I don't know where this should go but it just pissed me off! - Page 4 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#91 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 06:35 PM
 
JessicaS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 43,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix23 View Post
Yes. I've had to cut ties with several crunchy friends because of how nasty they were about my c-section and the fact that due to the type of cut I have I am not comfortable (and neither is my dr) having a vbac. Even mainstream people go on and on about how it "must of been the worst experience in my life". Um, no and calling the birth of my child the worst experience is kind of insulting. Actually having my wisdom teeth removed was the worst experience in my life. But for some reason most people don't want to believe that I wasn't traumatized by my c-section.


I wasn't traumatized by mine either.

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

Not all those who wander are lost 
JessicaS is offline  
#92 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 07:28 PM
 
barefootpoetry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I personally am against, let's call them "vanity C-sections" instead of elective, since I know how fuzzy that terminology can get. But would I ever back legislature to ban them? Hell no. I think it's appalling that more and more women are choosing them, but they have every right to do so, just like I have every right to birth my baby at home even with no one present if I want to. Although true medical evidence is technically against the women who choose vanity C-sections (and very much in favor of vaginal birth), there are just as many - if not many many more - women who think homebirth (let alone UC!) is just as dangerous and awful and selfish as there are women who think that about vanity C-sections. So really, it's not helping the birth movement at all if you ban any kind of choice. It's bad enough that homebirth with a midwife is already illegal in some states. I'd hate to see that trend continue.

If women as a whole deserve the freedom to birth wherever, however, and with whoever we want, then that includes vanity C-sections. Yes, I think they're a bad choice, but it's that woman's bad choice to make. Just like it's my choice to stay the hell out of the hospital to avoid having another C-section myself.
barefootpoetry is offline  
#93 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 08:16 PM
 
JessicaS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 43,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by barefootpoetry View Post
I personally am against, let's call them "vanity C-sections" instead of elective, since I know how fuzzy that terminology can get. But would I ever back legislature to ban them? Hell no. I think it's appalling that more and more women are choosing them, but they have every right to do so, just like I have every right to birth my baby at home even with no one present if I want to. Although true medical evidence is technically against the women who choose vanity C-sections (and very much in favor of vaginal birth), there are just as many - if not many many more - women who think homebirth (let alone UC!) is just as dangerous and awful and selfish as there are women who think that about vanity C-sections. So really, it's not helping the birth movement at all if you ban any kind of choice. It's bad enough that homebirth with a midwife is already illegal in some states. I'd hate to see that trend continue.

If women as a whole deserve the freedom to birth wherever, however, and with whoever we want, then that includes vanity C-sections. Yes, I think they're a bad choice, but it's that woman's bad choice to make. Just like it's my choice to stay the hell out of the hospital to avoid having another C-section myself.
I am not sure how I feel about that.

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

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

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

Not all those who wander are lost 
JessicaS is offline  
#94 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 09:09 PM
 
Turquesa's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 4,058
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Terms like "vanity" and even "elective" are too loaded. (To a degree, isn't all surgery elective?) I would simply call them non-medical, as in done without medical indication. And I would not allow insurance to cover them. Appallingly, there's a book out there, Girlfriend's Guide to Pregnancy, that coaches women on how to dupe their insurance providers if they *want* a cesarean delivery.

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

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

In God we trust; all others must show data. selectivevax.gifsurf.gifteapot2.GIFintactivist.gif
Turquesa is offline  
#95 of 114 Old 05-08-2008, 10:52 PM
 
barefootpoetry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by abimommy View Post
I am not sure how I feel about that.

It isn't *just* a birth method it is major surgery and carries risks. Various techniques to save time and money are often chosen over what is safer for the mother.
I know. That's why I frown on it. But like you said, it brings out that slippery slope of what we have the right to choose. I don't agree with it whatsoever, but if that choice is taken away, then that's just one step closer to regulating birth as a whole and there are just too many kinds of women who would like to be able to select from a variety of different kinds of birth for us all to be squeezed into one box.

