Big Push for Midwives!
This Press Release Just in:
PushNews from The Big Push for Midwives Campaign
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thursday, February 7, 2008
ACOG: Out of Touch with Needs of Childbearing Families
Trade Union claims out-of-hospital birth is “trendy;”
tries to play the “bad mother” card(February 7, 2008) The American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists (ACOG), a trade union representing the financial and
professional interests of obstetricians, has issued the latest in a
series of statements condemning families who choose home birth and
calling on policy makers to deny them access to Certified Professional
Midwives. CPMs are trained as experts in out-of-hospital delivery and
as specialists in risk assessment and preventative care.“It will certainly come as news to the Amish and other groups in this
country who have long chosen home birth that they’re simply being
‘trendy’ or ‘fashionable,’” said Katie Prown, PhD, Campaign Manager of
The Big Push for Midwives 2008. “The fact is, families deliver their
babies at home for a variety of very valid reasons, either because
they’re exercising their religious freedom, following their cultural
traditions or because of financial need. These families deserve access
to safe, quality and affordable maternity care, just like everyone
else.”Besides referring to home birth as a fashionable “trend” and a “cause
célèbre” that families choose out of ignorance, ACOG’s latest
statement adds insult to injury by claiming that women delivering
outside of the hospital are bad mothers who value the childbirth
“experience” over the safety of their babies.“ACOG has it backwards,” said Steff Hedenkamp, Communications
Coordinator of The Big Push and the mother of two children born at
home. “I delivered my babies with a trained, skilled professional
midwife because I wanted the safest out-of-hospital care possible. If
every state were to follow ACOG’s recommendations and outlaw CPMs,
families who choose home birth will be left with no care providers at
all. I think we can all agree that this is an irresponsible policy
that puts mothers and babies at risk.”The Big Push for Midwives calls on ACOG to abandon these outdated
policies and work with CPMs to reduce the cesarean rate and to take
meaningful steps towards reducing racial and ethnic disparities in
birth outcomes in all regions of the United States. CPMs play a
critical role in both cesarean prevention and in the reduction of
low-birth weight and pre-term births, the two most preventable causes
of neonatal mortality.Moreover, their training as specialists in out-of-hospital maternity
care qualifies CPMs as essential first-responders during disasters in
which hospitals become inaccessible or unsafe for laboring mothers. In
addition, CPMs work to ensure that all babies born outside of the
hospital undergo state-mandated newborn screenings and are provided
with legal and secure birth certificates.Currently, Certified Nurse-Midwives, who work predominantly in
hospital settings, are licensed and regulated in all 50 states, while
Certified Professional Midwives, who work in out-of-hospital settings,
are licensed and regulated in 24 states, with legislation pending in
an additional 20 states.The Big Push for Midwives Women are Weak!
Love,
Heather
Slingnmom said,
February 26, 2008 @ 12:36 pm
The Business of Being Born was released on DVD today. You can check it out at Netflix You can even sign up for their free trial, watch the movie online through Netflix and then cancel your subscription to Netflix.
If you get a chance see this movie!
wiffersnapper said,
February 26, 2008 @ 3:24 pm
It’s a shame how many women buy into the “women are too weak to have their babies themselves” line. I am by no means big or mighty (5′2″ and I don’t work out!) but I managed to have my daughter without any sort of drugs or interventional help. If women are really as weak as these doctors say, the human race would’ve died out a long time ago!
jeanette said,
February 26, 2008 @ 9:03 pm
I love the ACOG. They just blame women for anything that they are doing wrong. That’s about the worst quality of care one can possibly provide to women. If they’re telling us how to give birth, then they had better take full responsibility for whatever happens and not blame *us* for what they do!
crunchymama said,
February 27, 2008 @ 7:52 am
“ACOG has it backwards,” said Steff Hedenkamp, Communications
Coordinator of The Big Push and the mother of two children born at
home. “I delivered my babies with a trained, skilled professional
midwife because I wanted the safest out-of-hospital care possible. If
every state were to follow ACOG’s recommendations and outlaw CPMs,
families who choose home birth will be left with no care providers at
all. I think we can all agree that this is an irresponsible policy
that puts mothers and babies at risk.”
No, we don’t all agree. Sorry Steff, but I think unassisted birth is a safe and responsible option. No care providers at all isn’t necessarily a bad thing! And currently UC is legal in every state, while CPMs are not.
