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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that midwives have been much more consistent over time with their treatment of women and birth than the medical community. Yes, midwives have adopted some medical treatments but they seemed to have done so only when absolutely necessary and still follow the same approach to birth. The medical providers seem to sway back and forth on a pendulum.

In our mother's time, it was common practice to give the woman an enema, shave her, have her lie flat on her back with her legs up in stirrups, cut an episotomy as a standard for everyone, give her a drug similar to versed to make her forget the pain, and sometimes strap her arms down if she could not hold still. Mothers were told not to breastfeed. These things have changed in medicine but it took a long time even after evidence and studies showed that the practices were either useless or harmful. Those were women were all told that these things were absolutely necessary or they and their babies would die. There seemed to be a period in the 80s when natural birth was becoming more common in hospital but now interventionist birth with skyrocketing induction and c-section rates is the trend. Its easy to predict that our daughters will look back in horror about what we have to deal with when giving birth. Its hard to trust the ob/gyns when there is so much history of adopting bad practices.

Changing practice as we learn more about how things work is a feature, not a bug, of medicine. I really don't want a midwife that uses the same techniques that were used 2000 years ago, thank you.

Well, another way to look at it is that nothing about human anatomy or the birthing process have changed in 2000 years, so why do we need drastically different measures to ensure a healthy birth? What modern midwifery has found is that by using low-tech adjustments and improvements, women and babies can have a very safe birth. For example, the leading cause of maternal mortality worldwide is hemorrhage. Postpartum hemorrhage can be curbed dramatically by ensuring proper nutrition during pregnancy, practicing physiological management of third-stage labor, and having a shot of pitocin handy to be used as necessary. Infection, another potential deadly problem, can be dramatically reduced by washing hands (something that doctors refused to do when childbirth initially moved into hospitals, causing countless maternal deaths from puerperal fever), reducing vaginal exams during and after birth, and having ready access to basic antibiotics should an infection develop. Cesarean section is not technological advance which has made the most improvements in the safety of childbirth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that midwives have been much more consistent over time with their treatment of women and birth than the medical community. Yes, midwives have adopted some medical treatments but they seemed to have done so only when absolutely necessary and still follow the same approach to birth. The medical providers seem to sway back and forth on a pendulum.

In our mother's time, it was common practice to give the woman an enema, shave her, have her lie flat on her back with her legs up in stirrups, cut an episotomy as a standard for everyone, give her a drug similar to versed to make her forget the pain, and sometimes strap her arms down if she could not hold still. Mothers were told not to breastfeed. These things have changed in medicine but it took a long time even after evidence and studies showed that the practices were either useless or harmful. Those were women were all told that these things were absolutely necessary or they and their babies would die. There seemed to be a period in the 80s when natural birth was becoming more common in hospital but now interventionist birth with skyrocketing induction and c-section rates is the trend. Its easy to predict that our daughters will look back in horror about what we have to deal with when giving birth. Its hard to trust the ob/gyns when there is so much history of adopting bad practices.

Changing practice as we learn more about how things work is a feature, not a bug, of medicine. I really don't want a midwife that uses the same techniques that were used 2000 years ago, thank you.

Well, another way to look at it is that nothing about human anatomy or the birthing process have changed in 2000 years, so why do we need drastically different measures to ensure a healthy birth?

This is silly. It is simply a fact that childbirth is MUCH safer today because of medical advances. 2000 years ago many, many, many more women and babies died or suffered catastrophic injuries during birth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that midwives have been much more consistent over time with their treatment of women and birth than the medical community. Yes, midwives have adopted some medical treatments but they seemed to have done so only when absolutely necessary and still follow the same approach to birth. The medical providers seem to sway back and forth on a pendulum.

In our mother's time, it was common practice to give the woman an enema, shave her, have her lie flat on her back with her legs up in stirrups, cut an episotomy as a standard for everyone, give her a drug similar to versed to make her forget the pain, and sometimes strap her arms down if she could not hold still. Mothers were told not to breastfeed. These things have changed in medicine but it took a long time even after evidence and studies showed that the practices were either useless or harmful. Those were women were all told that these things were absolutely necessary or they and their babies would die. There seemed to be a period in the 80s when natural birth was becoming more common in hospital but now interventionist birth with skyrocketing induction and c-section rates is the trend. Its easy to predict that our daughters will look back in horror about what we have to deal with when giving birth. Its hard to trust the ob/gyns when there is so much history of adopting bad practices.

