Midwife charged in DC? Karen Carr, CPM...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I don't understand how someone could possibly consider a home birth with a breech baby. Sorry.

The parents probably did enough research to know that vaginal breech birth is done in Europe and only in the US has it recently become an automatic c-section. They had two options to pursue an attempt at a vaginal breech birth..one with Dr Tchabo or one with Karen Carr. If the reports on the thread are true that Dr Tchabo would have accepted them but he was going out town, turning to another ob/gyn would have meant no attempt at a vaginal delivery. I would assume that the parents were aware that Karen Carr has delivered many breech babies at home so they probably concluded that it was safe with a low risk of problems. Karen may not have been wrong for attempting a breech birth at home but she could have been wrong about catching signs of distress in time to transfer.

I guess when Dr Tchabo retires there will be no ob/gyn in the area able to deliver breech babies vaginally. This has to be one of the reasons why homebirths seem to have grown so much in this area.

Well, I am the poster you quote, and I am European, but I don't think you can really generalize it that much. I don't have a single friend in my home country who has attempted a breech delivery at HOME. I understand what you are trying to say, but I don't see how a first time mother of advanced maternal age with a breech presentation is not considered too high risk for a home birth. It simply shouldn't have been a viable option in my opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you think that the baby was sleepy for weeks because of an epidural you are sadly mistaken! Newborns SLEEP!!!! That's what they are supposed to do, the pediatrician will be concerned if they are too awake and alert from the get-go.

I guess you have never seen a naturally birthed baby? They most certainly do not sleep as hard as long-epidural babies. I've had two of each. Drug-free babies are wide awake at birth and can actually crawl to the breast and latch themselves on under their own power. I couldn't get my epi babies to even latch on until the next day.

Really? Because I have had 3 babies born vaginally and all three with epidurals. All three were latched on and great feeders within the first HOUR. Yes, immediately after they were cleaned up and checked out (which took about 20 minutes). They then rarely left my side.

The point is that it is misleading to suggest that epidurals result in sleeping babies who don't latch on. Sorry if that was your experience, but it isn't the norm.

I agree! My first child was sleepy (induction which led to C-section), but I think it was not because of the epidural but the sedatives they put in my IV during the C-section. My 2nd child was born vaginally at home and was very sleepy, but we had both been through a very long and difficult labor (I had pushed for 6 hours!). My 3rd was born C-section, I requested no sedatives be put in my IV. He was born wide awake! Breastfeeding didn't work out with my first, but worked out GREAT with my 2nd and 3rd.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you think that the baby was sleepy for weeks because of an epidural you are sadly mistaken! Newborns SLEEP!!!! That's what they are supposed to do, the pediatrician will be concerned if they are too awake and alert from the get-go.

I guess you have never seen a naturally birthed baby? They most certainly do not sleep as hard as long-epidural babies. I've had two of each. Drug-free babies are wide awake at birth and can actually crawl to the breast and latch themselves on under their own power. I couldn't get my epi babies to even latch on until the next day.

Yes, I have seen a naturally birthed baby but I guess you're going to call me a horrible mother for having a c-section thanks to a footling breech baby. There was no difference in attentiveness between our babies. You stated that you adopted two babies which means you were not in charge of what the birth mother did, couldn't that have something to do with it, possibly that they are not biologically yours and the fact that they just were different?

Fast forward a year, my child has a larger vocabulary, better fine motor skills, a better attention span, a healthier eater and is sick less than the other natural, non-epidural baby. Both were breastfed, but mine for 10 months and hers she is still doing it.

And if epidural babies slept better, why are so many new parents sleep deprived? My daughter didn't sleep through the night for ten months. Hmmmm...

Not everything is so black and white. All children grow at their own paces and being so dramatic over an epidural, get over yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you think that the baby was sleepy for weeks because of an epidural you are sadly mistaken! Newborns SLEEP!!!! That's what they are supposed to do, the pediatrician will be concerned if they are too awake and alert from the get-go.