I wonder if the midwives ever get what they want, and get out from under the tyranny of the ACOG’s powerful legal lobby, if they won’t turn around and start persecuting those of us who continue to choose not to use their services. CPMs are legal in my state, but state medicare won’t cover them. If state medicare did start covering midwives, I wonder how far away from illegal UC we’d be. It happened in the UK, there is no reason to think it wouldn’t happen here.
I support the big push for midwives- midwifery should be legal, and midwives, not doctors or insurance companies, should choose whether to attend breech births, etc. I don’t support the regulation of birth, period. But, I can’t support midwives who try to play the fear card to justify their existence. What’s a UCin mama to do?
amyphilo said,
February 27, 2008 @ 9:18 am
I go to my CNM for a variety of reasons, only one of which is safe pregnancy and birth care. I don’t want an interventionist doctor trying to ruin my life. That’s exactly what I got with OBs. I would only go to an OBGYN now if I needed a specialist or some sort of surgery.
I do not support their blatant arrogance or delusions of grandeur and I do not support giving OBs immunity from malpractice liability.
I should have sued my doctor by now, but their recent attitude is also worthy of us initiating a boycott campaign in my opinion. My husband wanted me to go to an OBGYN instead of my midwife for my well woman exam because it would be in network but I said no way jose. I am too disgusted to ever give them any of my money voluntarily.
I was on the news last night about the MOTHERS Act and the doctor they interviewed was just as arrogant as any OB I’ve met though she isn’t an OB from what I can tell. (OK my first OB during my pregnancy was actually a nice guy, but I moved and got stuck with Dr. Jerk and have not met anyone since then that I liked, perhaps my first birth was just a wake up call that jaded me).
She says “In general doctors believe this is the right thing to do. We need to identify women who could benefit from treatment.” (treatment that is not beneficial can’t benefit you…)
Doctors IN GENERAL do not pay attention to the real risks of anything, they are extremely closed-minded and everything to them is something in need of their intervention. When all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail. Birth is one of the ways they have managed to take over our bodies and set us up for failure and make us feel crappy, and they will find any other way they can to make us look sick and appear to need them.
If anyone is interested, here is my NBC video link: http://youtube.com/watch?v=W4B8I_8wz6I
This MOTHERS Act bill has me wondering if I will ever get pregnant again, if I can even trust a midwife or if she will be under the restraint of government force, and whether I will just go unattended throughout just because I don’t want psychiatry reaching through midwifery to get their claws on me. That’s an unfortunate choice that I should never have to make.
But back to the subject at hand… midwives… gotta love em. Go midwives!!!!!
jls said,
February 27, 2008 @ 9:42 am
I’m not sure ACOG is correctly characterized in the article you posted. ACOG is hardly “a trade union representing the financial and professional interests of obstetricians”. What they are is a group of physcians with a particular subtype, much like the AAP or the APA. Considering the increasing specialization of science in general, and medicine in specific, I think organizations like ACOG are essential towards helping doctors (and patients!) remain up-to-date, informed, and educated.
Unlike unions, ACOG offers no employment insurance, and does not have bylaws concerning things like strikes or large-scale negotiations. I have never heard of ACOG as having called a nationwide, state-wide, or even local strike to encourage their members to get better wages, conditions, or employment.
It should also be pointed out that ACOG is one of the largest women’s advocacy organizations in the country. They produce and distribute patient pamphlets on issues like breastfeeding (they are definitely “for”), violence against women (they are definitely “against”), universal healthcare (according to their website, “Universal health care is a legislative priority for the College”), and emergency contraception (they were, in fact, the first national organization - beating out even planned parenthood - in issuing a patient education factsheet on Plan B). They are also vocal advocates of non-abstinence-only sex education for teens and pre-teens.
Also, the ACOG statement: “ACOG does not support programs that advocate for, or individuals who provide, home births. Nor does ACOG support the provision of care by midwives who are not certified by the American College of Nurse-Midwives (ACNM) or the American Midwifery Certification Board (AMCB). ” is hardly the same as saying that they “condemn.. families who choose home birth and call… on policy makers to deny them access to Certified Professional Midwives.”
I’m all for debate, but there’s a huge difference between having a legitimate difference of opinion vs. slandering and name-calling.
amyphilo said,
February 27, 2008 @ 10:16 am
Yes because lord knows no OBs belonging to the ACOG have slandered or name called women and tried to intimidate or force them. No ACOG members have ever done anything wrong. They are a GREAT group that wants to further their own financial gain, that is why they want UNIVERSAL health care. More patients can then have sections instead of getting the cheap or free midwifery at the public hospital. That way they can make more money.