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

Turquesa, I like your phrasing - "non-medical" does seem to be best. And I agree that maybe insurance companies shouldn't cover it. (I applaud Medicaid for not covering circumcisions! More insurance companies need to follow that lead!) The only ones left choosing C-sections because they want the baby born on its grandma's birthday will be celebs, because I don't know any normal people who can foot a $25,000 hospital bill.
barefootpoetry is offline  
#96 of 114 Old 05-09-2008, 12:45 AM
 
NettleTea's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 1,194
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by LotusBirthMama View Post
unassisted childbirth, which is statistically not as safe as attended childbirth, home or otherwise
How's that?

uc.jpg  lotbirth.gif   waterbirth.jpg 
NettleTea is offline  
#97 of 114 Old 05-09-2008, 02:44 AM
 
A_Random_Phrase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 864
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
My goodness, I've missed a lot being gone for only a few days. I wanna have my say - A nurse was telling a group of expectant parents that the hospital had only had X amount of emergency C-sections during a certain period of time, which had included mine. My spouse asked if ours was one of them, expecting to be told yes. The nurse said that ours was an emergency section but was not included in their tally. I can only think it was because it was a "failed home birth." Weird.
A_Random_Phrase is offline  
#98 of 114 Old 05-09-2008, 04:18 AM
 
Collinsky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: On a flat Earth, circled by the Sun
Posts: 2,799
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pookel View Post
Can you answer something for me? I've never been clear on Mothering's definition of "elective c-sections." Obviously, you're against c-sections for the hell of it. But scheduled c-sections for medical reasons are often classed as "elective c-sections" as well. My scheduled repeat section was an ERCS even though my OB said I wasn't a VBAC candidate; was that elective or wasn't it? Where does Mothering draw the line?

I would hope, also, that a discussion of whether elective c-sections should be legal isn't construed as a promotion of them, any more than a discussion about decriminalizing drugs is a promotion of drug use.
Yeah, that. I was thinking, that alcohol hurts mothers, it hurts children and families and society... but making it illegal - taking away the choice - isn't prudent. Or "right" IMO.

Also, we've seen just how many situations are considered to be "emergencies" and a Cesarean is done. Now - sometimes that is absolutely necessary, don't get me wrong! But other times... how many times do women have a C-section for breech, for a "big baby," for CPD and dystocia, and fetal distress? All these are considered to be emergencies. I think if elective cesarean were illegal that drs would simply widen the "emergency net" and THEN women who were going to escape with a vaginal birth would find themselves falling into the "medically necessary" category. I think the c-section rate could potentially go UP... defeating the purpose of that law. For cases now considered "medically necessary elective C-sections" like VBAC, either that would be permitted under the law (can't see them outlawing that) *OR* drs would be doing "emergency" c-sections on VBAC women and writing on their chart: Signs of imminent uterine rupture.

It's so difficult. I would like to see it be the social norm to have homebirths...but I do NOT like stigma attached to women who have hospital births or Cesareans. I hate that women who had what were truly medically necessary Cesareans feel looked down on or that that is seen as a failure. I hate that women who had a Cesarean that may or may not have been necessary, but was the best choice they could make with the information they had at the time, feel looked down on.

~ Colleen ~ Joyful Unschooling Pagan mama to hearts.gifenergy.gifsuperhero.gifjog.gif and babyf.gif
"When I'm sad, I stop being sad and be AWESOME instead."
Collinsky is offline  
#99 of 114 Old 05-09-2008, 06:32 AM
 
Joezmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 119
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourlittlebirds View Post
Yes.



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



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

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



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

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



Successful lawsuits are exceedingly rare, because juries are made up of the general public, and the general public still believes in the sacred godhood of the medical establishment. I have a good friend who was given an episiotomy, not for a medical reason as the baby's vitals were great, against her consent. In fact, she was screaming at the doctor "I do not consent" and he did it anyway. After months of depression and shame and incontinence and inability to have sex without pain, she consulted a lawyer, and was told that it wasn't a winnable case, because 1) she had put herself under this doctor's care and signed consent forms for whatever medical procedures he found "necessary", and 2) because episiotomy is still considered by many people to be not only not a big deal, but a good thing. It protects the pelvic floor, dontcha know. Stories like this are all over MDC. They're also all over the more mainstream boards, only the women telling those stories still believe that their episiotomies were necessary, and whatever other degrading and damaging things were done to them, and so they suppress their suffering. There are really efficient coping mechanisms for those who can't afford to be raging against the terrible acts committed against them, either because it's too emotionally painful or because they know that those around them would not support it.
To quote Skyastara, "Wow. Just wow." Your lecture certainly tells me where you're coming from (no lack of hormones there!). I can appreciate your passionate defense of Odent, especially after reading your post about your experience at the "Trust Birth " conference, but I still don't feel the love. I'll read more though.

