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

[Anonymous]

When a baby gets stuck during the birth, the only option is to work to free the baby and complete the delivery. A speedy 911 call is NOT going to change the outcome. An EMT is NOT going to be able to offer anything greater than what the skilled midwife/OB is already doing. Even having an operating room three doors down is NOT going to help. Once a baby is partially born, there are no other magic answers; you have to finish getting the baby out, and if more than 10 minutes pass, the baby is just not going to make it unless there is a miracle. Maybe you take some personal comfort from thinking that a hospital could have saved this baby, and I think that as mothers who are horrified at this case, it is easy to believe that the right medical team could have saved this baby. However, I honestly believe that the outcome would have been exactly the same regardless of where the birth occurred.
.

I disagree (and I am the person who has had a homebirth vbac so I am not anti-homebirth- I have also had 2 C-sections, one of them I am thankful for or my baby wouldn't be here today)!!!! My OB told me she has had some very serious and difficult SD (shoulder dystocia) cases, one of which they saved the baby by basically cutting open the cervix (I know, awful, but better than a dead baby). She also said there were some other SD cases where the baby was totally stuck and she had to quickly push the baby back up into mom and rush them to the OR where they were saved. So I couldn't disagree with you more, being close to an OR CAN mean the difference between life or death!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The best answer: let the mother decide for herself without coercion. Period.

The best answer: Let the mother make the decision understanding what the risks are. Period.

for the midwife - the best answer is: Don't bite off more than you can chew. Unless she told the mother than she had a nearly 10% chance of this outcome (a dead child) she misled her terribly.

I understand that the glitter and rainbow homebirth contingency believes that this risk is part of the circle of life, and therefore acceptable - but why? Why take the risk when modern medicine can reduce that risk?

What on earth is wrong with you? You are rude, condescending, manipulative and mean. There isn't one homebirth supporter in this entire thread who has said they would put the "experience" above the health of the baby. You are making shit up to be a pain in the ass. And, I do not buy your 10% risk. Another thing you are making up, or skewing statistics to say what you want them to say.

Actually, there were quite a few who did. Remember the prize who claimed she could not treat her children gently and without contempt (something like it) if the experience wasn't itself gentle and happy? And this poster wasn't me, but I fail to see how he/she is rude, condescending, manipulative, mean, or trying to be a pain in the ass. Seriously? For disagreeing with you? For drawing the line of "acceptable v. unacceptable" at a different place than you? ok....[/quote

There were not a few. That was one mom's expression.

Sorry, Charlie. The "it's NOT about you" comment spawned a few pages of "how dare you say my experience doesn't matter", much of which equated the importance of the experience with the successful outcome for the child, putting on rose-colored glasses as to how one might limit the other. NOT EVERYONE - but to say it wasn't a full fledged issue for a while here that deserves its place in the argument is wrong. What do 100% home-birthers have to say to the home-birthers who staunchly disagree with what went on here? Who are educated and smart, and still would have not taken on this plan? Very few of you answer these rather balanced perspectives (in my opinion they're balanced at least). Why is that?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

When a baby gets stuck during the birth, the only option is to work to free the baby and complete the delivery. A speedy 911 call is NOT going to change the outcome. An EMT is NOT going to be able to offer anything greater than what the skilled midwife/OB is already doing. Even having an operating room three doors down is NOT going to help. Once a baby is partially born, there are no other magic answers; you have to finish getting the baby out, and if more than 10 minutes pass, the baby is just not going to make it unless there is a miracle. Maybe you take some personal comfort from thinking that a hospital could have saved this baby, and I think that as mothers who are horrified at this case, it is easy to believe that the right medical team could have saved this baby. However, I honestly believe that the outcome would have been exactly the same regardless of where the birth occurred.
.

I disagree (and I am the person who has had a homebirth vbac so I am not anti-homebirth- I have also had 2 C-sections, one of them I am thankful for or my baby wouldn't be here today)!!!! My OB told me she has had some very serious and difficult SD (shoulder dystocia) cases, one of which they saved the baby by basically cutting open the cervix (I know, awful, but better than a dead baby). She also said there were some other SD cases where the baby was totally stuck and she had to quickly push the baby back up into mom and rush them to the OR where they were saved. So I couldn't disagree with you more, being close to an OR CAN mean the difference between life or death!!!!

