Ina May on UC? - Mothering Forums
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 52 Old 12-04-2006, 03:10 PM - Thread Starter
 
Shawnee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
Posts: 87
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
After reading Laura Shanley's book, I'd like to read Ina May Gaskin's comments on UC for myself. Does anyone have a link to something along those lines? Or can you tell me more about it, if you've read it yourself. Thanks!
Shawnee is offline  
#2 of 52 Old 12-04-2006, 09:37 PM
 
cottonwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,383
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
She wrote an article on unassisted birth for Midwifery Today, in the Summer 2003 issue, in which she basically says that UC is too dangerous to support. I do not have the text of it in digital format and am not aware of it being anywhere online, but I bet you'd be able to find it through your local library.

I can, though, show you the letter I wrote in reponse to that article:

Quote:
July 8, 2003

To the editor:

Ina May Gaskin speculates (“Some Thoughts on Unassisted Childbirth”, Midwifery Today, Issue 66) that the “extremism” of the choice to give birth without a medically-trained attendant has perhaps arisen in response to the extreme medicalizing of childbirth in the past decade. It may be tempting to draw a correlation between two events that occur within the same timeframe and have subject matter in common, but it turns out to be far too simplistic an analysis, as is Gail Hart’s theory (“What the Unassisted Birth Movement Teaches Midwives”) that women are turning to unassisted birth because midwives have scared women away and failed to give them what they need. Apparently it bears repeating that birth is by its very nature sacred and sexual, and that such states cannot be fully realized and entered into when one is aware of or interacting with a person with whom she is not able to express her deepest self. Sarah Buckley writes in the same issue of Midwifery Today that with her unassisted birth (after three attended homebirths) she has “felt the awakening power of birth -- more potent for me than any spiritual or shamanic practice” and that it “has taught me, on a cellular level, that birth is about love and ecstasy.” Modern midwives cannot help but interfere with the experience of this to some degree.

It cannot be disputed that we are wired to give birth in privacy; our bodies function most normally in labor and birth when not observed. Michel Odent writes that “during the birth process and any kind of sexual experience, any stimulation of the neocortex tends to have an inhibitory effect: logical words, feeling observed, bright lights, etc.” He also writes that certain instinctive, normal birthing behaviors do not take place “if another person takes on the role of “coach,” “guide,” “helper,” “support person,” or “observer”.” Sarah Buckley writes that “Undisturbed birth is exceedingly rare in our culture, even in birth centers and homebirths. Two factors that disturb birth in all mammals are firstly being in an unfamiliar place and secondly the presence of an observer. Feelings of safety and privacy thus seem to be fundamental. […] Some writers have observed that, for a woman, having a baby has a lot of parallels with making a baby: same hormones, same parts of the body, same sounds, and the same needs for feelings of safety and privacy. How would it be to attempt to make love in the conditions under which we expect women to give birth?”

For women whose bodies are naturally able to give birth normally and without incident, lack of privacy may be the last thing standing in the way of that happening. Note that there is no claim here that nature itself is always benign. Quite the opposite; its sometimes hostility (in the form of natural selection) to our agenda (that of every baby being a live baby) may sometimes warrant special treatment of birth. This does not, however, in any way nullify the fact that intervention and lack of privacy in birth cause the body to function far less than optimally. There is no getting around that birth may involve dysfunction; but neither does one approach to avoiding it apply equally well to all births. The woman whose birth might have ended in trauma or tragedy had it not been for medical intervention knows this very well; the woman whose birth ends in trauma or tragedy because of outside interference also knows this very well.

As a homebirth midwife, Gaskin of course seeks to balance these two considerations, but is clearly uncomfortable going so far as to allow that it is appropriate to forego observation even when it is the observation itself that makes the birth dysfunctional. In this way she keeps good company with traditional medicine, which asserts that managed/observed birth is, despite its particular risks, generally safer than unmanaged, unobserved birth, i.e., unassisted birth.