While I do understand the hormone thing, I still feel the emphasis on it, in terms of bonding, does a disservice to mothers who have not had a "natural" birth, for whatever reason, suggesting they are now at a disadvantage and will have to work harder to connect with their baby than the mother who gave birth undisturbed, in a darkened room, with a midwife/mother-figure "knitting" in the corner.

Anecdote: My friend has a toddler who was a full term breech, large baby, via CS on recommendation from her midwife (she had planned a homebirth). Recently, a (now ex) friend (BTW she posts on MDC and has had 2 homebirths and is planning a third) said to her after seeing "The Business of
Being Born", "You didn't get the love cocktail" (and by implication) "and
I did." Just an anecdote, but very hurtful.

For the record, I have never said hospital birth is better than at home. I have said, several times, that I think it is a personal choice.
Joezmom is offline  
#100 of 114 Old 05-09-2008, 10:34 AM
 
ferretbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: SEish PA
Posts: 86
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joezmom View Post
So.....why don't more women birth at home?
Your own ignorance about homebirth should answer your question.

In today's society, women have no idea it's an option - "just do what the good doctor tells you to do, sweetie". How many of us have ever witnessed a homebirth IRL, let alone a birth sans interventions?

Most importantly, it's not a realistic option for the majority of women in the U.S. Depending on where you live, you may not be able to find a homebirth midwife, let alone afford one. I live in southeast PA, where homebirths are not highly accessible. However, I am lucky to have the means to afford a homebirth, regardless if insurance covers it - CPMs are much cheaper, yet they must fly under the radar due to the current legal atmosphere.

I've done the hospital "birth" and I want a better experience next time (read - no surgery). I want to choose every single person that is there during labor. While you may have met your OB a few times prior to birth, you have not met any of the L&D nurses, whom are responsible for your "care." The OB just shows up to "catch". How can anyone work through their labor like this? We do it because this is what society tells us is the norm, however, consensus does not mean that it is good for the mother and baby.

I want a practitioner who can recognize 'variations of normal', not pathology and for me that means a homebirth midwife.
ferretbees is offline  
#101 of 114 Old 05-09-2008, 01:05 PM
 
barefootpoetry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joezmom View Post
To quote Skyastara, "Wow. Just wow." Your lecture certainly tells me where you're coming from (no lack of hormones there!). I can appreciate your passionate defense of Odent, especially after reading your post about your experience at the "Trust Birth " conference, but I still don't feel the love. I'll read more though.

While I do understand the hormone thing, I still feel the emphasis on it, in terms of bonding, does a disservice to mothers who have not had a "natural" birth, for whatever reason, suggesting they are now at a disadvantage and will have to work harder to connect with their baby than the mother who gave birth undisturbed, in a darkened room, with a midwife/mother-figure "knitting" in the corner.

Anecdote: My friend has a toddler who was a full term breech, large baby, via CS on recommendation from her midwife (she had planned a homebirth). Recently, a (now ex) friend (BTW she posts on MDC and has had 2 homebirths and is planning a third) said to her after seeing "The Business of
Being Born", "You didn't get the love cocktail" (and by implication) "and
I did." Just an anecdote, but very hurtful.

For the record, I have never said hospital birth is better than at home. I have said, several times, that I think it is a personal choice.
Your "friend" sounds like an exception to the norm, like the kind of woman who jumps down the throat of any mother who bottlefeeds in public and rants about how horrible formula is. Bad manners transcend both sides of any argument, it doesn't mean that the argument itself isn't legit.