I guess you have never seen a naturally birthed baby? They most certainly do not sleep as hard as long-epidural babies. I've had two of each. Drug-free babies are wide awake at birth and can actually crawl to the breast and latch themselves on under their own power. I couldn't get my epi babies to even latch on until the next day.

Really? Because I have had 3 babies born vaginally and all three with epidurals. All three were latched on and great feeders within the first HOUR. Yes, immediately after they were cleaned up and checked out (which took about 20 minutes). They then rarely left my side.

The point is that it is misleading to suggest that epidurals result in sleeping babies who don't latch on. Sorry if that was your experience, but it isn't the norm.

I agree! My first child was sleepy (induction which led to C-section), but I think it was not because of the epidural but the sedatives they put in my IV during the C-section. My 2nd child was born vaginally at home and was very sleepy, but we had both been through a very long and difficult labor (I had pushed for 6 hours!). My 3rd was born C-section, I requested no sedatives be put in my IV. He was born wide awake! Breastfeeding didn't work out with my first, but worked out GREAT with my 2nd and 3rd.

I know that some babies don't react the same way to pain meds and epidurals but it seems silly to assume that these medications do not effect them at all. I was not trying to make the point that it is wrong to have an epidural. I was only agreeing with the PP who said that the automatic assumption that hospital birth is safer than homebirth in cases of low risk pregnancies is incorrect. A lot of people who have commented in this 74 page thread have been anti homebirth in general (not just in this particular case) and have assumed that all women who choose homebirth are taking unnecessary risks with their baby's lives. This is a false assumption and the PP and I were both trying to make the point that some unnecessary risks are also commonly taken in the hospital and that if you really want to practice what you preach and do everything that is the safest possible choice for the baby, then don't use pain meds. I wasn't judging people who choose epidurals. I was saying all of that for the point of the argument which was that it's usually safer for babies to avoid medication. But, in fact, the mother's EXPERIENCE is important and she does not have to withstand more pain than she can handle. It's pretty typical at DCUM to jump on that one sentence and ignore the larger point of the post. I don't think that epidurals are bad but I definitely think babies are more likely to be excessively sleepy after epidural. Not ALL but many and it's not even that big of a deal. This has not been proven and doctors will often deny it. My midwives seemed to think it was a given. They all crowded the room at the birth center and remarked on how alert unmedicated babies generally are. These are midwives who attend hospital birth too and see all kinds of births. Yes, this is anecdotal but there is a lot of truth in individual experiences. Not everything has to be scientifically proven to be valid.

[Anonymous]

If we take off our tiaras, it seems like such minutiae to devote our existence as parents to the actual hour or a few hours of the birth process. Whether you had a c-section or an orgasmic unmedicated birth on a bed of organic granola, you are still a parent at the end of it. Although for what it's worth, according to medical science you're more likely to be a parent of a living and non-brain damaged child if you undergo birth in a facility with doctors and trained medical professionals.

After establishing Karen Carr as an unlicensed fraud, now this conversation has moved to epidural sleepiness and breast feeding tips.

After 74 pages!!! of comments, can we all just agree that CPMs should be discredited and those who risk someone else's baby operating without a license or in a state where it is prohibited should be held to account and humiliated and defenestrated.

I think this conversation is over. Karen Carr should rot in jail. Case closed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

If you think that the baby was sleepy for weeks because of an epidural you are sadly mistaken! Newborns SLEEP!!!! That's what they are supposed to do, the pediatrician will be concerned if they are too awake and alert from the get-go.

I guess you have never seen a naturally birthed baby? They most certainly do not sleep as hard as long-epidural babies. I've had two of each. Drug-free babies are wide awake at birth and can actually crawl to the breast and latch themselves on under their own power. I couldn't get my epi babies to even latch on until the next day.

Yes, I have seen a naturally birthed baby but I guess you're going to call me a horrible mother for having a c-section thanks to a footling breech baby. There was no difference in attentiveness between our babies. You stated that you adopted two babies which means you were not in charge of what the birth mother did, couldn't that have something to do with it, possibly that they are not biologically yours and the fact that they just were different?

