What did they do before c-sections? - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 104 Old 05-04-2006, 03:22 AM
 
crazy_eights's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Nisht ahir un nish aher
Posts: 6,526
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The whole 'too big' thing is a myth. Babies were smaller 50 years ago at birth, but mothers often smoked and were told to diet and limit their weight gain to 15 lbs. In the early decades of the 1900's, the average baby was LARGER than they are today. A good example would be my own grandfather, born in 1925 at 13 lbs. No, his mother was not a diabetic.
crazy_eights is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#62 of 104 Old 05-04-2006, 03:34 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 3,341
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
See, I never knew that. Thanks! The smoking thing makes a lot of sense, I can picture doctors from that era teaching their replacement that any baby over four pounds was huge. I'm only exaggerating a little, smoker babies can be soooooo tiny!
pumpkinsmama is offline  
#63 of 104 Old 05-04-2006, 04:05 AM
 
Leilalu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SW Washington
Posts: 7,801
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by miriam
Actually, a cord around the neck can PREVENT a very long cord from prolapsing.

Maybe it is a good thing - the umbilical cord around the neck; it must be since it happens so often.
Ouch. Lets hope you never have to deal with this trauma. I was lucky to be alive, really.

I knew a kid who was not so lucky, growing up. Suppossedly he was partially brain damamged because of the cord around his neck.

Due with number 5 in August. We do all that crunchy stuff.
.
Leilalu is offline  
#64 of 104 Old 05-04-2006, 01:56 PM
 
aweynsayl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,394
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
such touchy issues here. esp for those of us who have "had" to have a c-s. yeah, that's subjective. in my case, i believe that *something* would have gone wrong, and either my baby or I would have been hurt. but i believe that, not because some OB told me that. I believe it because my baby, after 39 weeks of being in the correct position, decided to turn breech. we tried the webster technique, we tried the accupuncture technique, we tried pelvic tilts and all of it... we even got the baby to turn about 3/4 of the way... but as soon as he got there, he turned right back, and after that, didnt budge. he knew something was up, and he knew what to do to protect us. since he was 11 lbs, even my mw all said they wouldnt have tried if he was theirs. who knows for sure, but really? i trust my baby. i really believe that he did what he did for a reason, and i really believe that if we hadnt had the option of a c-s, something very bad could very possibly have happened. i guess my point is simply that yes, c-s are done far too often, but thank goodness they can be done, and can be done well.

it's really challenging to want to be here, having had a c-s, because every time i come here, i read at least one thing that makes me feel like crud for having "had" to have a c-s. if there's any chance that reading MY post makes one woman NOT feel that way, well, then maybe that's why i'm rambeling on... anyhow. hugs to all mommas who have had a c-s-- for any reason.

and, to anyone who feels the need to constantly say in harsh or not harsh terms, that c-s almost never really "have" to be done... just please remember... every time you say that, you might encourage a woman to do things to avoid one... but every time you say that, you most certainly bring tears to the eyes of at least one woman who has "had" to have one.

just some food for thought.
xoxox
aweynsayl is offline  
#65 of 104 Old 05-04-2006, 02:09 PM
 
Leilalu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SW Washington
Posts: 7,801
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosemommy
such touchy issues here. esp for those of us who have "had" to have a c-s. yeah, that's subjective. in my case, i believe that *something* would have gone wrong, and either my baby or I would have been hurt. but i believe that, not because some OB told me that. I believe it because my baby, after 39 weeks of being in the correct position, decided to turn breech. we tried the webster technique, we tried the accupuncture technique, we tried pelvic tilts and all of it... we even got the baby to turn about 3/4 of the way... but as soon as he got there, he turned right back, and after that, didnt budge. he knew something was up, and he knew what to do to protect us. since he was 11 lbs, even my mw all said they wouldnt have tried if he was theirs. who knows for sure, but really? i trust my baby. i really believe that he did what he did for a reason, and i really believe that if we hadnt had the option of a c-s, something very bad could very possibly have happened. i guess my point is simply that yes, c-s are done far too often, but thank goodness they can be done, and can be done well.

it's really challenging to want to be here, having had a c-s, because every time i come here, i read at least one thing that makes me feel like crud for having "had" to have a c-s. if there's any chance that reading MY post makes one woman NOT feel that way, well, then maybe that's why i'm rambeling on... anyhow. hugs to all mommas who have had a c-s-- for any reason.

and, to anyone who feels the need to constantly say in harsh or not harsh terms, that c-s almost never really "have" to be done... just please remember... every time you say that, you might encourage a woman to do things to avoid one... but every time you say that, you most certainly bring tears to the eyes of at least one woman who has "had" to have one.

just some food for thought.
xoxox
Well said, and I think maybe we need to remember that we don't have to justify our reasoning..... We know the desicion we had to make.