However, instead of presenting actual evidence for this belief, she resorts to the time-honored obstetrical tradition of attempting to influence with anecdotal horror stories that are meant to instill fear. Homebirth advocates are familiar enough with this tactic: the hospital worker claims that “I cannot support homebirth as a choice because I’ve seen what can happen,” and then proceeds to tell us all about this woman or that baby who would have died if they had not been in the hospital. The reason homebirth advocates reject this tactic is that they know that hospital workers have a limited type of training and experience that colors their perception and biases them in favor of one interpretation of events over another. But it does not mean that homebirth advocates are themselves immune from behaving as if their own limited perspectives are especially valid, as Gaskin demonstrates so well.

Gaskin continues to disappoint throughout the rest of her article; rather than address the issues surrounding unassisted birth itself, she devotes her energy to attacking the professional and personal integrity of a well-known unassisted birth author, Laura Shanley. For example, Gaskin muses, “I find myself wondering whether Shanley has received any letters from readers who followed her advice but had a bad outcome. If she did, would she tell her readers?” The insinuation is that Shanley is deliberately misleading people. Aside from the libelous nature of that statement, I find myself wondering where it is that Gaskin (or any other midwife or doctor) details the complaints that her past clients have against her for advice or guidance that she has given.

She attempts to call into question Shanley’s credibility several other times; at one point misquoting her as saying that “it is safe to say that midwives must time contractions and measure dilation,” critically noting that Shanley does so “without providing any evidence for this assertion.” What Shanley actually wrote was: “Although the law varies from state to state and country to country, generally it is safe to say that midwives must time contractions and measure dilation.” A different statement. In any case, whether it is technically true or not is really beside the point, which is that the care that midwives give their clients is often influenced by state law. Gaskin must surely know that the political climate is such that midwives are either pressured or required to follow a certain protocol of management of labor, under threat of losing licensure or facing imprisonment if they do not. It is disingenuous to imply otherwise.

Gaskin wraps up neatly with a few more anecdotal horror stories, and the claim that “It is a fact that approximately 10-15 percent of all births will require skilled assistance to reach a healthy outcome for mother and baby” (without providing any evidence for this assertion.)

I do not doubt that Gaskin’s concerns about the safety of unassisted birth are real and that they do deserve to be examined; and her exhortation to “exercise your critical faculties” is absolutely what any responsible, conscientious person must do. But she undermines this message by speaking as if she expects us to suspend those critical faculties and judge the unassisted childbirth movement by subjective accounts of UCs gone wrong and flimsy critiques of individuals involved with the movement, as if the validity of unassisted birth is dependant on either. She also undermines her status as a protector of women and babies in birth by completely failing to address what many in the unassisted camp consider the key issues: that the sacred and sexual aspects of birth are not likely to surface and may even be dishonored with the presence of someone with whom the birthing woman is not naturally intimate, and that management and observation can and does interfere with the normal (and therefore safe) progress of labor and birth, as well as with the process of bonding between mother and baby.
mamazee73 likes this.
cottonwood is offline  
#3 of 52 Old 12-04-2006, 09:46 PM
 
BirthFree's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 2,141
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
You GO!

Mama to 4 amazing little people, another little expected 3/6/12!
Avid Unassisted Birth supporter/Mama

BirthFree is offline  
#4 of 52 Old 12-05-2006, 01:54 AM
 
JesseMomme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: not here anymore
Posts: 8,278
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)

I only remembered this as it was recently republished in the latest New Nativity II newsletter I got in the mail last month:

http://www.unassistedchildbirth.com/uc/midwives.html

Quote:
My first indication that I was not going to be welcomed into "The Sister-hood" came in 1993. My book, Unassisted Childbirth, was about to be published and I decided to call a midwife whose book I had found particularly inspiring. As I gushed to her about how much I had learned from her book - to the point that I felt confident enough to give birth alone - I began to realize she didn't share my enthusiasm for unassisted birth. In fact, she sounded outright hostile.
JesseMomme is offline  
#5 of 52 Old 12-05-2006, 03:24 AM
 
lizzie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: A Whole New World
Posts: 4,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
FLB.. Can I copy your letter for my files?? You rock.