If you had no trouble bonding with your baby, then don't take offense, because I don't think anyone (other than your rotten excuse for a friend) is trying to make it offensive. I "didn't get the love cocktail" either, yet as I said in an earlier post, I bonded with my son very easily and intensely. To compare it to breastfeeding again, I don't take offense when people talk about how awesome breastmilk is even though I did use formula from time to time. I know that breastmilk's awesomeness is a proven fact, just like the "love cocktail" is a proven fact. It doesn't mean that babies fall over dead if they don't get breastmilk, and it doesn't mean that mothers who don't get the love cocktail will hate their babies. It's just science, but even science has its exceptions.

P.S. As a woman, you ought to know better than to blame anything another woman does on "hormones."
barefootpoetry is offline  
#102 of 114 Old 05-09-2008, 02:36 PM
 
ccohenou's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Indianapolis, IN
Posts: 1,797
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
The "love cocktail" is an Odent hypothesis, not a proven fact, so far as I know.

It makes sense that bonding may be delayed after a cesarean, because of the physical recovery and the possible trauma of surgery. It can also be delayed after a completely natural vaginal birth of a very ill or premature baby, because of the need for recovery and the trauma of separation.

Love as hormonal cascade is a very reductive view of what love is. And it is an opinion - "love" is not a scientifically measurable quantity.
ccohenou is offline  
#103 of 114 Old 05-09-2008, 03:26 PM
 
laoxinat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: a state of bliss
Posts: 1,095
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
:

Jeez, mamas, no one is saying c-section means you can't bond with your babe, but as a pp said, bonding can be affected by any birth circumstance. I would rather see a mama have an epidural IF that resulted in less pain and more bonding. The trouble is that many times a simple intervention turns into a cascade of them, which can, and often does end in CS. My own (statistically insignificant) experience was just that, my own. I don't think for a minute it can or should be extrapolated to mean anything for anyone else. JME.
I love how some people suddenly become a (insert profession of convenience here) when they don't agree with posts but that's another convo altogether.
laoxinat is offline  
#104 of 114 Old 05-09-2008, 03:43 PM
 
barefootpoetry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,676
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ccohenou View Post

Love as hormonal cascade is a very reductive view of what love is. And it is an opinion - "love" is not a scientifically measurable quantity.
That's a very good point. But I guess it is easier to call it a "love cocktail" than an "estrogen-adrenaline-oxytocin-dopamine-seratonin cocktail." Lots of others have studied this, though, not just Odent...Google "love cocktail" or "love hormones." And yeah, we can't say that releasing these hormones means you instantly fall in love with your baby (and that not releasing them means you never do!), but they are part of what stimulates the feeling of love in our brains. Just like eating chocolate stimulates that same part of the brain because of certain chemicals in it. It doesn't mean we're really "in love" with chocolate. It's just the same neurological reaction.

It makes perfect sense to me, because this is what is designed to keep us procreating. Oxytocin gets released when you breastfeed too, which makes us feel good. If breastfeeding didn't feel good, humans - in the most very primitive sense - might not want to do it. We still do, but all I'm saying is that nature put that hormone release there to encourage us to do it so we don't die out as a race. And I think it's the same with birth - which in general is a painful, strenuous affair, but you get the "birth high" afterwards, and that makes us want to keep doing it!
barefootpoetry is offline  
#105 of 114 Old 05-09-2008, 03:48 PM
 
Joezmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 119
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ferretbees View Post
Your own ignorance about homebirth should answer your question.

In today's society, women have no idea it's an option - "just do what the good doctor tells you to do, sweetie". How many of us have ever witnessed a homebirth IRL, let alone a birth sans interventions?

Most importantly, it's not a realistic option for the majority of women in the U.S. Depending on where you live, you may not be able to find a homebirth midwife, let alone afford one. I live in southeast PA, where homebirths are not highly accessible. However, I am lucky to have the means to afford a homebirth, regardless if insurance covers it - CPMs are much cheaper, yet they must fly under the radar due to the current legal atmosphere.