Did she tell you if they all came out healthy and whole?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: The midwife's job is not to "convince" mom of anything. It is to provide her information, give her expert opinion based on the best available evidence and let the mother decide what she wants to do. It is called patient autonomy.

Holy hell... so "give me $3K so I can give you questionable advice based on questionable training supported by limited experience, while calling myself a professional but absolving myself of anything going wrong when it was preventable b/c i'm just here to cheer you on"????? Unreal. Mere participation as a professional in the complex medical act that is BIRTH assumes and presumes the responsibility to know what the hell you're doing and are able to transfer care when you no longer do. Nowhere did I read that Carr's defense included "I disagreed with this obviously overly risky approach but feared that the patient would opt for even riskier unassisted birth without me" or "I wanted to call 911 at many points but was bound to respect the patient's wishes that I would not" or "Due to my protest over the approach i felt obligated to participate in, i had the parents sign a waiver stating I'd informed them of the probable unsuccessful outcome of this endeavor if they chose to ignore my advice". No dice. You participate, you're responsible and YES, convincing someone that death is likely when you're the professional and they're not IS your job.

Sure, except that death was NOT likely in this scenario. There was a high chance that this birth would proceed just fine. The mother chose to assume the small risk that it wouldn't, and obviously she lost.

And I believe that you are completely wrong in your assessment that birth is a medical act. It most certainly isn't.

Fine. Birth is a purely natural act that should be taken on with only instinct and self-sustainment. No need for knowledge, experience, assistance, anything. Let mom do it as it naturally comes. Oh wait... all the stuff midwives do at one point WAS considered pure medicine... from which modern medicine evolved.

I was going to leave this discussion because it's getting boring but this statement is just purely false. Read up on your history. This is a great book about the history of childbirth in America:

http://www.amazon.com/Lying--History-Childbirth-America-Expanded/dp/0300040873/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1304699310&sr=8-1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

The best answer: let the mother decide for herself without coercion. Period.

The best answer: Let the mother make the decision understanding what the risks are. Period.

for the midwife - the best answer is: Don't bite off more than you can chew. Unless she told the mother than she had a nearly 10% chance of this outcome (a dead child) she misled her terribly.

I understand that the glitter and rainbow homebirth contingency believes that this risk is part of the circle of life, and therefore acceptable - but why? Why take the risk when modern medicine can reduce that risk?

What on earth is wrong with you? You are rude, condescending, manipulative and mean. There isn't one homebirth supporter in this entire thread who has said they would put the "experience" above the health of the baby. You are making shit up to be a pain in the ass. And, I do not buy your 10% risk. Another thing you are making up, or skewing statistics to say what you want them to say.

Actually, there were quite a few who did. Remember the prize who claimed she could not treat her children gently and without contempt (something like it) if the experience wasn't itself gentle and happy? And this poster wasn't me, but I fail to see how he/she is rude, condescending, manipulative, mean, or trying to be a pain in the ass. Seriously? For disagreeing with you? For drawing the line of "acceptable v. unacceptable" at a different place than you? ok....[/quote

There were not a few. That was one mom's expression.

Sorry, Charlie. The "it's NOT about you" comment spawned a few pages of "how dare you say my experience doesn't matter", much of which equated the importance of the experience with the successful outcome for the child, putting on rose-colored glasses as to how one might limit the other. NOT EVERYONE - but to say it wasn't a full fledged issue for a while here that deserves its place in the argument is wrong. What do 100% home-birthers have to say to the home-birthers who staunchly disagree with what went on here? Who are educated and smart, and still would have not taken on this plan? Very few of you answer these rather balanced perspectives (in my opinion they're balanced at least). Why is that?