I am for universal health coverage too but I am not in favor of elective induction and expensive elective c-sections and I am in favor of CHOICE of care providers AND CHOICE of type of care, natural, alternative, what have you. I am sure that they would love to campaign for a crushing of the entire midwifery practice in the US so as to secure their monopoly on hurting women.
If they are so against VIOLENCE AGAINST women then why do they promote interventionist practices that result in maternal and infant death and why do they cut us?
jls said,
February 27, 2008 @ 10:33 am
Er, amyphilo? I believe I suggested reasoned debate there. Didn’t realize it was such an offensive suggestion. Your statements and retalitory comments to me are exactly the sort of inflammatory nonsense that I was referring to.
“Yes because lord knows no OBs belonging to the ACOG have slandered or name called women and tried to intimidate or force them. No ACOG members have ever done anything wrong. They are a GREAT group that wants to further their own financial gain, that is why they want UNIVERSAL health care. More patients can then have sections instead of getting the cheap or free midwifery at the public hospital. That way they can make more money.”
Obviously I’m not making a character commentary on every single member of a 50,000 membership organization. Surely any such generalizations can be agreed to be not only useless but also simply wrong. ACOG supports universal healthcare as a direct result of their findings in several studies on the quality of care uninsured women were provided with. With regard to C-sections, they have issued a number of statements decrying the rate of C-sections, and have several pamphlets designed for both patients pursuing elective Cs (ACOG’s stance is “bad idea”) and OBs, such that doctors can encourage patients AWAY from elective Cs.
“I am for universal health coverage too but I am not in favor of elective induction and expensive elective c-sections and I am in favor of CHOICE of care providers AND CHOICE of type of care, natural, alternative, what have you. I am sure that they would love to campaign for a crushing of the entire midwifery practice in the US so as to secure their monopoly on hurting women.”
You argue two contradictory things here - are you in favor of choice (including the choice to have an elective C or induction) or not? ACOG, by the way, does not condemn midwives. They are vocal advocates of the two largest certifying midwife organizations in the United States. And your last statement - their monopoly on hurting women - is ridiculous, inflammatory, factually incorrect, and downright silly.
amyphilo said,
February 27, 2008 @ 10:43 am
I am not in favor of inductions and elective c sections. I am not in favor of them being covered by insurance. I am in favor of universal health care with CHOICES of who we use. IT seems to me that OBs want to stop midwives. When I was pregnant and tried to find a backup OB I was kicked to the curb. They do not want anything to do with patients who don’t pledge their allegiance to the almighty OB.
So seriously, are you a hathor reader or are you here to defend OBs.
If you do not consider maternal death and infant death caused by intervention to be hurting women and violence then I guess we have to agree to disagree.
Have you ever been cut by an OB?
jls said,
February 27, 2008 @ 10:56 am
amyphilo, I am a hathor reader, and I’m not defending OBs individually, but the ACOG as a whole. (I do not believe those two things to be mutually exclusive.) I believe they have done some admirable work for women’s health, and I think the article hathor posted is factually incorrect in its descriptions of the organization and of what the organization did say. I am in favor of all reasonable debate that pertains to women’s health, and hope that everyone’s ideal situation is one in which women are well cared for AND FEEL cared for well. I do not think we are there yet - not by a ways - and believe that both homebirth advocates AND the ACOG have opinions and perspectives that could benefit discussions.
I am not a huge fan of elective inductions or Cs, either, but I AM an advocate for choice. I believe that ALL women have the right to choose what happens to their body, even and especially if that is a choice that I/Dr. OB Number 5/Congress/the Religious Right/that guy over there/etc. disagree with. I respect that you are not in favor of inductions and Cs, but I respectfully disagree with the stance that because you don’t like them, they shouldn’t be covered by insurance. (For the record, I also respectfully disagree with any stance that says homebirths should not be covered by insurance.) I believe those sorts of things are decisions that should be made by a woman and her health care provider, and that no one has a right to get in the way of those decisions, period.
“If you do not consider maternal death and infant death caused by intervention to be hurting women and violence then I guess we have to agree to disagree.”
By the numbers, there are far far more cases of infant and maternal mortality because of a lack of adequate medical care than there are cases of mortality caused by specific interventionist care. This does not mean I am for intervention, and most certainly does not mean I am for intervention if a woman does not want it. That is assault and should be treated as assault. Most medical organizations - hospitals, the AMA, etc. - have very clear guidelines on things like a patient’s right to refuse medical care/advice, and I firmly believe women are no exception to these rules.
