
I agree with many of the points this poster has stated! And yes, many of the comments made in the 2nd to last paragraph WERE indeed mentioned multiple times on this thread. Not by everyone who advocates for home birth, but these statements definitely were made, multiple times. There are also many reasonable posters who advocate for homebirth under LOW RISK situations, with a midwife who has completed the rigorous training involved to become a CNW and back up OB care available which would streamline any need for hospital transfer. |
You may not be aware, but there are policies on continuous fetal monitoring and taking all babies to the nursery (even healthy babies) at hospitals in this area. Not the case at all hospitals, but still the case at some. Just because you are not aware of something does not mean it does not go on. I am not saying it's IMPOSSIBLE to have a natural birth at a hospital but there are sometimes hospital policies that are NOT NEGOTIABLE. I'm sorry, but I really don't think there are that many people who fall into the "dead set on homebirth no matter what" category. I think this is a fallacy that has been repeated multiple times in this thread. |
Do you have access to such policies and could post these or provide a link? Which hospital in the area has a policy on continuous fetal monitoring as a non negotiable requirement for healthy moms expecting a healthy baby? |
Very well put. Unfortunately, the suggestions of a CNW and OB availability has often been met with "they're horrible devils who will hand-rape you and kill you" or "they won't listen to you and try to convert you to their evil world and therefore are useless and will only get in the way of the midwife's work". The transfer possibilities has been met with "it wouldn't have made a difference", which only proves to me the need to have been in the hospital in the first place. |
It sounds like part of the problem for the mother who lost her baby in this case, was not only "natural birth," but the hospital itself. I know this sounds crazy to a lot of people but I completely relate to her and, in fact, this thought had occurred to me when I first read about the case. I also have a fear of hospitals and doctors which some would consider irrational. My fear stems from the fact that doctors killed my mother in a hospital when I was very young. I won't go into the particulars but it was entirely their fault. I have a deep mistrust and I will never forget what my mom went through.
It makes me sick that so many have judged this woman. It's not just a matter of "get over it." It is far more complicated than that. I have no faith in doctors and when I had my baby, I was intent to avoid them at all costs. I do believe that I would have chosen hospital birth in this case but I can't really say that for sure since I have never been in this situation. I am now at a point when I do go to doctors when I need them and I have even gone to the hospital but my mistrust remains. Please don't judge this woman unless you have walked a mile in her shoes. |
PP here: Yes, please provide and also, respond to this: How come when you say "not all hospitals" and "sometimes happens", it renders it simpler to birth at home whereas "not all midwives are good" and "sometimes deadly complications that could have been prevented happen" is met with statistical probability quotes that say theoretically home birth is generally safe if not safer than hospitals? You just cannot argue with the fact that deadly complications are time-pressing and require hospital help. You cannot argue that everything you try to avoid from the hospital by going the homebirth route can be avoided too, with less energy energy and research than the homebirth requires. MOST hospitals will let you birth unmedicated, even if they give you crap over it, even if the one down the road pretends they can't. Why is it ok to educate women all about the fears of hospitals but not about your rights and possibilities beyond the initial response your concerns are given with your OB? Gimme a break. |
I agree that that case at hand included the mother’s fears of hospitals but it still brings up the responsibility of Carr to help her through this for the sake of her health and her baby’s. OBs and local midwives were agreed with the hospital need so not all failed to be prudent – but Carr and her supporters on here wasn’t objective or responsible enough to take this on, which brings up the entire “you’re so dead set against hospital births you can’t see straight for the case in front of you” within the movement. I personally have not judged this women personally – I’ve said it was not her job to be the expert. Her choices baffle me, but it wasn’t her job. For the researching moms – maybe this does, however, show the lesson that not all experts from either side are experts. So if you think your OB is blinded by a skewed medical view, and that your midwife is blinded by an adamant disdain for OBs, know that if the midwife turns out wrong you could die. Yes, a doc could get you there as well, but the route certainly wouldn’t be as direct and devoid of opportunities to speak up or change your mind on your approach. And YOU CAN GET THE BEST OF BOTH WORLDS WITH EVEN LESS WORK BY LABORING NATURALLY WITH YOUR MIDWIFE AT THE HOSPITAL ON YOUR OWN PREDISCUSSED TERMS AND DELIVERING IN THE PRESENCE AND GUIDANCE OF A SCIENTIFIC DOCTOR WHO IS EQUIPPED FOR HORRIFIC COMPLICATIONS. |
So far I have found these from various hospitals in the area (Inova Alexandria, Virginia Hospital Center, Sibley Memorial, George Washington, Suburban Hospital):
|
PP here: Yes, please provide and also, respond to this: How come when you say "not all hospitals" and "sometimes happens", it renders it simpler to birth at home whereas "not all midwives are good" and "sometimes deadly complications that could have been prevented happen" is met with statistical probability quotes that say theoretically home birth is generally safe if not safer than hospitals?