Yep, forgot about that whole thing. My bad. That was a good discussion though. Right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: How do you know she contacted only one physician? How do you know that all the licensed providers that she reached out to her said they couldn't help her because they thought it was risky. She was seeking a provider when she was late in her pregnancy. At such late date it may be because they were FULL, not because they didn't want to help her. Nope - you are assuming that they didn't want to help her. There are other assumptions that are equally valid. The couldn't help her. The reason is not stated anywhere. Sorry, stick to the facts.

Round and Round We Go!!!! Certainly assuming the OB she’d had throughout her preg didn’t want to “help” her give birth naturally! When it comes to vilifying the medical community , you say the evil docs refused to help her and that she couldn’t call the shots in a hospital b/c her OB options were limited. When it comes to defending her risk assessment and saying it was average (yeah, right), then the doctors suddenly didn’t say she was high risk but were merely booked up?

Which is it? Was she too set on no hospital to be objective (at which point OBs and midwives should have intervened to reassure her back into objectivity)?

Was she failed by a medical community who refused to help her (in which case the midwives would not have turned her around)?

Did she seek, find, but refuse vaginal birth attempts in a hospital (in which case why attack a willing medical community)?

Did she find the vaginal deliv docs but they weren’t free (again, why would the midwives have turned her around)?

I can’t figure where you are with this. Based on the FACTS, the woman’s pregnancy was deemed high risk enough for the OB who was providing the prenatal monitoring (including sonograms she obviously had to have had since they knew it was a breech preg) to call for a c-section. At some point she walked away from the OB providing this, no? She didn’t want a hospital birth, which an OB can’t work with. The midwives told her to seek a physician. The article stated that only one OB in the area was willing but unavailable. ONE doc. In the wide DC area. No midwife support for a non-doc delivery. So I’m not sure what your argument is. It was made clear this was extremely risky, and Carr knew this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

When a baby gets stuck during the birth, the only option is to work to free the baby and complete the delivery. A speedy 911 call is NOT going to change the outcome. An EMT is NOT going to be able to offer anything greater than what the skilled midwife/OB is already doing. Even having an operating room three doors down is NOT going to help. Once a baby is partially born, there are no other magic answers; you have to finish getting the baby out, and if more than 10 minutes pass, the baby is just not going to make it unless there is a miracle. Maybe you take some personal comfort from thinking that a hospital could have saved this baby, and I think that as mothers who are horrified at this case, it is easy to believe that the right medical team could have saved this baby. However, I honestly believe that the outcome would have been exactly the same regardless of where the birth occurred.
.

I disagree (and I am the person who has had a homebirth vbac so I am not anti-homebirth- I have also had 2 C-sections, one of them I am thankful for or my baby wouldn't be here today)!!!! My OB told me she has had some very serious and difficult SD (shoulder dystocia) cases, one of which they saved the baby by basically cutting open the cervix (I know, awful, but better than a dead baby). She also said there were some other SD cases where the baby was totally stuck and she had to quickly push the baby back up into mom and rush them to the OR where they were saved. So I couldn't disagree with you more, being close to an OR CAN mean the difference between life or death!!!!

Well look at that, staunch homebirthers - someone who believes in homebirth AND objectivity in identifying its limits! Got any answers for this one or is she on the traitor list?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: How do you know she contacted only one physician? How do you know that all the licensed providers that she reached out to her said they couldn't help her because they thought it was risky. She was seeking a provider when she was late in her pregnancy. At such late date it may be because they were FULL, not because they didn't want to help her. Nope - you are assuming that they didn't want to help her. There are other assumptions that are equally valid. The couldn't help her. The reason is not stated anywhere. Sorry, stick to the facts.

Round and Round We Go!!!! Certainly assuming the OB she’d had throughout her preg didn’t want to “help” her give birth naturally! When it comes to vilifying the medical community , you say the evil docs refused to help her and that she couldn’t call the shots in a hospital b/c her OB options were limited. When it comes to defending her risk assessment and saying it was average (yeah, right), then the doctors suddenly didn’t say she was high risk but were merely booked up?