“Have you ever been cut by an OB?”
I’m not even sure what this means. Cut?
amyphilo said,
February 27, 2008 @ 10:59 am
“Unlike unions, ACOG offers no employment insurance, and does not have bylaws concerning things like strikes or large-scale negotiations. I have never heard of ACOG as having called a nationwide, state-wide, or even local strike to encourage their members to get better wages, conditions, or employment.”
OK that is a ridiculous comparison. I have never heard of any doctors or health care providers going on strike. Number one they have too much money to lose. Number two most women use them for pregnancy care so to go on strike would be ridiculous and dangerous and we wouldn’t have enough midwives to cover their butts.
“emergency contraception (they were, in fact, the first national organization - beating out even planned parenthood - in issuing a patient education factsheet on Plan B). ”
OK are you trying to appeal to someone’s sympathy here because I am actually not in favor of Plan B. Not sure about the rest of the Hathor readers…
“have several pamphlets designed for both patients pursuing elective Cs (ACOG’s stance is “bad idea”) and OBs, such that doctors can encourage patients AWAY from elective Cs.”
GOOD… but I consider most of the c-sections that they perform to be elective. Those that aren’t elective are caused by their intervention and mismanagement.
” Nor does ACOG support the provision of care by midwives who are not certified by the American College of Nurse-Midwives (ACNM) or the American Midwifery Certification Board (AMCB). ” is hardly the same as saying that they “condemn.. families who choose home birth and call… on policy makers to deny them access to Certified Professional Midwives.””
Another reason to dislike the ACOG. They do not support CPMs. CPMs and UC moms have EVERY right to totally disregard the ACOG because their statement is based on backwards ideas. According to what I have read, the rate of deaths for moms and babies is actually lower for CPMs than CNMs. I personally went with a CNM because she was covered by insurance. But that is not to say that I think a CPM is less qualified.
I think most women are far safer at home than in a hospital giving birth. The very rare exception is when an OB is called for. This decision should not be made lightly and women should not employ surgeons if they are shooting for a normal birth.
amyphilo said,
February 27, 2008 @ 11:08 am
“I respect that you are not in favor of inductions and Cs, but I respectfully disagree with the stance that because you don’t like them, they shouldn’t be covered by insurance. ”
When I had my first baby I was told that ELECTIVE induction is not covered. I had an elective induction but they covered it under the idea that a doctor would not do an elective induction, he would not allow induction unless it was medically necessary.
It’s not just that “I don’t like inductions.”
Inductions increase the chances the baby will die. They increase the chance of a c-section. It’s not just that “I don’t like c-sections” - if they are NECESSARY, then that is great! I am glad we have it. But if it’s an elective or preventable c-section, that is a tragedy. Why? Because of ALL THE RISKS.
Let’s stop name-calling and insulting and pay attention to the RISKS of ob interventions.
THat is why women don’t like the ACOG. They seem to be totally ignoring the harm that OBs cause normal women - women who should be with a midwife and not be scared into a hospital or told that it’s cool to be too posh to push or that the recovery from a c-section or episiotomy is any easier than the pain of childbirth.
I did not say that inductions and c-sections should not be covered, I said ELECTIVE c-sections and inductions should not be covered.
But for that to ever work the OBs would have to admit they were wrong, and that is difficult to do when your high salary depends on bad choices being made. Take epidurals for example. Without a 90% epidural rate hospitals cannot afford to keep an anesthesiologist on staff 24 hours a day in case of emergency in the maternity ward (like an emergency c-section).
amyphilo said,
February 27, 2008 @ 11:13 am
“By the numbers, there are far far more cases of infant and maternal mortality because of a lack of adequate medical care than there are cases of mortality caused by specific interventionist care”
That argument is irrelevant unless you are trying to point the finger at midwives and call them indadequate.
“”Have you ever been cut by an OB?”
I’m not even sure what this means. Cut?”"
Are you for real?
Has an OB ever given you a c-section or an episiotomy? If so, how did you feel about that?
jls said,
February 27, 2008 @ 11:13 am
“Unlike unions, ACOG offers no employment insurance, and does not have bylaws concerning things like strikes or large-scale negotiations. I have never heard of ACOG as having called a nationwide, state-wide, or even local strike to encourage their members to get better wages, conditions, or employment.”