It's such a relief to finally trust yourself.
lizzie is offline  
#6 of 52 Old 12-05-2006, 03:31 AM
 
cathicog's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Great Smoky Mountains TN
Posts: 1,581
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourlittlebirds View Post
She wrote an article on unassisted birth for Midwifery Today, in the Summer 2003 issue, in which she basically says that UC is too dangerous to support. I do not have the text of it in digital format and am not aware of it being anywhere online, but I bet you'd be able to find it through your local library.

I can, though, show you the letter I wrote in reponse to that article:
That letter is AWESOME!
I have personally spoken with her on the same subject(someone brought it up at one of the Midwife Assistant workshops I attended) and she is very definitely not in favor of UC. I am very definitely in favor for. But who am I? I am just a midwifery student, who has decided that UC was the only sensible and safe option for me in 1989, when our local hospitals would still knock a woman out if she asked for it(and this did happen to our assistant pastor's wife- I did teach her enough that she didn't have any medication at all til she was pushing the baby out, then afterwards asked herself, why did I even do that(get knocked out). She was only out for about 10 minutes, but missed the entire birth..she really regretted it...I thought she would and told her ahead of time- oh well....). So Ina May and I agreed to disagree...
cathicog is offline  
#7 of 52 Old 12-05-2006, 04:14 AM
 
darsmama's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,294
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
FLB that was a wonderful response.
I am not having any luck through google locating what Gaskin says about UC.
darsmama is offline  
#8 of 52 Old 12-05-2006, 10:12 AM
 
georgia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: tl;dr
Posts: 26,063
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I saw her speak at a conference in 2003 (I think--trying to remember which baby I was slinging at the time ), and she was showing a portion of her mother quilt project. She said that some of the women represented on the quilt were there b/c they chose to go w/o midwifery care and that every woman deserves a midwife. (I agree in part, every woman deserves to have the choice of utilizing a midwife if she wants/needs one, IMO) I remember finding her words and attitude to be condescending.

L---I LOVE that letter. I hope you find a way to work it into the book in some way!

I have retired from administration work, so if you have a question about anything MDC-related, please contact Cynthia Mosher. Thanks!
 
georgia is offline  
#9 of 52 Old 12-05-2006, 11:14 AM
 
DreamsInDigital's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 13,481
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Wow, that letter was incredibly well written. Beautiful, mama!
DreamsInDigital is offline  
#10 of 52 Old 12-05-2006, 01:15 PM
 
meemee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Norther California
Posts: 12,751
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
FLB :

 treehugger.gif Co-parent, joy.gifcold.gifbrand new homeschooling middle schoolerjoy.gif, and an attackcat.gif 
meemee is offline  
#11 of 52 Old 12-05-2006, 01:20 PM
 
torio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: near the mangrove estuaries
Posts: 885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
FLB, Your letter is wonderful and articulates so clearly what I feel intuitively about birth. Haven't done it yet (due w/ our 1st in June!) but words like yours are such tremendous support. We have chosen to work with a midwife, but feel very fortunate that she respects the sacred and intimate nature of birth and our desires for the birth of our baby. If we hadn't been able to find her, DH and I would seriously consider UC. Thanks again!!!
torio is offline  
#12 of 52 Old 12-05-2006, 01:26 PM
Banned
 
accountclosed3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 11,906
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
yes, i was also inspired by the letter.

UCs, btw, would put midwives out of business. if only 10-15% of pregnancies need some sort of assistance, then the other 85-90% of us can UC! if only 10-15% of the pregnant population is getting care, then a lot of doctors and midwives would be out of work.
accountclosed3 is offline  
#13 of 52 Old 12-05-2006, 02:17 PM - Thread Starter
 
Shawnee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Brunswick, Canada
Posts: 87
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks for sharing your letter, Fourlittlebirds. That gives me enough of an idea about Ina May's opinions to satisfy my curiosity for now. Your letter is excellent! Did they publish it in its entirety?
Shawnee is offline  
#14 of 52 Old 12-05-2006, 02:20 PM
 
Ruthla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 47,873
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoebird View Post
UCs, btw, would put midwives out of business. if only 10-15% of pregnancies need some sort of assistance, then the other 85-90% of us can UC! if only 10-15% of the pregnant population is getting care, then a lot of doctors and midwives would be out of work.
I'm willing to go one step furthur and say that most births that DO require some sort of intervention probably belong in a hospital- c/s, or intensive care for the newborn, or some sort of medical treatment for the mother (for something unrelated to childbirth.)