I've done the hospital "birth" and I want a better experience next time (read - no surgery). I want to choose every single person that is there during labor. While you may have met your OB a few times prior to birth, you have not met any of the L&D nurses, whom are responsible for your "care." The OB just shows up to "catch". How can anyone work through their labor like this? We do it because this is what society tells us is the norm, however, consensus does not mean that it is good for the mother and baby.

I want a practitioner who can recognize 'variations of normal', not pathology and for me that means a homebirth midwife.
While I have not had a homebirth, I have researched it alot during the past 9 months - lots of reading (on-line and otherwise), and speaking with midwives, and homebirthers IRL. So...... I don't actually feel ignorant, even though you may disagree!

I have also done the hospital birth - twice - both completely natural (who knew?), and while neither may have perfect, they were certainly fine. Nobody in my face about IV's or epi's, or pushing, etc.

Midwives of all stripes are legal in my state. One the things I have been struggling with, however, is when does a midwife determine a 'variation of normal' is in fact an emergency?
Joezmom is offline  
#106 of 114 Old 05-09-2008, 04:24 PM
 
JessicaS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 43,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Joezmom, I would say you have been extremely fortunate to have had the experiences you have. I certainly didn't have similar experiences and I am sure many on here would say the same.

All midwives are legal in my state as well but just across the border from me in Missouri only CNMs may "legally" attend homebirths.

Not all those who wander are lost 
JessicaS is offline  
#107 of 114 Old 05-09-2008, 04:34 PM
 
JessicaS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 43,829
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Just posting a reminder that the article in the OP is not about homebirth and the intent of the OP was not to debate homebirth and midwifery.

Such discussion is off topic from this thread.

Not all those who wander are lost 
JessicaS is offline  
#108 of 114 Old 05-09-2008, 09:01 PM
 
cottonwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjjazzy View Post
i know this is off-topic but could you explain what you're referring to for me? thanks
Well, you know, perfumey-smelling douches and "feminine sprays" and the like.

Quote:
Originally Posted by barefootpoerty
I throw a wrench in the black-and-white scheme too, because I had a rotten C-section birth and yet my son and I bonded like Krazy Glue. There's exceptions to every rule, no one would be arrogant enough to say that there's not.
Yes. You know, what it seems like to me is that there are just people who want it to be either-or. Either hormones are crucial for bonding or they don't have any effect at all, and they assume that everyone who isn't at the extreme they're at must be at the other extreme. It's so frustrating to acknowledge that hormones have a role in feelings and behavior and then get jumped all over because someone infers from that that you're saying that they must have not bonded with their baby at all. It is so tiring. I'll offer the following disclaimer here: http://fourlittlebirds.blogsome.com/...-the-instinct/

We are all starting from different places. A long, long time ago I read a story here at Mothering about a woman who had been planning a homebirth, but they decided to transfer to the hospital via ambulance. The birth happened before they reached the hospital, and in an unfamiliar place, with strangers around, siren blaring, she had an orgasmic birth. That wouldn't have been me. My body would have shut up tight, I would have been tense, I probably would have been feeling sick and with a headache. I am ultra sensitive, which is one reason even a very mild intrusion and distraction interfered with my own hormonal release and therefore my bonding process. Not everyone is like that. But for those of us that are, it is reasonable to take it into account.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LotusBirthMama
Because, dontcha know, c-sections are the devil and its perfectly ok to bash anyone who ever even thought about having one, no matter the circumstances leading up that choice.
I don't agree with hipmummy, but she didn't say "no matter the circumstances". And I'd really like to see you come up with a quote from anyone at MDC who has said or implied such a thing. It's just untrue, and adding unnecessary fuel to the fire.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LotusBirthMama
I guess I am just shocked that a forum dedicated to unassisted childbirth, which is statistically not as safe as attended childbirth, home or otherwise, would be so agreeable to legislation to limit choice and freedom in birth.
The forum isn't agreeable, or not agreeable, to it. That was the opinion of an individual, who doesn't represent the forum or any other individual who has had an unassisted birth.
cottonwood is offline  
#109 of 114 Old 05-09-2008, 09:18 PM
 
cottonwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,366
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joezmom
Your lecture certainly tells me where you're coming from (no lack of hormones there!).
Excuse me? Exactly how is my hormonal status relevant?