OK that is a ridiculous comparison. I have never heard of any doctors or health care providers going on strike. Number one they have too much money to lose. Number two most women use them for pregnancy care so to go on strike would be ridiculous and dangerous and we wouldn’t have enough midwives to cover their butts.
***
It’s not a ridiculous comparison. The author referred to ACOG as a union. Unions are traditionally employment organizations whose primary stated purpose is to help members negotiate for better working conditions, wages, benefits, etc., and who provide employment insurance (members pay dues in order to support…) towards the chance of a strike. I was simply pointing out that the ACOG is not a union. Not that I find unions to be bad things, so I thought the idea of using it in a derogatory fashion was somewhat silly, but nonetheless, ACOG is not a union by most any definition.
“but I consider most of the c-sections that they perform to be elective. Those that aren’t elective are caused by their intervention and mismanagement.”
There are C-sections performed for medical need. I won’t argue that a majority of them aren’t in fact necessary - since I agree with that point. But it should be pointed out that in addition to elective Cs, and those caused by intervention and mismanagement, there are Cs done out of genuine medical need.
“Another reason to dislike the ACOG.”
I actually haven’t seen one legitimate reason yet.
“They [ACOG] do not support CPMs. CPMs and UC moms have EVERY right to totally disregard the ACOG because their statement is based on backwards ideas. According to what I have read, the rate of deaths for moms and babies is actually lower for CPMs than CNMs.”
ACOG correctly points out that there have been no significant studies done on the matter. Any numbers out there are anecdotal. It can be and has been argued that this is a difficult thing to get significant studies on - control groups would be difficult and downright immoral, for one, but also right now in the US there are issues of small numbers. That is to say, there are not significant numbers of people having babies with CPMs for there to be a valid point of comparison. There are many who advocate to looking to European numbers, and there are some interesting and valid studies that have been done in Europe on homebirth and similar matters, but then you run into an apple-orange comparison, since many of the European models of maternal health are so different from the American model. Whew, got a bit rambly there, sorry.
” I personally went with a CNM because she was covered by insurance. But that is not to say that I think a CPM is less qualified.”
Ah, insurance. Now, I fear, we come to the root of the trouble here in America. I am all in favor of making insurance companies legally required to cover whatever a woman chooses to do.
jls said,
February 27, 2008 @ 11:22 am
“When I had my first baby I was told that ELECTIVE induction is not covered. I had an elective induction but they covered it under the idea that a doctor would not do an elective induction, he would not allow induction unless it was medically necessary.”
Hm. This is an interesting idea. I didn’t realize this used to be the case. I am a little too pro-choice, I’m afraid, to jump behind it with both feet, but I do like the sentiment of not encouraging unnecessary inductions.
“But if it’s an elective or preventable c-section, that is a tragedy. Why? Because of ALL THE RISKS.”
I do think that the lack of education to women on the risks of C sections is an abomination. With you here, sister.
“Let’s stop name-calling and insulting and pay attention to the RISKS of ob interventions.”
I apologize if you feel I have name-called or been insulting in any way. Not my intention at all.
“THat is why women don’t like the ACOG. They seem to be totally ignoring the harm that OBs cause normal women - women who should be with a midwife and not be scared into a hospital or told that it’s cool to be too posh to push or that the recovery from a c-section or episiotomy is any easier than the pain of childbirth.”
But as I’ve mentioned, the ACOG has come out on a number of times and said ‘elective Cs are bad’ (obviously a paraphrase there). I understand your frustration with the culture of elective Cs - and in particular the culture of intervention in medicine. It is something that is often asked for by patients (hence my use of the word ‘culture’ - it’s not just the doctors here, but also patients), and that must be something incredibly frustrating to OBs who are attempting to abide by the ACOG statement that C-sections should not be performed electively.
“Take epidurals for example. Without a 90% epidural rate hospitals cannot afford to keep an anesthesiologist on staff 24 hours a day in case of emergency in the maternity ward (like an emergency c-section).”
Where did this fact come from? I both gave birth in, and now work in hospitals (two different hospitals, in two different states) that do not, in fact, have anesthesiologists on staff 24 hours a day. On call, yes. But not on staff. There is no way that would be cost effective for any but the largest of hospitals. And hospitals are many things, but loose with their money is not one of them.
jls said,
February 27, 2008 @ 11:29 am
““By the numbers, there are far far more cases of infant and maternal mortality because of a lack of adequate medical care than there are cases of mortality caused by specific interventionist care”
That argument is irrelevant unless you are trying to point the finger at midwives and call them indadequate.”