Only in the case of shoulder dystocia, (and perhaps a few other situations I'm not personally aware of) would a midwife's presence at a home birth make a difference, medically. How common are those situations anyway?

I wonder if Ms. Gaskin is aware that not everywhere is like The Farm, and the choice is often between a highly medicalized hospital birth or a UC. Even if she thinks a good midwife would be ideal, does she recognize that UC can be far safer than a hospital birth under those circumstances? I wonder if she's deluded by her own importance at births or simply unaware of reality outside The Farm.

Ruth, single mommy to Leah, 19, Hannah, 18, and Jack, 12
Ruthla is offline  
#15 of 52 Old 12-05-2006, 02:25 PM
 
boheime's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,831
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
From what I have read (admittedly I have avoided reading quite a bit by her), Gaskin (and The Farm) has become pretty medically minded and controlling over the years. Yet, many almost WORSHIP her.

Mom to Eoin (11/02), Eilis (09/04), Eamon (07/07), and Ellery (04/10)
boheime is offline  
#16 of 52 Old 12-05-2006, 02:51 PM
 
cottonwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,383
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Thanks, everyone. I was definitely fired up with that one.

Lizzie, feel free to use it however you like. You can credit it to Linda Hessel.
cottonwood is offline  
#17 of 52 Old 12-05-2006, 03:05 PM
 
torio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: near the mangrove estuaries
Posts: 885
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Tell me if I'm wrong here (I read Spiritual Midwifery awhile ago) but seems I remember that when Ina May and friends began they were UC-ing! That is, birthing without medical assitance.
torio is offline  
#18 of 52 Old 12-05-2006, 03:05 PM
 
Ruthla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 47,873
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by boheime View Post
Yet, many almost WORSHIP her.
Right there is the problem. It sounds like she's succumbed to the "Dr. G-d" syndrome that plagues many physicians.

I read Spiritual Midwifery and was inspired by her. I have no doubt that she was a wonderful, low-interventionist, spiritual midwife when she first started out. As per the above mentioned book, the first few births she attended were basically UCs with a clueless MW wannabe (Ms Gasken) observing!

Ruth, single mommy to Leah, 19, Hannah, 18, and Jack, 12
Ruthla is offline  
#19 of 52 Old 12-05-2006, 03:47 PM
 
cottonwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,383
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Shawnee, no they didn't. I know that MT is sympathetic to UC issues, so I assume that it was just because of space constraints or else they felt I could have been more succinct. I was disappointed, though.

Regarding the "fact" that 10-15% of births require assistance, well, that's ridiculous. It's only a fact conditionally speaking. Conditional on the type of environment and mother's health and approach to birth and degree of medicalization and a host of other factors. I find it hard to believe that Gaskin really believes that results culled mostly from hospital birth stats apply equally well to (truly) natural and undisturbed birth. I just cannot wrap my mind around why she felt it appropriate and logical to use that as part of her argument against UC. The real fact of the matter is that we don't know what the stats look like for birth under ideal conditions, but that we can at the very least assume that they are far better than for birth under unideal conditions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruthla
Only in the case of shoulder dystocia, (and perhaps a few other situations I'm not personally aware of) would a midwife's presence at a home birth make a difference, medically. How common are those situations anyway?
Well, there's catastrophic rupture, and placental abruption to name a couple. But, like you say, how common are these situations? Or, more to the point, how common are they when not created by some interference with the natural process? It's impossible to know, because even in UCs there's often some kind of subtle and maybe unperceived interference, from previous c-sections to the husband acting as midwife to the modern difficulty of suppressing the control of the neocortex, etc.

Quote:
Even if she thinks a good midwife would be ideal, does she recognize that UC can be far safer than a hospital birth under those circumstances?
Even Henci Goer, who is also not a fan of UC (at least publicly because there are no studies to show it to be safe,) admits (in her book The Thinking Woman's Guide to a Better Birth) that UC is in generally safer than hospital birth.