Fast forward a year, my child has a larger vocabulary, better fine motor skills, a better attention span, a healthier eater and is sick less than the other natural, non-epidural baby. Both were breastfed, but mine for 10 months and hers she is still doing it.

And if epidural babies slept better, why are so many new parents sleep deprived? My daughter didn't sleep through the night for ten months. Hmmmm...

Not everything is so black and white. All children grow at their own paces and being so dramatic over an epidural, get over yourself.

I am the one with two adopted babies and you are not responding to my post. That's yet another person who shares my experience. When I talked about sleepiness, I did not mean they slept well! I meant that they never seemed fully awake and deep sleep was also hard to come by. It was difficult to wake them to feed at all and they always fell asleep before they had enough to eat. They would wake up a few minutes later and be very hungry only to fall asleep again.

[Anonymous]

I guess you have never seen a naturally birthed baby? They most certainly do not sleep as hard as long-epidural babies. I've had two of each. Drug-free babies are wide awake at birth and can actually crawl to the breast and latch themselves on under their own power. I couldn't get my epi babies to even latch on until the next day.

This is exactly the kind of bullshit that was told to the mother in this case which drove her to have her birth at home. STOP repeating it, please.

[Anonymous]

Just found this on Mothering Dot Commune.

http://www.mothering.com/community/forum/thread/1071717/midwife-information

People were talking in April 2009 about Karen Carr (or "KC") flaunting her illegal services in Viginia and DC "because the local law enforcement was so incompetent." She handled previous breech and shoulder distocia cases. These charges and a dead baby were just a matter of time. It was almost like "KC" had an addiction that required her to play with other people's children. I mean, go to school and get a freaking degree if you want to birth babies, for crying out loud.

[Anonymous]

LEGAL:
From an online dict: ”In most states involuntary manslaughter results from an improper use of reasonable care or skill while performing a legal act, or while committing an act that is unlawful but not felonious.”
May or may not be what that state uses, but not being licensed to practice in that state legally renders her a “ordinary” person who improperly used her care and skills which resulted in death. The state may have a different basis but if they accused her of it, it’s surely similar to this.

OVERALL OPINION OF THREAD:
To the poster who said this thread was mainly anti-homebirth, I disagree. I think it’s mainly anti pipedream / negligent homebirth. HUGE difference. If there is more here pro-hospitals, I don’t think it’s about “who delivers babies best: docs or midwives”, but rather “who is more likely to save a life when something goes wrong”, and that appears to be the docs. Sorry.

BIRTH DRUGS:
As for how birth drugs affect babies – sure they might. So do the narcotics they give you for after a c-section that they swear doesn’t get passed enough through breastmilk to affect them. Are your FORCED to agree to either? NOPE. The issue here is whether it’s best to have the safest plan for the likeliest problems (and then some), and making it work even if that lands you in the hospital instead of at home. Hospitals can’t legally force much. If they could, home birth would still be illegal in the first place.

[Anonymous]

I have been following this story and this thread since the beginning and I am still bothered by this:

"According to John Kenneth Zwerling, Carr’s attorney, BirthCare [midwives licensed in VA] advised the mother that the case was too complicated for a home delivery, but she preferred to deliver at home. So she sought out a midwife experienced with difficult deliveries, he said."


Karen Carr was charged with involuntary manslaughter, which is essentially recklessness that results in death. At this point, there is no way to know how a jury will respond to the evidence, but the charge isn't out of line with the law and it was brought in a jurisdiction that requires a grand jury to indict, so a group of peers agree there is enough evidence to bring the case. She is a professional, she knew the risks, and safer options existed.

What is still eating away at me is the decision of the mom who was advised that the delivery was too complicated for home delivery and decided to do it anyway. I just think about all the things we do to have our families and to make sure our kids are safe and to prevent unnecessary risks and I can't make sense of the mom's decision.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have been following this story and this thread since the beginning and I am still bothered by this:

"According to John Kenneth Zwerling, Carr’s attorney, BirthCare [midwives licensed in VA] advised the mother that the case was too complicated for a home delivery, but she preferred to deliver at home. So she sought out a midwife experienced with difficult deliveries, he said."