Due with number 5 in August. We do all that crunchy stuff.
.
Leilalu is offline  
#66 of 104 Old 05-04-2006, 03:01 PM
 
Synchro246's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,660
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leilalu
I knew a kid who was not so lucky, growing up. Suppossedly he was partially brain damamged because of the cord around his neck.
And supposedly some kids wouldn't have cerebral palsy if a cesarean was done or was done more quickly. Too bad an increased cesarean rate does not correlate with a decrease in cerebral palsy rate.
My guess is that they don't know why the kid you knew was brain damaged, but since humans like to "know" things they clung to the one thing that seemed abnormal.

~laura
and planning to eat it again
Synchro246 is offline  
#67 of 104 Old 05-05-2006, 12:13 AM
 
member234098's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 3,242
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leilalu
Ouch. Lets hope you never have to deal with this trauma. I was lucky to be alive, really.

I knew a kid who was not so lucky, growing up. Suppossedly he was partially brain damamged because of the cord around his neck.
OUCH! All of my homeborn children did have their respective cords around their respective necks. There are fine, thank you. Mostly because there was no oxygen depriving medication in my blood and therefore none in my baby's system.

The cause of much brain damage in newborns in yester years was because there was a rule in most places that the nurse had to impede the birth of a baby until the doctor arrived. This was accomplished by holding the mother's legs together and/or holding a towel to the perineum.

I attended school with many children who had minimum brain damage from this protocol. This happened alot.

Of course the baby was ready to breathe; just because the doctor was not there, the baby's first breath was delayed and brain damage occurred.

My point is that not all brain damage is from the lack of caesareans or a tightly wrapped cord around the neck; often brain damage is from too much maternal anesthesia or injudicious hospital routines, that is, from iatrogenesis.

Anoter procedure that was done to women with small pelvic outlets was a crippling procedure called a symphisiotomy which broke the pubic arch to allow the baby to be born. Many women never healed properly from this iatrogenic, crippling procedure.
member234098 is offline  
#68 of 104 Old 05-05-2006, 12:48 AM
 
odenata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,969
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by moosemommy
and, to anyone who feels the need to constantly say in harsh or not harsh terms, that c-s almost never really "have" to be done... just please remember... every time you say that, you might encourage a woman to do things to avoid one... but every time you say that, you most certainly bring tears to the eyes of at least one woman who has "had" to have one.
:

I had an eclamptic seizure during my homebirth. If I hadn't had an emergency surgical birth, my baby and I would be dead.

I think the c-section rate in our country is too high. I'm outraged and upset when I hear of mothers choosing c-sections for convenience and even moreso when I hear of doctors doing it. I'm outraged when I hear of mothers wanting to do VBAC and no one will work with them.

However, a c-section saved my life. C-sections aren't the problem - lazy OBs and overuse is the problem.
odenata is offline  
#69 of 104 Old 05-05-2006, 12:50 AM
 
caned & able's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Bridgeport, ME
Posts: 958
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by odenata
C-sections aren't the problem - lazy OBs and overuse is the problem.
Add to that UN-informed consumers, that is mothers who do not do their research.

Women are their own worst enemy.
caned & able is offline  
#70 of 104 Old 05-05-2006, 12:54 AM
 
Leilalu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SW Washington
Posts: 7,801
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by miriam
OUCH! All of my homeborn children did have their respective cords around their respective necks. There are fine, thank you. Mostly because there was no oxygen depriving medication in my blood and therefore none in my baby's system.

The cause of much brain damage in newborns in yester years was because there was a rule in most places that the nurse had to impede the birth of a baby until the doctor arrived. This was accomplished by holding the mother's legs together and/or holding a towel to the perineum.

I attended school with many children who had minimum brain damage from this protocol. This happened alot.

Of course the baby was ready to breathe; just because the doctor was not there, the baby's first breath was delayed and brain damage occurred.

My point is that not all brain damage is from the lack of caesareans or a tightly wrapped cord around the neck; often brain damage is from too much maternal anesthesia or injudicious hospital routines, that is, from iatrogenesis.

Anoter procedure that was done to women with small pelvic outlets was a crippling procedure called a symphisiotomy which broke the pubic arch to allow the baby to be born. Many women never healed properly from this iatrogenic, crippling procedure.

I don't see what in my post you are reffering to when you say ouch....

I was making reffernce to my birth, and it was a unique situation.
No one is saying cesareans are nessecary for every cord/neck birth. I am also glad your babies are just fine and no intervention was needed for them.