Changing practice as we learn more about how things work is a feature, not a bug, of medicine. I really don't want a midwife that uses the same techniques that were used 2000 years ago, thank you.

Well, another way to look at it is that nothing about human anatomy or the birthing process have changed in 2000 years, so why do we need drastically different measures to ensure a healthy birth?

This is silly. It is simply a fact that childbirth is MUCH safer today because of medical advances. 2000 years ago many, many, many more women and babies died or suffered catastrophic injuries during birth.

2000 years ago they didn't have fertility treatments for those who were unable to have children on their own. It was common to have kids in your teens, not your forties. Medical advances have come a long long way so why are people trying to deny this? Now I know nothing about the woman who lost her baby other than what I've read on here but typically women in their 40's have a much harder time naturally conceiving than those 20 years younger.

[Anonymous]

I have read over many of these pages now and I think many of these statements and the hateful rhetoric espoused by many of you is in vain and contrary to proper teachings. I think many of you would be wise to read the only medical book you really need, the one book.

"Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty." Exodus 1:20

I don't remember anything in the bible that mentioned the mighty waxing of medical scientists, hateful espousers of envy, or those who know more than His will. This verse states quite clearly that God's blessing is upon the midwives. Those who practice, what many of you denigrate as 2,000 years old wizardry, is actually the blessed way.

If God intended for babies to arrive through C-section, he would have made a portal in the woman's side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that midwives have been much more consistent over time with their treatment of women and birth than the medical community. Yes, midwives have adopted some medical treatments but they seemed to have done so only when absolutely necessary and still follow the same approach to birth. The medical providers seem to sway back and forth on a pendulum.

In our mother's time, it was common practice to give the woman an enema, shave her, have her lie flat on her back with her legs up in stirrups, cut an episotomy as a standard for everyone, give her a drug similar to versed to make her forget the pain, and sometimes strap her arms down if she could not hold still. Mothers were told not to breastfeed. These things have changed in medicine but it took a long time even after evidence and studies showed that the practices were either useless or harmful. Those were women were all told that these things were absolutely necessary or they and their babies would die. There seemed to be a period in the 80s when natural birth was becoming more common in hospital but now interventionist birth with skyrocketing induction and c-section rates is the trend. Its easy to predict that our daughters will look back in horror about what we have to deal with when giving birth. Its hard to trust the ob/gyns when there is so much history of adopting bad practices.

Changing practice as we learn more about how things work is a feature, not a bug, of medicine. I really don't want a midwife that uses the same techniques that were used 2000 years ago, thank you.

Thankfully midwives (at least CNMs) can carry pitocin, oxygen, etcetc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that midwives have been much more consistent over time with their treatment of women and birth than the medical community. Yes, midwives have adopted some medical treatments but they seemed to have done so only when absolutely necessary and still follow the same approach to birth. The medical providers seem to sway back and forth on a pendulum.

In our mother's time, it was common practice to give the woman an enema, shave her, have her lie flat on her back with her legs up in stirrups, cut an episotomy as a standard for everyone, give her a drug similar to versed to make her forget the pain, and sometimes strap her arms down if she could not hold still. Mothers were told not to breastfeed. These things have changed in medicine but it took a long time even after evidence and studies showed that the practices were either useless or harmful. Those were women were all told that these things were absolutely necessary or they and their babies would die. There seemed to be a period in the 80s when natural birth was becoming more common in hospital but now interventionist birth with skyrocketing induction and c-section rates is the trend. Its easy to predict that our daughters will look back in horror about what we have to deal with when giving birth. Its hard to trust the ob/gyns when there is so much history of adopting bad practices.

Changing practice as we learn more about how things work is a feature, not a bug, of medicine. I really don't want a midwife that uses the same techniques that were used 2000 years ago, thank you.

Well, another way to look at it is that nothing about human anatomy or the birthing process have changed in 2000 years, so why do we need drastically different measures to ensure a healthy birth?

This is silly. It is simply a fact that childbirth is MUCH safer today because of medical advances. 2000 years ago many, many, many more women and babies died or suffered catastrophic injuries during birth.