PP: I have NEVER said the things that you put in quotes followed by statistics showing that home birth is safer than hospital birth. I honestly don't know which is safer and think there are risks involved either way. People have to weigh the options and decide what is best for them and their babies. The hospital I toured (I toured quite a few while I was pregnant) was in Howard County (I guess I'm afraid to put the name because sometimes there are rules about posting negative information in threads). I was told I would have to have continuous monitoring and they showed us the nursery where ALL babies are taken after birth for "observation." I was told that both of these things were not negotiable by the midwives I was working with as well as hospital staff. But maybe that has changed in the last year. If others out there have information to the contrary, please post. I can only share my experience and do not claim to speak for everyone. |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kSQcbwr7zgQ
at around 3:22 they start talking about the "newborn nursery" where all babies are taken 90 minutes after birth. Not saying this is a bad hospital, but separating moms and babies to take babies to a nursery is not an evidence-based practice as far as I know. |
The statements a few posts up about the difficulty of natural birth in hospitals is BS. I have had two unmedicated births at VHC - one less than a week ago. Karen King was my CNM. She and the nursing staff respected all of my wishes and were in constant communication with me (and my doula) about my preferences. I labored at home for the majority of the time with both labors, again with my husband and doula staying in touch with Karen by phone. Then I went to VHC and had an awesome delivery and post-partum experience both times.
I ALLOWED my babies to go to the nursery very briefly for a few preliminary checks hours after I gave birth, but at my request, they performed most checks/procedures in the room with me. Some women may prefer to give birth at home, but there is NO reason to do that simply because your birth preferences won't be respected otherwise. In my experience, women who feel strongly about having an unmedicated birth, and take all preparations to do so, can absolutely do so in a hospital - or at least at VHC. I encountered no resistance and no pressure at ANY time. And my babies stayed with me for all but maybe 1 hour of the entire time I was in the hospital. (I love VHC and Karen King, and am so sad this tragedy has brought up such a black-and-white view of hospital vs. home births.) |
Why are you afraid to give the name of the hospital??? What rules are you referring to?? If you were the poster who wrote "just because you are not aware..." saying that many hospitals have these supposed non-negotiable policies, I have to respond now; that just because you were told by one person on a tour of one hospital in Howard County that you must have continuous monitoring and that's non-negotiable, (and by someone else that there are rules not to post the name of a hospital in a thread about childbirth?), that this is not necessarily so. If you gave the name of the hospital, other expectant moms would be able to find out if this HAS indeed changed (or if your tourguide was making this up at the time?), or if they indeed have such a (written) policy (then it would be time for them to change that policy). |
wow... at this rate we will still be discussing Karen Carr when I get to ready to give birth... in December. |
Oh, WHO CARES. This is certainly not the equivalent of having it ripped out of your loins and taken away! They take the kid to get some care. THEY LET THE FATHER / OTHER PARENT GO WITH THE BABY. Are we forgetting the birth partner again??? There's no obligation to ever have the baby leave one of the parents' sight. If you happen to be completely alone for some reason, explain this (since it's more rare) ahead of time and REMIND them. They'll surely work with you, and no, they can't rip the kid out of your arms if you insist the care be done in YOUR room or that you be taken to the room as well. WTH!!! |
THANK YOU!!!!! |