Due with number 5 in August. We do all that crunchy stuff.
.
Leilalu is offline  
#71 of 104 Old 05-05-2006, 01:40 AM
 
erin_brycesmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,019
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
OUCH! All of my homeborn children did have their respective cords around their respective necks. There are fine, thank you. Mostly because there was no oxygen depriving medication in my blood and therefore none in my baby's system.

The cause of much brain damage in newborns in yester years was because there was a rule in most places that the nurse had to impede the birth of a baby until the doctor arrived. This was accomplished by holding the mother's legs together and/or holding a towel to the perineum.

I attended school with many children who had minimum brain damage from this protocol. This happened alot.

Of course the baby was ready to breathe; just because the doctor was not there, the baby's first breath was delayed and brain damage occurred.

My point is that not all brain damage is from the lack of caesareans or a tightly wrapped cord around the neck; often brain damage is from too much maternal anesthesia or injudicious hospital routines, that is, from iatrogenesis.

Anoter procedure that was done to women with small pelvic outlets was a crippling procedure called a symphisiotomy which broke the pubic arch to allow the baby to be born. Many women never healed properly from this iatrogenic, crippling procedure.
Miriam, I get that you are for non intervention births...I am too, but I don't get what any of this has to do with the serious and real problems that can occur from nuchal cords. Sure most nuchal cords present no problems but there are varying levels. Tight nuchal cords can cause compressions in the cord and prevent oxygen and blood from flowing to the baby which can result in asphyxia and hypovolemic shock. This can happen whether the mama has any drugs or not.

My labor was intervention free, no iv, nothing and nobody would have thought his double nuchal cord was a good thing. I will say that I am really glad that I did not have any fetal monitoring because I am pretty sure that if I did red flags would have gone up and I could just see myself ending up with a c-section and it wouldn't have been necessary.

~Erin
erin_brycesmom is offline  
#72 of 104 Old 05-07-2006, 09:35 PM
 
member234098's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 3,242
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The thread is about what was done before c-secs were so common. I can tell you I do know of many women who had high forceps deliveries and many difficult deliveries accomplished with alot of intervention.

Women did die, babies died from difficult labors and deliveries.

My point is that a difficult delivery is accomplished with a skilled attendant using the necessary tools if necessary. Yet, 95% of the time, nothing really is needed. Forceps, vaccuum extractors, anesthesia are all of the modern medical age since about 1850 when surgical techniques were begun to be perfected. The 1940s saw the advent of antibiotics and blood transfusions which came about the same time as universal hospitalization for childbirth.
member234098 is offline  
#73 of 104 Old 05-07-2006, 09:42 PM
 
Leilalu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SW Washington
Posts: 7,801
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by miriam
The thread is about what was done before c-secs were so common. I can tell you I do know of many women who had high forceps deliveries and many difficult deliveries accomplished with alot of intervention.

Women did die, babies died from difficult labors and deliveries.

My point is that a difficult delivery is accomplished with a skilled attendant using the necessary tools if necessary. Yet, 95% of the time, nothing really is needed. Forceps, vaccuum extractors, anesthesia are all of the modern medical age since about 1850 when surgical techniques were begun to be perfected. The 1940s saw the advent of antibiotics and blood transfusions which came about the same time as universal hospitalization for childbirth.
Where are you getitg your statistics? To say that 95 % of women don't need intervention in order to have healthy babies and not die themselves...well, where are you getting this number? Just curious. How does one possibly calcutlate all the births in the world and deicde this number?

I too am all for non-interventive birthing, I just happen to see the other side of things as well, having had two surgical births.

Due with number 5 in August. We do all that crunchy stuff.
.
Leilalu is offline  
#74 of 104 Old 05-07-2006, 09:59 PM
 
member234098's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 3,242
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Forget it.
member234098 is offline  
#75 of 104 Old 05-07-2006, 10:02 PM
 
Synchro246's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,660
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The world health organization says that 90% of deliveries can happen normally at home and have good outcomes. I don't know if they mean that the remaining 10% require surgery or just medical care of some kind.

~laura
and planning to eat it again
Synchro246 is offline  
#76 of 104 Old 05-07-2006, 10:18 PM
 
member234098's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Behind you.
Posts: 3,242
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synchro246
The world health organization says that 90% of deliveries can happen normally at home and have good outcomes. I don't know if they mean that the remaining 10% require surgery or just medical care of some kind.
I honestly thought this was very common knowledge.
member234098 is offline  
#77 of 104 Old 05-07-2006, 11:27 PM
 
Synchro246's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,660
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
off topic a little, but I once got in an argument, er. . .discussion, on some mainstream boards and when I said that 90% of women can have normal pregnancies/births one woman responded with "That's not true because I have complicated pregnancies"
I was so thrown off by her lack of logic I failed to respond.