No, it's not silly. I realize it is hard for many women to grasp, but childbirth is actually quite safe, and is designed to work even when there are no medical attendants. In fact, it is mostly due to obstetric attendants in the past 300 years that we have experienced such horrific childbirth outcomes. Although it is difficult to get accurate data, the maternal mortality rate from millennia past is thought to be around 1-3%. The mortality rate rose precipitously in the 17th and 18th centuries as obstetrics began to take over childbirth, and we see statistics of 10-30% maternal mortality, the vast majority of which was from infection caused by doctors, or other trauma caused by poor management practices. Finally around 1940 we began to once again see these numbers drop, mainly because of the advent of antibiotics and blood clotting medications. So yes, if you compare mortality rates from 1900 to 2000 you will see an astounding improvement; yet if you go back prior to the obstetric age, you will find much lower rates.


Now, if you compare the rates prior to 1600 to now, obviously we are still much better off today, although I maintain that the majority of that is due to low-tech interventions, rather than the slew of high-tech advances which only marginally improve outcomes, and, as research is beginning to indicate, actually worsens outcomes in some situations. Maternal mortality in this country has actually gotten worse in the past three decades as the c/s rate has steadily climbed. Our all-time best maternal mortality rates come from around 1980, when the c/section rate was around 10%. While I am extraordinarily grateful for what medicine has to offer us in some situations, my opinion is that less is usually more when it comes to managing childbirth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that midwives have been much more consistent over time with their treatment of women and birth than the medical community. Yes, midwives have adopted some medical treatments but they seemed to have done so only when absolutely necessary and still follow the same approach to birth. The medical providers seem to sway back and forth on a pendulum.

In our mother's time, it was common practice to give the woman an enema, shave her, have her lie flat on her back with her legs up in stirrups, cut an episotomy as a standard for everyone, give her a drug similar to versed to make her forget the pain, and sometimes strap her arms down if she could not hold still. Mothers were told not to breastfeed. These things have changed in medicine but it took a long time even after evidence and studies showed that the practices were either useless or harmful. Those were women were all told that these things were absolutely necessary or they and their babies would die. There seemed to be a period in the 80s when natural birth was becoming more common in hospital but now interventionist birth with skyrocketing induction and c-section rates is the trend. Its easy to predict that our daughters will look back in horror about what we have to deal with when giving birth. Its hard to trust the ob/gyns when there is so much history of adopting bad practices.

Changing practice as we learn more about how things work is a feature, not a bug, of medicine. I really don't want a midwife that uses the same techniques that were used 2000 years ago, thank you.

Well, another way to look at it is that nothing about human anatomy or the birthing process have changed in 2000 years, so why do we need drastically different measures to ensure a healthy birth?

This is silly. It is simply a fact that childbirth is MUCH safer today because of medical advances. 2000 years ago many, many, many more women and babies died or suffered catastrophic injuries during birth.

No, it's not silly. I realize it is hard for many women to grasp, but childbirth is actually quite safe, and is designed to work even when there are no medical attendants. In fact, it is mostly due to obstetric attendants in the past 300 years that we have experienced such horrific childbirth outcomes. Although it is difficult to get accurate data, the maternal mortality rate from millennia past is thought to be around 1-3%. The mortality rate rose precipitously in the 17th and 18th centuries as obstetrics began to take over childbirth, and we see statistics of 10-30% maternal mortality, the vast majority of which was from infection caused by doctors, or other trauma caused by poor management practices. Finally around 1940 we began to once again see these numbers drop, mainly because of the advent of antibiotics and blood clotting medications. So yes, if you compare mortality rates from 1900 to 2000 you will see an astounding improvement; yet if you go back prior to the obstetric age, you will find much lower rates.


Now, if you compare the rates prior to 1600 to now, obviously we are still much better off today, although I maintain that the majority of that is due to low-tech interventions, rather than the slew of high-tech advances which only marginally improve outcomes, and, as research is beginning to indicate, actually worsens outcomes in some situations. Maternal mortality in this country has actually gotten worse in the past three decades as the c/s rate has steadily climbed. Our all-time best maternal mortality rates come from around 1980, when the c/section rate was around 10%. While I am extraordinarily grateful for what medicine has to offer us in some situations, my opinion is that less is usually more when it comes to managing childbirth.

Very interested in where you obtained this history from. Published source, please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that midwives have been much more consistent over time with their treatment of women and birth than the medical community. Yes, midwives have adopted some medical treatments but they seemed to have done so only when absolutely necessary and still follow the same approach to birth. The medical providers seem to sway back and forth on a pendulum.