Quote:
I wonder if she's deluded by her own importance at births or simply unaware of reality outside The Farm.
Wellll... her style of midwifery (as seen in Spiritual Midwifery) is based on the premise that the midwife is this archetypal guru character that women need to be guided by, psychologically, spiritually, physically. In contrast, here's Laura Shanley:

Quote:
Midwives are not the saviors of birth (as I've heard several of them say). They are not the exclusive holders of the "sacred knowledge." They are not the "Goddesses of Birth" - unless they are the ones giving birth. Every woman is her own birth savior. Every woman has the sacred knowledge. Every woman is wise if she allows herself to be.
So if you're used to being regarded as a savior, for people to claim autonomy has to be a little threatening. Even our dear Pamamidwife here at MDC has talked about struggling with ego issues pertaining to her role as midwife, and the pedestal she's been put on is much shorter than Ina May's. I guess I had half hoped that she'd find a way to gracefully step off that pedestal by continuing to grow and learn, as Pam has. To be above the fear-mongering and lack of critical thinking that those trained in medicine so often display.

FWIW, her response to my letter (and to be fair, I have no idea how much Midwifery Today edited out of her letter) addressed *only* my point that she should know that midwives are legally expected to apply standards that do not necessarily serve the individual. She wrote, "If Linda Hessel is right that there are lots of state laws [not what I said, but whatever] that actually require that midwives time contractions and check dilation, midwives and women together should go back to the legislature to fix them. Tennessee midwives don't work under conditions like this and I don't see why anyone should have such provisions in their laws."

Now, this is pretty amazing to me. She's been president of MANA and travels all over to speak at conferences. She's not isolated. How can she not know that in many places midwives must be licensed to practice legally, and that licensure often requires not just proof of education but also agreement to adhere to a certain protocol? In some places any type of midwifery is illegal and the political climate is so hostile that sometimes midwives are willing to make concessions to be able to practice at all. Even here in Oregon where we have quite a bit of freedom, that's in part due to the thousands of dollars each year paid to a lobbyist. Our situation is not at all secure. And then there's the fact that, like doctors, midwives sometimes practice defensively. The midwife who attended my first birth kept a very careful chart of all vitals because in the event of a poor outcome it would help her to legally protect herself. It is just naive to think that these sorts of things do not affect the birth process, and if the only option a woman has outside of a hospital birth is to hire a midwife who practices this way, how is she going to manage to have an undisturbed (safe) birth? This is a real problem. And here we have Ina May dismissively and simplistically telling us that we just need to go the legislature to fix it, as if it is just that simple. It does make me feel like she is to some degree unaware of the reality outside the Farm, as you put it.
cottonwood is offline  
#20 of 52 Old 12-05-2006, 04:02 PM
 
cottonwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,383
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by torio View Post
Tell me if I'm wrong here (I read Spiritual Midwifery awhile ago) but seems I remember that when Ina May and friends began they were UC-ing! That is, birthing without medical assitance.
The first few. Maybe six or seven, I can't remember, but it was while they were en route to the Farm and none of the women had had medical training yet. Ina May's was one of the babies born during this time, and died due to prematurity. The other babies were fine. Then they got to the Farm and a local doctor came out to show them how to assist in birth and deal with complications (hence the hands-on approach and high episiotomy rate!) So once they had a real choice, it was to combine obstetrics with a personal approach, in a non-clinical setting. This was of course a huge improvement over hospital birth at the time, at least spiritually speaking. They had a mortality rate comparable to the hospital's -- out of 1000 births, there were seven stillbirths and eight more neonatal deaths, some of which occured after transfer to the hospital. (It breaks it down further in the book.)
cottonwood is offline  
#21 of 52 Old 12-05-2006, 07:03 PM
 
Ruthla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 47,873
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourlittlebirds View Post
Well, there's catastrophic rupture, and placental abruption to name a couple.
But how would a midwife handle those situations outside of a hospital setting? Wouldn't catastrophic rupture (is that the same thing as uterine rupture?) and placental abruption both be handled via c/s in a hospital setting? Shoulder dystocia is the only complication I'm aware of where a midwife's skilled hands can make a difference at home.