~laura
and planning to eat it again
Synchro246 is offline  
#78 of 104 Old 05-08-2006, 10:29 AM
 
AnditheBee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 515
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synchro246
The world health organization says that 90% of deliveries can happen normally at home and have good outcomes. I don't know if they mean that the remaining 10% require surgery or just medical care of some kind.
I'm not sure how they can make that calculation, when so many births in Western countries receive medical intervention whether it is needed or not. We have no way of knowing how many of those births would have required medical help. It sounds likely to be true, on an instinctual level, but I personally doubt the statistical validity of it.
AnditheBee is offline  
#79 of 104 Old 05-08-2006, 10:42 AM
 
eirual's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: GTA, Canada
Posts: 4,314
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
When pregnant I read one of Ina May Gaskins' books, don't remember the exact title but it spoke a lot about "The Farm"...There (a place with talented midwives where women would come from nation-wide and around the world to get the natural births they wanted) they had something crazy like a .2% section rate (could have been 2%, but I really think it was .2...)

I highly recomend the read if anyone's interested.

Laurie, wife to guitar.gifDH (Aug/04), mom tobikenew.gifDS1 (Nov/05) and bfinfant.gifDS2 (June/12).

 

eirual is offline  
#80 of 104 Old 05-08-2006, 12:26 PM
 
erin_brycesmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,019
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
eirual, keep in mind that the woman who want to give birth at the farm do not have known high risk problems. So that would skew normal c-section rates.
erin_brycesmom is offline  
#81 of 104 Old 05-08-2006, 01:03 PM
 
Synchro246's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,660
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It's true that almost none of those women have preeclampsia or gestational diabetes, but that's partly due to the care they receive. They follow a good diet. When's the last time you heard of an OB giving good nutritional advice? I suggest that just by going to an OB a woman is increasing her risk of developing such complications. Getting good care keeps 90% of women in the normal category.

They have breech babies and twins vaginally on the farm.

I think the WHO has access to all kinds of data. They tell how they gather the data. They even look at the rates of certain "causes" for cesarean- like preeclampsia. They use the discrepency to evaluate what an acheivable rate of such diseases could be and they calculate those into their estimation. Some rates of certain abnormalities are fairly consistant the world over- although some must be controled for race for the consistancy to be seen. I think estimating the acheiveable rate of normal pregnancy is quite possible with the right data and the right minds doing the work. It wouldn't be easy, and there would be a good margin of error (esp. since there is no way to implement good sources of food and care everywhere), but it's possible.

Here is a link to some relavant http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/MNBH/index.htm WHO stuff. Browse around- you can read their methodology for yourself. Here is another pertinant link http://www.who.int/reproductive-heal...mortality.html

~laura
and planning to eat it again
Synchro246 is offline  
#82 of 104 Old 05-08-2006, 03:14 PM
 
AnditheBee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Virginia
Posts: 515
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Synchro246
I think the WHO has access to all kinds of data. They tell how they gather the data. They even look at the rates of certain "causes" for cesarean- like preeclampsia. They use the discrepency to evaluate what an acheivable rate of such diseases could be and they calculate those into their estimation. Some rates of certain abnormalities are fairly consistant the world over- although some must be controled for race for the consistancy to be seen. I think estimating the acheiveable rate of normal pregnancy is quite possible with the right data and the right minds doing the work. It wouldn't be easy, and there would be a good margin of error (esp. since there is no way to implement good sources of food and care everywhere), but it's possible.
It would probably be far more accurate if doctors were honest about the causes of cesarean. In both my cases, my docs just had to pick something to write down--they had no real diagnosis for why my babies didn't come out. I gather this is quite common. Besides which, diagnoses like CPD and FTP are often just plain bull-hockey. I've got to think that skews the statistics.

As a side note, can you imagine if they were honest about the causes of c-sections? They'd sometimes be writing down things like "golf date" and "doctor incompetence."

Quote:
Here is a link to some relavant http://www.who.int/reproductive-health/MNBH/index.htm WHO stuff. Browse around- you can read their methodology for yourself. Here is another pertinant link http://www.who.int/reproductive-heal...mortality.html
Thanks! I'll check it out.
AnditheBee is offline  
#83 of 104 Old 05-08-2006, 03:39 PM
 
Synchro246's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,660
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
From WHO- underlines are mine
"According to ICD-10, maternal deaths should be divided into two groups:

Direct obstetric deaths are those resulting from obstetric complications of the pregnant state (pregnancy, labour and the puerperium), from interventions, omissions, incorrect treatment, or from a chain of events resulting from any of the above.