Quote:
I still don't feel the love.
Well, my responses to you weren't intended to get you to feel the love. I'm not concerned that people dislike Odent or think he has a big ego or whatever. I'm concerned with correcting misconceptions and inaccuracies.

Quote:
While I do understand the hormone thing, I still feel the emphasis on it, in terms of bonding, does a disservice to mothers who have not had a "natural" birth, for whatever reason, suggesting they are now at a disadvantage and will have to work harder to connect with their baby than the mother who gave birth undisturbed, in a darkened room, with a midwife/mother-figure "knitting" in the corner.
I understand what you're saying. But the solution to that is not to simply write it off altogether. Because that would be a disservice to those who do have to work harder to connect with their baby and deserve to know that it's not their fault and that there are things than can be done to help the situation. The solution is to be honest, and at the same time not absolutist or dogmatic about it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccohenou
Love as hormonal cascade is a very reductive view of what love is. And it is an opinion - "love" is not a scientifically measurable quantity.
Yes, it's reductive, and no, love is not a scientifically measurable quantity. And yet -- estrogen, adrenaline, oxytocin, dopamine, seratonin (thanks, barefootpoetry!,) prolactin, etc. -- do you really believe these chemicals have no effect on mood, feeling, and behavior?
cottonwood is offline  
#110 of 114 Old 05-10-2008, 08:16 PM
 
A_Random_Phrase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 864
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Collinsky View Post
Yeah, that. I was thinking, that alcohol hurts mothers, it hurts children and families and society... but making it illegal - taking away the choice - isn't prudent. Or "right" IMO.

Also, we've seen just how many situations are considered to be "emergencies" and a Cesarean is done. Now - sometimes that is absolutely necessary, don't get me wrong! But other times... how many times do women have a C-section for breech, for a "big baby," for CPD and dystocia, and fetal distress? All these are considered to be emergencies. I think if elective cesarean were illegal that drs would simply widen the "emergency net" and THEN women who were going to escape with a vaginal birth would find themselves falling into the "medically necessary" category. I think the c-section rate could potentially go UP... defeating the purpose of that law. For cases now considered "medically necessary elective C-sections" like VBAC, either that would be permitted under the law (can't see them outlawing that) *OR* drs would be doing "emergency" c-sections on VBAC women and writing on their chart: Signs of imminent uterine rupture.

It's so difficult. I would like to see it be the social norm to have homebirths...but I do NOT like stigma attached to women who have hospital births or Cesareans. I hate that women who had what were truly medically necessary Cesareans feel looked down on or that that is seen as a failure. I hate that women who had a Cesarean that may or may not have been necessary, but was the best choice they could make with the information they had at the time, feel looked down on.
:

People should have freedom to choose even if we don't agree with them.

As for the bonding discussion. It seems like some people are really irked with each other. I expect some women would like everything to be as perfect as possible because it makes the bonding stronger, but that doesn't mean bonding is nonexistent otherwise. I nursed a friend's baby for a week and felt more bonded to that little girl than to any child that was not mine. There are many ways to bond. IMO, it doesn't hurt to go for the strongest, best bonding possible. If you "fall short" of the "perfect" experience, it's okay. No one is condemning you (at least they shouldn't be). I actually feel closest to the child I c-sectioned and not so close to the "natural" one - but if I'd been able to do a home birth or a UC, I may have a stronger bond now. I don't know because I have not experienced it, so I can't judge correctly. I still am closer to all of my children than some parents are to theirs. We usually get along great. My point is, do we need to argue? If we haven't personally experienced the "stronger bonding experience", how do we know what we have is as strong as it gets? We can say there is a bonding, but we can't say it couldn't be better. And those who have only had the "best" cannot say that bonding is impossible under lesser circumstances because they haven't experienced that.

We all agree that mothering is important and that we feel bonded to our own children, right? Well, then, let's put down the swords and unite in our oneness and allow the differences.
A_Random_Phrase is offline  
#111 of 114 Old 05-11-2008, 01:38 AM
 
HerthElde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Mother Earth
Posts: 3,086
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Re: Freedom to choose.
This gets a bit sticky here in Canada, where it's MY tax dollars that are going toward vanity c-sections, but I have to pay for a homebirth midwife out of pocket (well, that was the situation a couple years ago - things are really bizarre at the moment)
However, I'm a huge believer in the effect the subconscious can have, and that means that many c-sections that might appear "elective" are really done for legit medical (psychological) reasons . . .