Which is it? Was she too set on no hospital to be objective (at which point OBs and midwives should have intervened to reassure her back into objectivity)?

Was she failed by a medical community who refused to help her (in which case the midwives would not have turned her around)?

Did she seek, find, but refuse vaginal birth attempts in a hospital (in which case why attack a willing medical community)?

Did she find the vaginal deliv docs but they weren’t free (again, why would the midwives have turned her around)?

I can’t figure where you are with this. Based on the FACTS, the woman’s pregnancy was deemed high risk enough for the OB who was providing the prenatal monitoring (including sonograms she obviously had to have had since they knew it was a breech preg) to call for a c-section. At some point she walked away from the OB providing this, no? She didn’t want a hospital birth, which an OB can’t work with. The midwives told her to seek a physician. The article stated that only one OB in the area was willing but unavailable. ONE doc. In the wide DC area. No midwife support for a non-doc delivery. So I’m not sure what your argument is. It was made clear this was extremely risky, and Carr knew this.

Round and round IS my point. YOU don't know what happened. Stop it with a risky birth...please. The point is that the mom knew the risks and with that full knowledge rolled the dice and lost. It did not seem too risky for HER. And, that is all the matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When a baby gets stuck during the birth, the only option is to work to free the baby and complete the delivery. A speedy 911 call is NOT going to change the outcome. An EMT is NOT going to be able to offer anything greater than what the skilled midwife/OB is already doing. Even having an operating room three doors down is NOT going to help. Once a baby is partially born, there are no other magic answers; you have to finish getting the baby out, and if more than 10 minutes pass, the baby is just not going to make it unless there is a miracle. Maybe you take some personal comfort from thinking that a hospital could have saved this baby, and I think that as mothers who are horrified at this case, it is easy to believe that the right medical team could have saved this baby. However, I honestly believe that the outcome would have been exactly the same regardless of where the birth occurred.
.

I disagree (and I am the person who has had a homebirth vbac so I am not anti-homebirth- I have also had 2 C-sections, one of them I am thankful for or my baby wouldn't be here today)!!!! My OB told me she has had some very serious and difficult SD (shoulder dystocia) cases, one of which they saved the baby by basically cutting open the cervix (I know, awful, but better than a dead baby). She also said there were some other SD cases where the baby was totally stuck and she had to quickly push the baby back up into mom and rush them to the OR where they were saved. So I couldn't disagree with you more, being close to an OR CAN mean the difference between life or death!!!!

Well look at that, staunch homebirthers - someone who believes in homebirth AND objectivity in identifying its limits! Got any answers for this one or is she on the traitor list?



You do understand that all homebirthers do not share the same brain, right? Most of them are fairly open-minded people and that's what brought them to home birth in the first place. A few are zealots who approach it almost like religion but that is not the norm. So when you ask "staunch homebirthers" for an opinion and they remain silent, it's because you are asking for an answer that does not exist. There is no "traitor list." Most of them are probably thinking about how sad this is and feeling genuine compassion for the parents, the baby, and the midwife. And still defending the rights and freedom of the people involved to make choices that many people do not agree with.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When a baby gets stuck during the birth, the only option is to work to free the baby and complete the delivery. A speedy 911 call is NOT going to change the outcome. An EMT is NOT going to be able to offer anything greater than what the skilled midwife/OB is already doing. Even having an operating room three doors down is NOT going to help. Once a baby is partially born, there are no other magic answers; you have to finish getting the baby out, and if more than 10 minutes pass, the baby is just not going to make it unless there is a miracle. Maybe you take some personal comfort from thinking that a hospital could have saved this baby, and I think that as mothers who are horrified at this case, it is easy to believe that the right medical team could have saved this baby. However, I honestly believe that the outcome would have been exactly the same regardless of where the birth occurred.
.

I disagree (and I am the person who has had a homebirth vbac so I am not anti-homebirth- I have also had 2 C-sections, one of them I am thankful for or my baby wouldn't be here today)!!!! My OB told me she has had some very serious and difficult SD (shoulder dystocia) cases, one of which they saved the baby by basically cutting open the cervix (I know, awful, but better than a dead baby). She also said there were some other SD cases where the baby was totally stuck and she had to quickly push the baby back up into mom and rush them to the OR where they were saved. So I couldn't disagree with you more, being close to an OR CAN mean the difference between life or death!!!!