Indirect obstetric deaths are those resulting from previous existing disease or disease that developed during pregnancy and which was not due to direct obstetric causes, but was aggravated by physiologic effects of pregnancy.

The drawback of this definition is that maternal deaths can escape being so classified because the precise cause of death cannot be given even though the fact of the woman having been pregnant is known. Such under-registration is frequent in both developing and developed countries."



I think it's sad/funny that WHO acknowledges it. Direct obstetric deaths

~laura
and planning to eat it again
Synchro246 is offline  
#84 of 104 Old 05-08-2006, 03:44 PM
 
Synchro246's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 4,660
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I guess I shouldn't say that WHO acknowledges liar OBs, but they acknowledge the problem
I wonder if the lying is mainly a problem in the US.

I think I'm spelling acknowledge wrong.

~laura
and planning to eat it again
Synchro246 is offline  
#85 of 104 Old 05-08-2006, 04:01 PM
 
doula and mom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: is EVERYTHING!
Posts: 540
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I think one of the biggest issues in the c-section epidemic today (that did not exist way back when) is the approx. 85% of all laboring women who get epidurals/narcotics and therefore are choosing to labor in bed on their backs. It never ceases to amaze me that ANY baby can descend while mom is flat on her back for most of the labor.

NOTE: I am usually a thread-killer.
doula and mom is offline  
#86 of 104 Old 05-08-2006, 04:21 PM
 
Leilalu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SW Washington
Posts: 7,801
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
NOTE: I am usually a thread-killer. [/QUOTE]

not today

I agree, women cant be expected to labor against gravity!

Due with number 5 in August. We do all that crunchy stuff.
.
Leilalu is offline  
#87 of 104 Old 05-08-2006, 04:23 PM
 
crazy_eights's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Nisht ahir un nish aher
Posts: 6,526
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by erin_brycesmom
eirual, keep in mind that the woman who want to give birth at the farm do not have known high risk problems. So that would skew normal c-section rates.
Actually, that's not exactly true. Firstly, they give prenatal care to all the women who live at the farm. They also have a lot of Amish women that get care with them, first time moms and for a long time they had a program where they would take in women off the street to have their babies. Anyone who got prenatal care with them is included in their stats whether they are refered to the hospital or MD care.
crazy_eights is offline  
#88 of 104 Old 05-08-2006, 04:27 PM
 
Leilalu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: SW Washington
Posts: 7,801
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mom2seven
Actually, that's not exactly true. Firstly, they give prenatal care to all the women who live at the farm. They also have a lot of Amish women that get care with them, first time moms and for a long time they had a program where they would take in women off the street to have their babies. Anyone who got prenatal care with them is included in their stats whether they are refered to the hospital or MD care.
Yes, but not entirely true. they also except women last minute who have breech babies. I was given the choice with dd of flying out there, but it wasn't feasable.

Due with number 5 in August. We do all that crunchy stuff.
.
Leilalu is offline  
#89 of 104 Old 05-08-2006, 04:34 PM
 
Rico'sAlice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Southern Berkshire County, MA
Posts: 1,535
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leilalu
Yes, but not entirely true. they also except women last minute who have breech babies.
Are you saying they except those women, as in leave them out of the statistics? ('cause that would be false.)

Or do you mean that they accept these women despite/because of knowing baby is breech?

I'm promise I'm not being snarky or part of the grammar police, just trying to understand what you mean. Thanks.
Rico'sAlice is offline  
#90 of 104 Old 05-08-2006, 04:40 PM
 
Storm Bride's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 25,597
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by erin_brycesmom
eirual, keep in mind that the woman who want to give birth at the farm do not have known high risk problems. So that would skew normal c-section rates.
I'm sure it would skew them to some extent...but not near enough to account for the difference between 0.2% and 30%!

I wish I'd known about and had a way to get to the Farm when I was pregnant with ds1 back in '93...of course, I didn't know he was going to turn breech when I went into labour, so I don't think I'd have gone that route. My doctor (not an OB) certainly didn't have any concerns about my ability to give birth vaginally.

Lisa, lucky mama of Kelly (3/93) ribboncesarean.gif, Emma (5/03) ribboncesarean.gif, Evan (7/05) ribboncesarean.gif, & Jenna (6/09) ribboncesarean.gif
Loving my amazing dh, James & forever missing ribbonpb.gif Aaron Ambrose ribboncesarean.gif (11/07) ribbonpb.gif

Storm Bride is offline  
Reply

User Tag List



Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off