Ruth, single mommy to Leah, 19, Hannah, 18, and Jack, 12
Ruthla is offline  
#22 of 52 Old 12-05-2006, 07:28 PM
 
babycatcher01's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Da U.P
Posts: 545
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
It is sad to hear that she dosnt promote birthing freedom, she was involved in a big movment and she changed alot of lives. She just seemed to fall away from the true way of birthing. It is very very sad.

 Midwife & Mom to Gracen 9 luxlove.gif, Avery 6joy.gif Urijah 4superhero.gif Greta Sue, 9-9-10babyf.gifuc.jpg  Oh Baby! 1sttri.gif Due in April

babycatcher01 is offline  
#23 of 52 Old 12-05-2006, 10:19 PM
 
mwherbs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Tucson, AZ
Posts: 5,575
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
I think her opinion has been colored by the losses she and others experienced- it wasn't just that a "friendly" doc came to save them- they sought out help because of their losses-
and they modified the farm to also accomidate/prevent additional losses including making what people would consider a neonatal nursery - at the farm

I also think that to her it is like stepping back into that area where they started out- and she and the community have learned so much and changed over time- now we may be critical of how they manage or have managed births but most of us would not be having much discussion at all if it weren't for her and her widely published book-- there is the farm book, Heart and Hands and now Ann Frye's tombs... and really no one tried to open up exact practice and simplify obstetrics in the way they did. i do not worship her but I do have respect for what living history she represents-- I have not experienced the losses she has and I have no idea how I would end up responding to them if I did.
I was recently at a conference where she was the luncheon speaker- and her absolute focus was on unnecessary deaths of mothers and sometimes babies- ( not something I could actually eat lunch over and listen to) But I get her I understand that this is now her work- and we can all agree that many obstetric practices need to be changed.
mwherbs is offline  
#24 of 52 Old 12-05-2006, 10:38 PM
 
Snowdrift's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 5,669
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoebird View Post
UCs, btw, would put midwives out of business. if only 10-15% of pregnancies need some sort of assistance, then the other 85-90% of us can UC! if only 10-15% of the pregnant population is getting care, then a lot of doctors and midwives would be out of work.
I disagree with this. Yes, if only those with a physical problem requiring outside care sought it out, then it owul dput midwives and OBs out of business, but I don't think only women requiring outside care would seek it.

Many of us regard birth as something other than a sexual act. I regard it as a female ritual of sorts. I've considered UC time and again and I think I've finally realized that I was leaning towards UC mostly bc of my fear of medical professionals not bc I felt I want complete privacy when I birth. I don't especially wany my DH around. What I want are women to be with me, to understand, and to support and to provide assistance if needed or desired.

Certainly for my next birth I will have a midwife, although I understand that that is a costly luxury. Perhaps in the future, after a few more births, I'll revisit the idea of UC, but I think that that would be largely a financial decision.

Really, for many of us, birth is not a sex act, it is a female act. I think midwives are safe.

Their cautions about the need for attended birth may be wrongheaded in many ways (especially Ina May's, which are pretty archaic), I don't think it is as selfish as being about preserving clientele.

People still hire massage therapists even though they are unnecessary and they can get a partner to help them to it for themselves.
Snowdrift is offline  
#25 of 52 Old 12-06-2006, 03:21 AM
 
lizzie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: A Whole New World
Posts: 4,313
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourlittlebirds View Post
Thanks, everyone. I was definitely fired up with that one.

Lizzie, feel free to use it however you like. You can credit it to Linda Hessel.
Thanks, Linda! I absolutely will!

Yk, kind of OT, but I was taken aback by how sexual my births were.. and I didn't even realize it until after the fact, particularly with the first one. The second I had a better idea of it. And my dh, the crazy man, was the really the one who seemed to get that on some instinctive level.. I was all ready to have a passel of women, from my mom to my sketchy SIL in there with me, and he just said NO. NO way!! This birth is about US.... And sure enough, when I was in labor, I was so grateful for that.. if my parents had been in there, it would have been so much like they were watching dh and I make love. I was so glad it was mostly just us, with the odd nurse rambling through, but I guess it's easier for me to make love in front of strangers, rather than my parents? Either way, for me, absolutely sexual... not really a girl thing at all, and I think other women would seriously annoy me during birthing. Just my personal feeling...