Well look at that, staunch homebirthers - someone who believes in homebirth AND objectivity in identifying its limits! Got any answers for this one or is she on the traitor list?



You do understand that all homebirthers do not share the same brain, right? Most of them are fairly open-minded people and that's what brought them to home birth in the first place. A few are zealots who approach it almost like religion but that is not the norm. So when you ask "staunch homebirthers" for an opinion and they remain silent, it's because you are asking for an answer that does not exist. There is no "traitor list." Most of them are probably thinking about how sad this is and feeling genuine compassion for the parents, the baby, and the midwife. And still defending the rights and freedom of the people involved to make choices that many people do not agree with.

That was expressed very well. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: How do you know she contacted only one physician? How do you know that all the licensed providers that she reached out to her said they couldn't help her because they thought it was risky. She was seeking a provider when she was late in her pregnancy. At such late date it may be because they were FULL, not because they didn't want to help her. Nope - you are assuming that they didn't want to help her. There are other assumptions that are equally valid. The couldn't help her. The reason is not stated anywhere. Sorry, stick to the facts.

Round and Round We Go!!!! Certainly assuming the OB she’d had throughout her preg didn’t want to “help” her give birth naturally! When it comes to vilifying the medical community , you say the evil docs refused to help her and that she couldn’t call the shots in a hospital b/c her OB options were limited. When it comes to defending her risk assessment and saying it was average (yeah, right), then the doctors suddenly didn’t say she was high risk but were merely booked up?

Which is it? Was she too set on no hospital to be objective (at which point OBs and midwives should have intervened to reassure her back into objectivity)?

Was she failed by a medical community who refused to help her (in which case the midwives would not have turned her around)?

Did she seek, find, but refuse vaginal birth attempts in a hospital (in which case why attack a willing medical community)?

Did she find the vaginal deliv docs but they weren’t free (again, why would the midwives have turned her around)?

I can’t figure where you are with this. Based on the FACTS, the woman’s pregnancy was deemed high risk enough for the OB who was providing the prenatal monitoring (including sonograms she obviously had to have had since they knew it was a breech preg) to call for a c-section. At some point she walked away from the OB providing this, no? She didn’t want a hospital birth, which an OB can’t work with. The midwives told her to seek a physician. The article stated that only one OB in the area was willing but unavailable. ONE doc. In the wide DC area. No midwife support for a non-doc delivery. So I’m not sure what your argument is. It was made clear this was extremely risky, and Carr knew this.

Round and round IS my point. YOU don't know what happened. Stop it with a risky birth...please. The point is that the mom knew the risks and with that full knowledge rolled the dice and lost. It did not seem too risky for HER. And, that is all the matters.

Predicted risk is what this thread is all about, and i'm pretty sure no the overall concensus here is that it was indeed above-average. And though the mother's assessment of the risk is important, it does not absolve Karen Carr (or anyone else) in her decision to participate with that risk as though she could handle whatever came her way as well as a hospital staff might have - which Karen Carr's peers recommended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When a baby gets stuck during the birth, the only option is to work to free the baby and complete the delivery. A speedy 911 call is NOT going to change the outcome. An EMT is NOT going to be able to offer anything greater than what the skilled midwife/OB is already doing. Even having an operating room three doors down is NOT going to help. Once a baby is partially born, there are no other magic answers; you have to finish getting the baby out, and if more than 10 minutes pass, the baby is just not going to make it unless there is a miracle. Maybe you take some personal comfort from thinking that a hospital could have saved this baby, and I think that as mothers who are horrified at this case, it is easy to believe that the right medical team could have saved this baby. However, I honestly believe that the outcome would have been exactly the same regardless of where the birth occurred.
.