No, I’m looking at women in 3rd world countries, studies done on uninsured women in rural communites here in the states, and other women who do not have access to adequate health care. I have absolutely nothing against midwives, nor do I think (FAR from it!) that midwives are in any way inadequate.
“Has an OB ever given you a c-section or an episiotomy? If so, how did you feel about that?”
Does having had or not having had either of these procedures make me more or less qualified to have opinions on these issues?
amyphilo said,
February 27, 2008 @ 11:36 am
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hD99yOc2Bsc
lol
wiffersnapper said,
February 27, 2008 @ 6:21 pm
Ironically enough, most OBs that I’ve seen are men. I know from my experience with my husband and brothers on either side that men HATE to see women suffering and not be able to help. (My husband has agreed that that was the hardest part of childbirth for him!) Anyone ever tried to “vent” about a problem to a man? What do they do? They offer suggestions and try to help. Women, on the other hand, listen, say, “Um-hmm” a few times, and then let you work out the solution on your own.
OK, apply this to childbirth. Man sees woman suffering. (Either from actual labor or just the late stages of pregnancy.) Man does not understand the real purpose of the suffering, nor does he realize that the woman is, on a deeper level, okay with it. So he tries to help, and, because he is a man, he thinks and truly believes that his “help” is helpful. When something goes wrong, he cannot understand why the woman is upset with him, because he was “helping”.
A midwife, on the other hand, is usually a woman. (I’ve met a male one, but he was DEFINITELY unique!) So she sees the woman suffering, says, “Umm-hmm, I know it hurts, but it’s okay and it’ll be over soon,” and lets the mother work it out on her own!
I don’t think that ALL OBs are evil and out to “get” women. They’ve been taught (probably by men!) that what they do is “helpful”. They deeply believe that. When a woman who’s five days past her due date, as big as a house, and swollen up to twice normal size, walks into his office and says, “I’m miserable!” he does what he thinks is “helpful” and, for lack of a better term, puts her out of her misery. Those docs back in the thirties who would knock women out with ether and yank the baby out with forceps? I’d be willing to BET MONEY that they thought what they were doing was for the best. Not even because they thought women were weak, but because they didn’t want to see women suffering.
(Funny, as I’m writing this, the baby in my belly is rolling all over! “You’re not going to let them do that to ME, are you?” Relax, little one. You’re safe with this mom.)
What does all this mean? It means that, unfortunately, just because of their mental wiring, men really don’t belong on the “doing something” end of birth. Supporting the mom, sure. Rubbing her back, getting her ice chips, holding her hand, boiling water (why do we do that, anyway?), whatever. But the stuff going on at the OTHER end of the mother really should be left to those who know all about it by experience- women.
OBs and C-sections have their place- I once taught a student with spina bifida who was born by c-section because going through the birth canal would’ve ruined any chance of her ever walking by causing further damage to her (at that point, exposed) spinal cord. (And, for those who like the ending to the story, yes, she did walk. And run. And jump. And she is terrific kid!) But going to an OB for a low-risk, average birth is kinda like going to a dermatologist for a single zit- overkill!
amyphilo said,
February 27, 2008 @ 10:08 pm
“ACOG correctly points out that there have been no significant studies done on the matter. Any numbers out there are anecdotal. It can be and has been argued that this is a difficult thing to get significant studies on - control groups would be difficult and downright immoral, for one, but also right now in the US there are issues of small numbers. That is to say, there are not significant numbers of people having babies with CPMs for there to be a valid point of comparison. There are many who advocate to looking to European numbers, and there are some interesting and valid studies that have been done in Europe on homebirth and similar matters, but then you run into an apple-orange comparison, since many of the European models of maternal health are so different from the American model. Whew, got a bit rambly there, sorry.”
I am referring to an article from MOTHERING Magazine (with references) referring to studies done with CDC data.
Also if you go to the COMPLEAT mother magazine they have a really good article on the safety of midwifery compared to OBs.
The epidural stat is from “The Thinking Woman’s Guide To A Better Birth” by Henci Goer. Have you read the book?
“““By the numbers, there are far far more cases of infant and maternal mortality because of a lack of adequate medical care than there are cases of mortality caused by specific interventionist care”
That argument is irrelevant unless you are trying to point the finger at midwives and call them indadequate.”