lizzie

It's such a relief to finally trust yourself.
lizzie is offline  
#26 of 52 Old 12-06-2006, 01:22 PM
 
cottonwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,383
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruthla View Post
But how would a midwife handle those situations outside of a hospital setting? Wouldn't catastrophic rupture (is that the same thing as uterine rupture?) and placental abruption both be handled via c/s in a hospital setting? Shoulder dystocia is the only complication I'm aware of where a midwife's skilled hands can make a difference at home.
Right, sorry, I wasn't reading you right.

I was going to think some more on what could be said about this (about what having a midwife is necessary for,) but the thing is, with just about any complication there can be different opinions as to whether it's natural or created in some way, and what that means for each woman. Given my special circumstances, I don't believe shoulder dystocia is a possibility for me AT ALL. Given someone else's special circumstances, it might be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mwherbs
I also think that to her it is like stepping back into that area where they started out- and she and the community have learned so much and changed over time- now we may be critical of how they manage or have managed births but most of us would not be having much discussion at all if it weren't for her and her widely published book-- there is the farm book, Heart and Hands and now Ann Frye's tombs... and really no one tried to open up exact practice and simplify obstetrics in the way they did. i do not worship her but I do have respect for what living history she represents-- I have not experienced the losses she has and I have no idea how I would end up responding to them if I did.
Just about any time I've ever talked about Ina May here on at MDC I've offered the disclaimer that yes, she has done a lot for the homebirth movement and I respect her for that yadda yadda yadda. Having to make that disclaimer gets a little tiring, but I want people to understand that when I criticize her practices or views, it isn't about demonizing her or disregarding her accomplishments and the context in which her practices and views came to be. There are things she is about that I disagree with. That doesn't mean that I think she's a bad person or has never done anything of value.

But here, on the UC forum, with the topic being specifically about her view on one thing, UC, and her method of supporting that view, I really don't understand why someone would feel it necessary or appropriate to interject, off-topic, to remind us that she has done important things and that for her to be opposed to UC is understandable. Because those things are not even being debated and are not relevant to the OP, it feels disrespectful. I can't imagine going onto the homebirth forum, criticizing the views or practices of the doctor who delivered me and how that affected my mother and me, and another doctor coming on there and making excuses for him (even if they were valid) and pointing out that he had also done good work. That might be so, but it's not the point. And it's not the point here, either.
cottonwood is offline  
#27 of 52 Old 12-06-2006, 01:26 PM
Banned
 
accountclosed3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 11,906
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
tie-dyed:

i don't know really what judgement your tossing onto me. I have no qualms with a woman choosing an OB, a midwife, or her grandmother's best friend if that's what she wants. And, i never said that there was only one way to consider or think about birth. Just because i see it as a sex act (in part) doesn't mean that i think everyone does or should.

if you're judging yoruself for your choice, then look at yourself. I've never judged anyone for choosing differently from me. I support free choice--and UC as a part of that. I do not prize UC over other forms of birth, nor my perspective of birth for myself over what others may choose for themselves.

Finally, to my quote, the construct that i was asserting was in reflection of Ina May's assertion, as quoted by FLB, that only 10-15% need, that is require, medical attention of some sort (midwife or OB attention). This means that 85-90% of the population *can* have safe UCs because they don't require attention. It doesn't mean that i think that they *should* or they're wrong for choosing otherwise.

truth be told, if 100% of the women believed that they didn't need medical attention and could do it on their own, then fewer would be choosing hospitals and midwives as the "safest" way to birth. Instead, they would be choosing it for other reasons (such as those you mentioned for wanting a midwife) or for actual medical need (that 10-15%). It would be a free choice. And there would be less demand for midwives and OBs. Thus, fewer jobs.
accountclosed3 is offline  
#28 of 52 Old 12-06-2006, 03:03 PM
 
rajahkat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,252
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
tie-dyed--

I think you have a very valid point. I tend to think exactly the same thing that I think you were trying to get across-

the idea of a midwife as a counselor, someone who has been through it before, a spiritual guide, per se (maybe more along the lines of a doula?) I tend to correlate midwives to massage therapists as well, LOL. Totally uneccessary, but for some a welcome luxury.