In our mother's time, it was common practice to give the woman an enema, shave her, have her lie flat on her back with her legs up in stirrups, cut an episotomy as a standard for everyone, give her a drug similar to versed to make her forget the pain, and sometimes strap her arms down if she could not hold still. Mothers were told not to breastfeed. These things have changed in medicine but it took a long time even after evidence and studies showed that the practices were either useless or harmful. Those were women were all told that these things were absolutely necessary or they and their babies would die. There seemed to be a period in the 80s when natural birth was becoming more common in hospital but now interventionist birth with skyrocketing induction and c-section rates is the trend. Its easy to predict that our daughters will look back in horror about what we have to deal with when giving birth. Its hard to trust the ob/gyns when there is so much history of adopting bad practices.

Changing practice as we learn more about how things work is a feature, not a bug, of medicine. I really don't want a midwife that uses the same techniques that were used 2000 years ago, thank you.

Well, another way to look at it is that nothing about human anatomy or the birthing process have changed in 2000 years, so why do we need drastically different measures to ensure a healthy birth?

Well, as I said, it is difficult to obtain precise data. I have been researching this off and on for the past 10 years, and my opinions are the result of that research. I would have to dig through some binders to post citations, which I am willing to do but don't have the time for right now. For a very quick overview of the issue of obstetric-caused maternal mortality, you can start reading about puerperal fever.


This is silly. It is simply a fact that childbirth is MUCH safer today because of medical advances. 2000 years ago many, many, many more women and babies died or suffered catastrophic injuries during birth.

No, it's not silly. I realize it is hard for many women to grasp, but childbirth is actually quite safe, and is designed to work even when there are no medical attendants. In fact, it is mostly due to obstetric attendants in the past 300 years that we have experienced such horrific childbirth outcomes. Although it is difficult to get accurate data, the maternal mortality rate from millennia past is thought to be around 1-3%. The mortality rate rose precipitously in the 17th and 18th centuries as obstetrics began to take over childbirth, and we see statistics of 10-30% maternal mortality, the vast majority of which was from infection caused by doctors, or other trauma caused by poor management practices. Finally around 1940 we began to once again see these numbers drop, mainly because of the advent of antibiotics and blood clotting medications. So yes, if you compare mortality rates from 1900 to 2000 you will see an astounding improvement; yet if you go back prior to the obstetric age, you will find much lower rates.


Now, if you compare the rates prior to 1600 to now, obviously we are still much better off today, although I maintain that the majority of that is due to low-tech interventions, rather than the slew of high-tech advances which only marginally improve outcomes, and, as research is beginning to indicate, actually worsens outcomes in some situations. Maternal mortality in this country has actually gotten worse in the past three decades as the c/s rate has steadily climbed. Our all-time best maternal mortality rates come from around 1980, when the c/section rate was around 10%. While I am extraordinarily grateful for what medicine has to offer us in some situations, my opinion is that less is usually more when it comes to managing childbirth.

Very interested in where you obtained this history from. Published source, please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that midwives have been much more consistent over time with their treatment of women and birth than the medical community. Yes, midwives have adopted some medical treatments but they seemed to have done so only when absolutely necessary and still follow the same approach to birth. The medical providers seem to sway back and forth on a pendulum.

In our mother's time, it was common practice to give the woman an enema, shave her, have her lie flat on her back with her legs up in stirrups, cut an episotomy as a standard for everyone, give her a drug similar to versed to make her forget the pain, and sometimes strap her arms down if she could not hold still. Mothers were told not to breastfeed. These things have changed in medicine but it took a long time even after evidence and studies showed that the practices were either useless or harmful. Those were women were all told that these things were absolutely necessary or they and their babies would die. There seemed to be a period in the 80s when natural birth was becoming more common in hospital but now interventionist birth with skyrocketing induction and c-section rates is the trend. Its easy to predict that our daughters will look back in horror about what we have to deal with when giving birth. Its hard to trust the ob/gyns when there is so much history of adopting bad practices.

Changing practice as we learn more about how things work is a feature, not a bug, of medicine. I really don't want a midwife that uses the same techniques that were used 2000 years ago, thank you.

Well, another way to look at it is that nothing about human anatomy or the birthing process have changed in 2000 years, so why do we need drastically different measures to ensure a healthy birth?

This is silly. It is simply a fact that childbirth is MUCH safer today because of medical advances. 2000 years ago many, many, many more women and babies died or suffered catastrophic injuries during birth.