No, I’m looking at women in 3rd world countries, studies done on uninsured women in rural communites here in the states, and other women who do not have access to adequate health care. I have absolutely nothing against midwives, nor do I think (FAR from it!) that midwives are in any way inadequate.”
Again, it seems that your point is completely irrelevant to this topic. Has nothing to do with the statement against home birth.
“Does having had or not having had either of these procedures make me more or less qualified to have opinions on these issues?”
How about having had or not had a baby? Would you say that someone who has had a baby has more insight into childbirth than someone who hasn’t? I have not had a c-section and I AM GLAD. But I did have an episiotomy with my first which I feel was unnecessary and I can tell you that I am no wimp having had a natural childbirth at home - but with the first baby, the episiotomy SUCKED. This is something OBs pretty much routinely do because of their setup and women being on their backs and immobile, and the impatience of docs.
amyphilo said,
February 27, 2008 @ 10:17 pm
” I both gave birth in, and now work in hospitals (two different hospitals, in two different states) that do not, in fact, have anesthesiologists on staff 24 hours a day. On call, yes. But not on staff. There is no way that would be cost effective for any but the largest of hospitals. And hospitals are many things, but loose with their money is not one of them.”
YOU WORK IN A HOSPITAL… are you on the L&D ward? Does your salary depend on the American system of childbirth?
You are right, I meant ON CALL I think, not on staff, but it’s been a LONG time since I read the book. Nevertheless, hospitals need to have a 90% epidural rate. Something you should know having worked in a hospital yourself. And your nitpicky emphasis of on call versus on staff is a little bit silly. Hospitals are not loose with money, yes indeed. I agree with that. In fact, let’s say GREEDY. Anything to get MORE money - including and not limited to kickbacks from pharma, formula companies, and they are not above lying to women, intimidating them, basically OPERATING A BUSINESS, not providing good birth care.
A hospital is where you go if there is an emergency. Not where you go to have a normal birth. Birth does not make you sick. And I do not want to take my baby anywhere within 50 feet of their germs. And I am not about to get up in labor and go in a car!!! And then check in and fill out paperwork… and get slapped with a bracelet.
Have you heard of the white coat effect? That is why many women stall in labor… they are being watched and are not in a comfy environment.
I believe I said before that NECESSARY c-sections are a good thing. But earlier you tried to make it look like I never said that. It’s quite pointless debating this issue anyway. Seriously what are you expecting to get out of it? Do you simply want to defend the ACOG? It sounds like you have some vested interest in them not being criticized. What is the problem with pointing out how hypocritical that is.
Someone who advocates for kissing the behinds of the ACOG, seems to be insensitive considering our maternal and infant death rates are dismal in the US compared to countries that use midwifery almost exclusively.
And no, I don’t think comparing us to the rest of the world is wrong. American women are not born with defective uteruses or pelvises. The only difference between us and the rest of the world is that here in the US, the medical groups aka lobbies have oppressed and suppressed and brainwashed women. We no longer remember what NORMAL is. We think normal means, drugged the f up from birth to death.
amyphilo said,
February 27, 2008 @ 10:21 pm
My husband’s cousin had a baby with spina bifida, exposed, born vaginally. They did not know about it before hand. But luckily I suppose it wasn’t so severe that birth damaged anything, and the kid is totally normal now. I think he just had to have an operation to close it.
jls said,
February 28, 2008 @ 3:45 am
“Seriously what are you expecting to get out of it? Do you simply want to defend the ACOG? It sounds like you have some vested interest in them not being criticized. What is the problem with pointing out how hypocritical that is. ”
amyphilo, I was quite clear in my very first post that I was defending ACOG. I’m surprised this comes as news to you now. I’m defending them because they are one of the largest and most active women’s health advocacy organizations in the United States. I may disagree with some of their positions (in fact, I do), but my entire motive from the start has been to correct slander and lies that have been written about them by overzealous, uninformed folks.
It should be pointed out that I have also said previously that I support midwives, and the idea of homebirth. I believe homebirth should be covered by both the medical community and by insurance. I don’t find my position hypocritical at all. In fact, I wish far more folks who participated in public debate had nuanced, educated opinions. I think everyone benefits from information.
“YOU WORK IN A HOSPITAL… are you on the L&D ward? Does your salary depend on the American system of childbirth?”
Yes, I work in a hospital, though usually I don’t refer to it in all caps. And I certainly hope and pray to spend as little time as possible in the L&D ward, though I’ve spent a some time there in my job. I’m a chaplain. My salary is quite meager, and in no way depends on the American system of childbirth.