I disagree (and I am the person who has had a homebirth vbac so I am not anti-homebirth- I have also had 2 C-sections, one of them I am thankful for or my baby wouldn't be here today)!!!! My OB told me she has had some very serious and difficult SD (shoulder dystocia) cases, one of which they saved the baby by basically cutting open the cervix (I know, awful, but better than a dead baby). She also said there were some other SD cases where the baby was totally stuck and she had to quickly push the baby back up into mom and rush them to the OR where they were saved. So I couldn't disagree with you more, being close to an OR CAN mean the difference between life or death!!!!

Did she tell you if they all came out healthy and whole?

She did say sometimes when this is done the babies can be left with nerve damage in their arms (talking about SD here- but I am sure the parents would rather have their baby alive even if they are left with a damaged arm). That is why she wanted me to go ahead with a C-section, my baby was at serious risk for SD. That was a risk I wasn't willing to take. My homebirth baby had been much smaller and had less risk factors than my last baby, and that is why I went ahead with that homebirth. I still support hb in LOW risk cases, but I will personally never have another one again. My next baby will be a planned C-section (although I know it is done, I personally don't feel comfortable doing a vbac after 2 C-sections, I did feel okay with doing a vbac after 1, but not 2). Shoot me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When a baby gets stuck during the birth, the only option is to work to free the baby and complete the delivery. A speedy 911 call is NOT going to change the outcome. An EMT is NOT going to be able to offer anything greater than what the skilled midwife/OB is already doing. Even having an operating room three doors down is NOT going to help. Once a baby is partially born, there are no other magic answers; you have to finish getting the baby out, and if more than 10 minutes pass, the baby is just not going to make it unless there is a miracle. Maybe you take some personal comfort from thinking that a hospital could have saved this baby, and I think that as mothers who are horrified at this case, it is easy to believe that the right medical team could have saved this baby. However, I honestly believe that the outcome would have been exactly the same regardless of where the birth occurred.
.

I disagree (and I am the person who has had a homebirth vbac so I am not anti-homebirth- I have also had 2 C-sections, one of them I am thankful for or my baby wouldn't be here today)!!!! My OB told me she has had some very serious and difficult SD (shoulder dystocia) cases, one of which they saved the baby by basically cutting open the cervix (I know, awful, but better than a dead baby). She also said there were some other SD cases where the baby was totally stuck and she had to quickly push the baby back up into mom and rush them to the OR where they were saved. So I couldn't disagree with you more, being close to an OR CAN mean the difference between life or death!!!!

Well look at that, staunch homebirthers - someone who believes in homebirth AND objectivity in identifying its limits! Got any answers for this one or is she on the traitor list?



You do understand that all homebirthers do not share the same brain, right? Most of them are fairly open-minded people and that's what brought them to home birth in the first place. A few are zealots who approach it almost like religion but that is not the norm. So when you ask "staunch homebirthers" for an opinion and they remain silent, it's because you are asking for an answer that does not exist. There is no "traitor list." Most of them are probably thinking about how sad this is and feeling genuine compassion for the parents, the baby, and the midwife. And still defending the rights and freedom of the people involved to make choices that many people do not agree with.

1) I said "staunch" for a reason.
2) Again with the rights and freedom. Few here are attacking the right to birth from home. It's the professional right to assist this beyond one's capability that's being questioned, and the objectivity and open-mindedness of home-birth advocates to agree to hospital settings when it's best and not just trust what they want to hear that's being promoted. I can't even remember a post saying that it should be illegal to birth at home or to practice midwifery.
3) Traitor list refered to to those here who systematically attack a post accusing them of being and OB when they have medical knowledge (which apparently makes them evil and biased) or of NOT being an OB if their knowledge is apparently limited.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: How do you know she contacted only one physician? How do you know that all the licensed providers that she reached out to her said they couldn't help her because they thought it was risky. She was seeking a provider when she was late in her pregnancy. At such late date it may be because they were FULL, not because they didn't want to help her. Nope - you are assuming that they didn't want to help her. There are other assumptions that are equally valid. The couldn't help her. The reason is not stated anywhere. Sorry, stick to the facts.