No, it's not silly. I realize it is hard for many women to grasp, but childbirth is actually quite safe, and is designed to work even when there are no medical attendants. In fact, it is mostly due to obstetric attendants in the past 300 years that we have experienced such horrific childbirth outcomes. Although it is difficult to get accurate data, the maternal mortality rate from millennia past is thought to be around 1-3%. The mortality rate rose precipitously in the 17th and 18th centuries as obstetrics began to take over childbirth, and we see statistics of 10-30% maternal mortality, the vast majority of which was from infection caused by doctors, or other trauma caused by poor management practices. Finally around 1940 we began to once again see these numbers drop, mainly because of the advent of antibiotics and blood clotting medications. So yes, if you compare mortality rates from 1900 to 2000 you will see an astounding improvement; yet if you go back prior to the obstetric age, you will find much lower rates.


Now, if you compare the rates prior to 1600 to now, obviously we are still much better off today, although I maintain that the majority of that is due to low-tech interventions, rather than the slew of high-tech advances which only marginally improve outcomes, and, as research is beginning to indicate, actually worsens outcomes in some situations. Maternal mortality in this country has actually gotten worse in the past three decades as the c/s rate has steadily climbed. Our all-time best maternal mortality rates come from around 1980, when the c/section rate was around 10%. While I am extraordinarily grateful for what medicine has to offer us in some situations, my opinion is that less is usually more when it comes to managing childbirth.

Thank you for this contribution. I couldn't agree more. The danger to mothers and to babies are all of the dangerous interventions and tools and instruments and tests. If people would just back off and let women's bodies work they way they are supposed to, I think we would see a fraction of the troubles that we do in hospitals and birth factories.

[Anonymous]

Don't have faith in the medical industry. Have faith in the Lord, for he is good.

The Lord protects him and keeps him alive; he is called blessed in the land; you do not give him up to the will of his enemies. The Lord sustains him on his sickbed; in his illness you restore him to full health. As for me, I said, “O Lord, be gracious to me; heal me, for I have sinned against you!”

Psalms 34:17-20

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't have faith in the medical industry. Have faith in the Lord, for he is good.

The Lord protects him and keeps him alive; he is called blessed in the land; you do not give him up to the will of his enemies. The Lord sustains him on his sickbed; in his illness you restore him to full health. As for me, I said, “O Lord, be gracious to me; heal me, for I have sinned against you!”

Psalms 34:17-20

You weren't funny before, and now you are adding plain old insult. Enough with the bible bashing and mockery. And, I don't think anyone is saying that there is no place for modern medicine; just that in some circumstances it is not used in the best interest of women, and that low-tech medical interventions are the best at improving outcomes on a large scale.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that midwives have been much more consistent over time with their treatment of women and birth than the medical community. Yes, midwives have adopted some medical treatments but they seemed to have done so only when absolutely necessary and still follow the same approach to birth. The medical providers seem to sway back and forth on a pendulum.

In our mother's time, it was common practice to give the woman an enema, shave her, have her lie flat on her back with her legs up in stirrups, cut an episotomy as a standard for everyone, give her a drug similar to versed to make her forget the pain, and sometimes strap her arms down if she could not hold still. Mothers were told not to breastfeed. These things have changed in medicine but it took a long time even after evidence and studies showed that the practices were either useless or harmful. Those were women were all told that these things were absolutely necessary or they and their babies would die. There seemed to be a period in the 80s when natural birth was becoming more common in hospital but now interventionist birth with skyrocketing induction and c-section rates is the trend. Its easy to predict that our daughters will look back in horror about what we have to deal with when giving birth. Its hard to trust the ob/gyns when there is so much history of adopting bad practices.

Changing practice as we learn more about how things work is a feature, not a bug, of medicine. I really don't want a midwife that uses the same techniques that were used 2000 years ago, thank you.

Well, another way to look at it is that nothing about human anatomy or the birthing process have changed in 2000 years, so why do we need drastically different measures to ensure a healthy birth?

This is silly. It is simply a fact that childbirth is MUCH safer today because of medical advances. 2000 years ago many, many, many more women and babies died or suffered catastrophic injuries during birth.

No, it's not silly. I realize it is hard for many women to grasp, but childbirth is actually quite safe, and is designed to work even when there are no medical attendants. In fact, it is mostly due to obstetric attendants in the past 300 years that we have experienced such horrific childbirth outcomes. Although it is difficult to get accurate data, the maternal mortality rate from millennia past is thought to be around 1-3%. The mortality rate rose precipitously in the 17th and 18th centuries as obstetrics began to take over childbirth, and we see statistics of 10-30% maternal mortality, the vast majority of which was from infection caused by doctors, or other trauma caused by poor management practices. Finally around 1940 we began to once again see these numbers drop, mainly because of the advent of antibiotics and blood clotting medications. So yes, if you compare mortality rates from 1900 to 2000 you will see an astounding improvement; yet if you go back prior to the obstetric age, you will find much lower rates.