Karen Carr was charged with involuntary manslaughter, which is essentially recklessness that results in death. At this point, there is no way to know how a jury will respond to the evidence, but the charge isn't out of line with the law and it was brought in a jurisdiction that requires a grand jury to indict, so a group of peers agree there is enough evidence to bring the case. She is a professional, she knew the risks, and safer options existed.

What is still eating away at me is the decision of the mom who was advised that the delivery was too complicated for home delivery and decided to do it anyway. I just think about all the things we do to have our families and to make sure our kids are safe and to prevent unnecessary risks and I can't make sense of the mom's decision.

Haven't read much of this thread so maybe this issue was addressed but that was my question, too. I gave birth at Birthcare years ago and I was very impressed with them. If they told me the pregnancy was too complicated for home delivery, I would take their advice.

Of course, it's hard to know what all happened behind this mom's decision and what she took into account. We don't really know enough to judge.

[Anonymous]

"Of course, it's hard to know what all happened behind this mom's decision and what she took into account. We don't really know enough to judge. "

I agree, and if I sounded judgmental, I don't mean to be. I am truly mystified by this and it saddens me because I can't imagine ever losing one of my kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
What is still eating away at me is the decision of the mom who was advised that the delivery was too complicated for home delivery and decided to do it anyway. I just think about all the things we do to have our families and to make sure our kids are safe and to prevent unnecessary risks and I can't make sense of the mom's decision.

I too can't stop thinking about the mom in all of this and what was she thinking??? And I say this as someone who had a hbac (homebirth vbac)- to be clear, 1st baby was C-section, 2nd was a hbac, and 3rd was C-section, all went fine. Like someone said, I don't mean to judge but why would she risk her baby like that? I did have a vbac at home, but I also had a conservative midwife (CNM) who does not do breech and will only do vbac if you only have 1 prior section and are double-stitched (which I was at the time of my hbac). She would have risked me out right away if she had seen any problems whatsoever, and I really appreciate that. I chose her because she has an awesome track record and is also known as being on the conservative side. Had she risked me out or told me I had risk factors that would make attempting a homebirth no longer safe I would have gone straight to my OB.
I was planning a hospital vbac for my 3rd PG but had several high risk factors that popped up at the end of my pregnancy (TRUE risk factors, not doctor scare tactics). I was told they needed to do a stat C-section and cried for about 5 minutes to mourn the loss of my vaginal birth, then pulled myself together because my baby came first and I would never have forgiven myself if something had happened to him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just found this on Mothering Dot Commune.

http://www.mothering.com/community/forum/thread/1071717/midwife-information

People were talking in April 2009 about Karen Carr (or "KC") flaunting her illegal services in Viginia and DC "because the local law enforcement was so incompetent." She handled previous breech and shoulder distocia cases. These charges and a dead baby were just a matter of time. It was almost like "KC" had an addiction that required her to play with other people's children. I mean, go to school and get a freaking degree if you want to birth babies, for crying out loud.

A little misleading with what you choose to quote in your post.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just found this on Mothering Dot Commune.

http://www.mothering.com/community/forum/thread/1071717/midwife-information

People were talking in April 2009 about Karen Carr (or "KC") flaunting her illegal services in Viginia and DC "because the local law enforcement was so incompetent." She handled previous breech and shoulder distocia cases. These charges and a dead baby were just a matter of time. It was almost like "KC" had an addiction that required her to play with other people's children. I mean, go to school and get a freaking degree if you want to birth babies, for crying out loud.

A little misleading with what you choose to quote in your post.

It was DC where the local government was referred to and it was in reference to listing a home birth midwife as the birth attendant on the birth certificate. Oh, and shoulder dystocia is not something that can be predicted before birth, so every care provider who attends births needs to know how to deal with it. The fact that Ms. Carr handled it well does not provide any evidence that she was reckless, quite the opposite.