that monitoring doesn't have an effect on infant survival rates AT ALL, and serves only to subject them to more surgical births (which ironically, has been shown to *negatively* affect infant survival rates). Still, now they have to monitor all babies. And when doctors & nurses study that strip for the next meaningless reading that galvanizes the c-sec machine into action, they hold in their hands all the justification they need to cut a perfectly healthy child from your perfectly healthy womb and tell you they just saved your baby's life. They also know that if it goes the other way, that strip becomes exhibit A, with exhibit B being your scarred body, proving they did all they could as soon as they could.
Enough with the suing. It's working against us. Yes, lawsuits cost them money, but you know what else costs them money? Competition. Boycott them. Take our business elsewhere. Choose a birth center if that's an option, or better yet -- stay home and have the baby. It's way past time to question the rationality of going to a hospital and expecting, no -- demanding -- that the staff not do what it's trained to do, which is INTERVENE. If a woman checks herself into the hospital with a diagnosis of 'acute pregnancy', she shouldn't be at all surprised if they treat her condition like an illness instead of a normal life event, because after all, who goes to the hospital for a normal life event? As far as I'm concerned, going to the hospital to have my baby would be like going to the hospital to have my period. It's totally buying into the bumper sticker mentality that says Never trust anything that bleeds for a week without dying. Look, if my body bleeds for 4-5 days a month without dying, it's beyond trustworthy. If they could build a machine that could support a pregnancy start to finish with anything near the success rate of the average womb, you can bet they would have done it by now, believe me.
*begin Bitter Paranoid Rant
Sometimes I imagine they already have, but that the fetal survival rate for the mechanical womb is only a pathetic 65% or so, so they artificially tinker with birth statistics using an inflated c-section rate to downplay the effacacy of their strongest competitor: the human female reproductive system. Women are already used to the 1 in 4 your-baby-almost-died rate, so it wouldn't be that much of a stretch for them to up their campaign of discouraging VBACs by framing it in terms of "choice" and "safety", and where possible, outright banning, until the c-section rate is up to 1 in 3. At that point, they have the news conference announcing the invention of the full-term incubator touting its relative safety as comparable to the human womb. In no time, it'll be found in hospitals all over the country and billed as a high-end "treatment option" for "at-risk" pregnancies. At first. Eventually though, it becomes the method of "choice" as more and more women weigh the "risks" of a 1 in 3 c-section rate vs the externally incubated infant survival rate and decide that pregnancy/childbirth is not worth the risk to their bodies or their babies. Of course there's always going to be a fringe element of hippies, technophobes, feminists given to selfish displays of autonomy and the like, but once insurance companies begin global coverage, it's only a small step to mandate, et voila! Another stupid cultural norm is born.
*ok end BPR
Um, as you can see, I might still have a few lingering issues (insert wry, rueful smilie here). I had an HBAC in March, a beautiful healthy baby boy, and it was awesome. I didn't come to this decision lightly of course (as if anyone ever does). I wrestled with all the nagging what-if scenarios, but when it came down to it, no medical condition can justify, nor any random childbirth event compete with, the 1 in 4 c-section rate, and that's general population odds (hospital VBACs run something like 2 to 1 against). Deciding to have my baby at home instead of a hospital wasn't gambling; it was stark, simple arithmetic. But that was my lightbulb moment, and that, coupled with a wholly unnecessary c-sec and hospital vbac that was a nightmare of interventions, enabled me to penetrate the hum of cultural white noise "just in case never know what if could have maybe if never know fault lies blame truth cause effect other power knows more knows best dedicated experienced smarter faster sooner cleaner safer..."
with: ONE! IN! FOUR!
To bring it back to the OP, my view is that doctors believe in the efficacy of the interventions they do despite evidence to the contrary, in pretty much the same way pregnant women believe in the safety of a hospital birth despite evidence to the contrary. It's simply a reflection of our cultural attitudes toward childbirth in general. We cannot reduce the incidence of unecessary medical intervention by doctors without addressing the mind-set that sends healthy women to the hospital to have their babies in the first place.