After having had 3 UC's I still don't really see my labors and births as "sexual". Not in the way that I would be uncomfortable to have people other than my dh there...... I've not personally met any other people that I feel a spiritual bond with to the extent that I would want them at my births.

But for me, I see birth as a spiritual experience (in the same way that sex can be) and as a pagan, I totally get the desire to give birth surrounded by a like-minded group of women.....

Kat

treehugger.gif Kat- mama to 6 little trees
rajahkat is offline  
#29 of 52 Old 12-06-2006, 08:11 PM
 
cottonwood's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 7,383
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tie-dyed
I don't think it is as selfish as being about preserving clientele.
It's hard for me to believe that any would consider it a genuine concern anyway. It's unlikely that we'll ever get to the point where we all believe that medically-trained birth attendants are unnecessary for any but those with health issues, at least not in this lifetime. Something always pops up in my mind when this question comes up, though, which is something that Pamamidwife said once. She said that she had told a fellow midwife that she thinks it a positive thing that women are empowering themselves to give birth unassisted. The other midwife said, quite seriously, "but if all women did that, we'd be out of a job!" I think for most, though, it is more about ego than money. The ego wants to be special, to be needed. That's a powerful reason to perpetuate the idea that midwives are needed and that they are an integral part of the sisterhood.

Quote:
People still hire massage therapists even though they are unnecessary and they can get a partner to help them to it for themselves.
Even if some unimaginably huge paradigm shift were to occur, I agree with you that people would still have reasons to have attendants around them.

Quote:
Many of us regard birth as something other than a sexual act. I regard it as a female ritual of sorts. [...] Really, for many of us, birth is not a sex act, it is a female act.
It's no secret that most people don't regard birth as a sexual act. Does that mean that it is inherently not so, or has that knowledge been suppressed in them for one reason or another? Even midwives -- who we can assume do regard birth as a female ritual of sorts -- will say, "what gets the baby in, gets the baby out." Meaning that for a normal birth a hormonal process needs to be initiated, and that is the same hormonal process that is the basis for sexual arousal. Can these things co-exist? Maybe they can, if we re-formulate our perceptions of what constitutes a sexual act and a female ritual.

One problem is in the terminology. People who call birth sexual are usually (but not always) defining that in a very much more basic way (i.e. pleasure, primality, and a host of hormone-driven physiological events such as blood flowing to the vagina) than people who don't, who associate it with things that are felt to be taboo in most contexts, including birth.

It's a shame that we don't have an analogous word for "sexual arousal" that applies to the birth act, because language affects perception so strongly. If you can't name it, it's hard for it to exist in the head.

For me, birth was a very intimate and personal process in which I had to allow myself to enter an altered state of consciousness and exhibit deeply primal behavior. It was the ultimate expression of the goddess archetype in my self. For the process to happen optimally, the body must be flooded with hormones that soften the body, open it up, make it sensitive. I don't think that can't happen in a circle of women. I'm skeptical as to whether it can ever be fully realized in the presence of people who have been hired, who are more acquaintances than deeply connected companions, who are there to do clinical tasks. I do regard it as happening optimally in privacy or in the presence of those with whom the mother is normally and deeply intimate and who is inside it with her. Otherwise self-consciousness and a pull of awareness toward the outside is going to be present on some level.
cottonwood is offline  
#30 of 52 Old 12-06-2006, 08:33 PM
 
attachedmamaof3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 2,656
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourlittlebirds View Post
Otherwise self-consciousness and a pull of awareness toward the outside is going to be present on some level.
Absolutely. Absolutely. :

I absolutely cannot imagine having someone other than DH present for my laboring once we've experienced it alone. The intimacy of birth is (for me) EXACTLY the same as the intimacy with a lover. Intensely personal, private, loving and bonding. It would seem like 'cheapening it' (for lack of better words) to allow someone (outside) to intrude on those moments, and would SEVERELY diminish my ability to function as I need to because of self-conciousness/awareness/vulnerability, etc.
attachedmamaof3 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