“And no, I don’t think comparing us to the rest of the world is wrong. American women are not born with defective uteruses or pelvises. The only difference between us and the rest of the world is that here in the US, the medical groups aka lobbies have oppressed and suppressed and brainwashed women. We no longer remember what NORMAL is. We think normal means, drugged the f up from birth to death.”
I have never argued, nor would I argue, that anyone - particularly women - are defective. I do not think normal is drugged. I think hospitals would enormously benefit from taking a few tips from many European hospitals, particularly concerning beginning and end of life care. In countries like the Netherlands, Switzerland, Norway, and France, birth is far less medicalized. A good friend of mine gave birth in Switzerland and was offered acupuncture, massage, herbal supplements, food on demand, and many other things that hospitals here in america would never offer. (She never saw an OB, and, it should be mentioned, was never even offered drugs.) And why? Because Swiss studies have found that women who are relaxed and comfortable have an easier and cheaper (less interventions) birth. You’d think that American love-of-money would sit up and take notice of that, but alas. Not yet.
Julinda said,
February 28, 2008 @ 6:05 am
I gave birth to my kids in a hospital with an OB. No “cutting” either time, but I was induced both times, at the doctor’s recommendation. Do I think the doctor was wrong to recommend induction? Definitely the first time, which was just because I was 2 weeks past my due date. I didn’t know enough to argue on that. The second time they gave a medical reason, and I went along with it - and I’m not sure if it was the right thing or not. My usual OB/GYN, who delivered both my babies, and the specialist I went to during my second pregnancy (the “high-risk” one), are both women. And, I believe, women who truly care about the women and babies they work with. I think like most doctors, those delivering babies are trained to look at medical intervention for just about everything. (If you go to the dr. for a cold you’re probably going to come out with a prescription.)
Anyway, my point is, yes, OBs tend to do more intervention than they should. Yes, they have taken an unreasonable position against home birth. I think women should have the right to choose home birth and have access to experts in home birth to guide them. I think we should focus on specific issues that need change, such as that rather than trying to paint the entire OB profession as bad or wrong. There is a lot of common ground, as I believe JLS was pointing out.
Just some personal trivia - My mom had 6 of her 7 kids at her home or her mother’s. (Child #6 was born in a hospital.) I was her last child, born at my grandmother’s in Dec. 1961. Most births were in hospitals by then but Mom stuck with the old ways that had worked for her.
jeanette said,
February 28, 2008 @ 7:40 am
If ACOG was such a great women’s organization, then they would let women choose birth locations and providers without batting an eye. Instead, they feel the need to come out with policy statements to influence lawmakers and practicioners. That clearly goes *against* women’s reproductive rights. The ACOG is not that great. Any organization that would try to control where and with whom women give birth is wholly wrong, not just partially wrong. Birth provider and location are fundamental, not just part of the picture. When something goes fundamentally wrong, the whole picture is painted badly, even if some parts look almost OK. The parts that do look almost OK are not even worth looking at because the majority of the picture looks so ugly. That ugly picture is the ACOG, and it makes some people upset and try to defend them.
amyphilo said,
February 28, 2008 @ 7:48 am
Well-said Jeanette. I am SO not on board with defending the giant 50,000 member organizations. They should spend their time focusing on brainwashing the 90% of America that still believes them and stop bothering those of us who have their game figured out.
ACOG to homebirther: What the H e double hockey sticks are you doing trying to give birth at home?
Woman to ACOG: …
ACOG to homebirther: How dare you ignore me
Woman to ACOG: go away you big bully
ACOG to homebirther: stop calling me bully you slanderer, or I will put you in jail
mamaof5 said,
March 1, 2008 @ 8:18 am
I guess my big problem is that when a group is pushing for legislation that will make laws that will effect choices that families can make , that could lead to them possibly losing their children I think we need to speak up. If they support only limited people assisting a birth then we have a problem. Just like the testing for PPD, although it seems great in the end it could end up with women being forced into medications to keep their babies. I feel like this has a similar out come potential. You have a group who is out to “help” women, yet they have an alternate agenda of supporting a group that is out to help themselves. If they are really for choice they would support all forms of birth from an elective C-section to a UC and have no issues with anything. Yet they want certified people only and only if they meet a certian groups agenda. (for the record I am not ok with elective c-sections).
I would hate to have my choices narrowed down to only A, B or C and then I am outside the law and could have my children taken from me.
Heather in Tucson