Re: Bonding
The love cocktail. Hmm, haven't seen the movie. But hormones can be released post-birth, or in adoptive situations, or whatever. Just because a woman might have a bit of an advantage if she has a natural birth doesn't mean that hormones don't play a part in bonding - for anyone
I had a completely natural homebirth with midwife with both my girls. With dd1, I bonded easily. With dd2, it was very difficult. I did NOT get the love cocktail. Was it because of the birth? No. It was surrounding circumstances. I was in a state of pure adrenaline prior to and during her birth. It interfered with the normal cascade of hormones. IMO, it would have been worse if in hospital. But for someone else, hospital might have been better for bonding in that case, due to the removal of the home situation that was causing the stress to begin with.
HerthElde is offline  
#112 of 114 Old 05-11-2008, 08:30 PM
 
leafwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: New York
Posts: 2,987
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
First, I haven't read through all the posts. However, I think the article is a sad reflection of how society views birth. The fact that, in general, women are becoming more and more disconnected from our bodies....told to live up to unrealistic societal standards and deny/quiet our inner voices that instinctually tell us what we need. Birth....the most natural of things, is portrayed as something to fear and escape instead of the beautiful rite of passage that it can be. Alsmost as if the process of birthing is a chore, a curse, or a horror that must be endured.

I get it...I really do becasue I was terrified to give birth the first time....however the thought of a c-section is WAY more scary to me than anything I imagined about birth. I have had both a medicated vaginal delivery and a completely intervention free hospital birth. I was not scared the second time, I was empowered and I truly feel lucky that I was able to experience birth the way millions of women throughout time have. I do wish more women felt safe, secure, supported, and capable regarding birth....and I think the article did a poor job of addressing this issue. It's sad, but I won't judge anyone who makes that decision as it is very personal. All I can do is offer my experiences if asked....in fact my cousin is considering an elective c/s. It saddens me that she would go that route, but it's her deal.

Happy Mommy to one amazing girl (6y) and one sweet boy (2y), and wife to DH since 7/03 : :
leafwood is offline  
#113 of 114 Old 05-12-2008, 06:02 PM
 
lifeguard's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Coyote Rock Farm
Posts: 6,574
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by HerthElde View Post
Re: Freedom to choose.
This gets a bit sticky here in Canada, where it's MY tax dollars that are going toward vanity c-sections, but I have to pay for a homebirth midwife out of pocket (well, that was the situation a couple years ago - things are really bizarre at the moment)
This is a big part of where I am with this issue. I really do think that it is an individual choice but does bother me that I'm paying for an unnecessary & VERY expensive procedure. I have a close friend who chose such a c-section & although she is unaware of it being the cause it has created a big rift in our friendship. I just think it is wrong. And know at the same time she thinks I am ridiculous for wanting a intervention free vaginal birth.

This has been a delightful thread to read. So many thinking women & some good brain food to chew on.

When it comes right down to it we are several generations out from natural, intervention, doctor free births. We are not receiving that kind of information easily from the medical community or our mothers (as they didn't receive it either). Women are making decisions that are highly uninformed & they do not even realize that is the case. Their doctors probably don't feel that is the case either. It is sad, but until that foundation underlying the choice is changed the decisions are not going to change.

Surviving sleep deprivation one day at a time with dd (Oct '11) & ds (Oct '08).

lifeguard is offline  
#114 of 114 Old 05-25-2008, 08:41 PM
 
thismama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Nursing the revolution
Posts: 14,356
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I am pro informed choice in childbirth. I have no objection to 'omgz my tax dollars paying for someone's c/s.' I DO object to the culture of fear and misinformation/lack of information re: birth which I think leads women to make choices they may not otherwise make. But I do not deny any woman's right to choose the method of birth she prefers, including elective c/s.
thismama is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may 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