Round and Round We Go!!!! Certainly assuming the OB she’d had throughout her preg didn’t want to “help” her give birth naturally! When it comes to vilifying the medical community , you say the evil docs refused to help her and that she couldn’t call the shots in a hospital b/c her OB options were limited. When it comes to defending her risk assessment and saying it was average (yeah, right), then the doctors suddenly didn’t say she was high risk but were merely booked up?

Which is it? Was she too set on no hospital to be objective (at which point OBs and midwives should have intervened to reassure her back into objectivity)?

Was she failed by a medical community who refused to help her (in which case the midwives would not have turned her around)?

Did she seek, find, but refuse vaginal birth attempts in a hospital (in which case why attack a willing medical community)?

Did she find the vaginal deliv docs but they weren’t free (again, why would the midwives have turned her around)?

I can’t figure where you are with this. Based on the FACTS, the woman’s pregnancy was deemed high risk enough for the OB who was providing the prenatal monitoring (including sonograms she obviously had to have had since they knew it was a breech preg) to call for a c-section. At some point she walked away from the OB providing this, no? She didn’t want a hospital birth, which an OB can’t work with. The midwives told her to seek a physician. The article stated that only one OB in the area was willing but unavailable. ONE doc. In the wide DC area. No midwife support for a non-doc delivery. So I’m not sure what your argument is. It was made clear this was extremely risky, and Carr knew this.

Round and round IS my point. YOU don't know what happened. Stop it with a risky birth...please. The point is that the mom knew the risks and with that full knowledge rolled the dice and lost. It did not seem too risky for HER. And, that is all the matters.

Predicted risk is what this thread is all about, and i'm pretty sure no the overall concensus here is that it was indeed above-average. And though the mother's assessment of the risk is important, it does not absolve Karen Carr (or anyone else) in her decision to participate with that risk as though she could handle whatever came her way as well as a hospital staff might have - which Karen Carr's peers recommended.

Yes, that too. KC took on the case with full knowledge of the risks, rolled the dice and lost. I agree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

When a baby gets stuck during the birth, the only option is to work to free the baby and complete the delivery. A speedy 911 call is NOT going to change the outcome. An EMT is NOT going to be able to offer anything greater than what the skilled midwife/OB is already doing. Even having an operating room three doors down is NOT going to help. Once a baby is partially born, there are no other magic answers; you have to finish getting the baby out, and if more than 10 minutes pass, the baby is just not going to make it unless there is a miracle. Maybe you take some personal comfort from thinking that a hospital could have saved this baby, and I think that as mothers who are horrified at this case, it is easy to believe that the right medical team could have saved this baby. However, I honestly believe that the outcome would have been exactly the same regardless of where the birth occurred.
.

I disagree (and I am the person who has had a homebirth vbac so I am not anti-homebirth- I have also had 2 C-sections, one of them I am thankful for or my baby wouldn't be here today)!!!! My OB told me she has had some very serious and difficult SD (shoulder dystocia) cases, one of which they saved the baby by basically cutting open the cervix (I know, awful, but better than a dead baby). She also said there were some other SD cases where the baby was totally stuck and she had to quickly push the baby back up into mom and rush them to the OR where they were saved. So I couldn't disagree with you more, being close to an OR CAN mean the difference between life or death!!!!

Did she tell you if they all came out healthy and whole?

She did say sometimes when this is done the babies can be left with nerve damage in their arms (talking about SD here- but I am sure the parents would rather have their baby alive even if they are left with a damaged arm). That is why she wanted me to go ahead with a C-section, my baby was at serious risk for SD. That was a risk I wasn't willing to take. My homebirth baby had been much smaller and had less risk factors than my last baby, and that is why I went ahead with that homebirth. I still support hb in LOW risk cases, but I will personally never have another one again. My next baby will be a planned C-section (although I know it is done, I personally don't feel comfortable doing a vbac after 2 C-sections, I did feel okay with doing a vbac after 1, but not 2). Shoot me.

Your body, your choice. Do what you want and leave other people alone with their choices.