Now, if you compare the rates prior to 1600 to now, obviously we are still much better off today, although I maintain that the majority of that is due to low-tech interventions, rather than the slew of high-tech advances which only marginally improve outcomes, and, as research is beginning to indicate, actually worsens outcomes in some situations. Maternal mortality in this country has actually gotten worse in the past three decades as the c/s rate has steadily climbed. Our all-time best maternal mortality rates come from around 1980, when the c/section rate was around 10%. While I am extraordinarily grateful for what medicine has to offer us in some situations, my opinion is that less is usually more when it comes to managing childbirth.

Very interested in where you obtained this history from. Published source, please.

Well, there isn't one "published source." This information is pretty difficult to dig up. I've been researching it for more than 5 years, and I would have to go back through my binders to cite references, which I'm happy to do but do not have the time right now. I also used to believe that the worst maternal mortality rates were millennia ago, and that century by century they improved. But, this just wasn't the case - the first two hundred years of obstetrics really had some horrific outcomes. Look up "puerperal fever" on wikipedia for a beginning overview. Statistics on maternal mortality since 1920 are pretty easy to find, and obviously show amazing advances.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I find it interesting that midwives have been much more consistent over time with their treatment of women and birth than the medical community. Yes, midwives have adopted some medical treatments but they seemed to have done so only when absolutely necessary and still follow the same approach to birth. The medical providers seem to sway back and forth on a pendulum.

In our mother's time, it was common practice to give the woman an enema, shave her, have her lie flat on her back with her legs up in stirrups, cut an episotomy as a standard for everyone, give her a drug similar to versed to make her forget the pain, and sometimes strap her arms down if she could not hold still. Mothers were told not to breastfeed. These things have changed in medicine but it took a long time even after evidence and studies showed that the practices were either useless or harmful. Those were women were all told that these things were absolutely necessary or they and their babies would die. There seemed to be a period in the 80s when natural birth was becoming more common in hospital but now interventionist birth with skyrocketing induction and c-section rates is the trend. Its easy to predict that our daughters will look back in horror about what we have to deal with when giving birth. Its hard to trust the ob/gyns when there is so much history of adopting bad practices.

Changing practice as we learn more about how things work is a feature, not a bug, of medicine. I really don't want a midwife that uses the same techniques that were used 2000 years ago, thank you.

Exactly, and down the line of fertility treatments, I find it interesting how seemingly many women in their 40s have no issues trusting a doc with their fertility treatments and yet condemn those who dare trusting an OP with their breech babies. So if the only true way to have a baby is naturally and in your home, shouldn't the only true way to conceive a baby also be naturally and in your home?

Well, another way to look at it is that nothing about human anatomy or the birthing process have changed in 2000 years, so why do we need drastically different measures to ensure a healthy birth?

This is silly. It is simply a fact that childbirth is MUCH safer today because of medical advances. 2000 years ago many, many, many more women and babies died or suffered catastrophic injuries during birth.

2000 years ago they didn't have fertility treatments for those who were unable to have children on their own. It was common to have kids in your teens, not your forties. Medical advances have come a long long way so why are people trying to deny this? Now I know nothing about the woman who lost her baby other than what I've read on here but typically women in their 40's have a much harder time naturally conceiving than those 20 years younger.

[Anonymous]

PP here, this wasn't supposed to be embedded like that: Here my addition to PP's remarks:

Exactly, and down the line of fertility treatments, I find it interesting how seemingly many women in their 40s have no issues trusting a doc with their fertility treatments and yet condemn those who dare trusting an OP with their breech babies. So if the only true way to have a baby is naturally and in your home, shouldn't the only true way to conceive a baby also be naturally and in your home?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I have read over many of these pages now and I think many of these statements and the hateful rhetoric espoused by many of you is in vain and contrary to proper teachings. I think many of you would be wise to read the only medical book you really need, the one book.

"Therefore God dealt well with the midwives: and the people multiplied, and waxed very mighty." Exodus 1:20

I don't remember anything in the bible that mentioned the mighty waxing of medical scientists, hateful espousers of envy, or those who know more than His will. This verse states quite clearly that God's blessing is upon the midwives. Those who practice, what many of you denigrate as 2,000 years old wizardry, is actually the blessed way.

If God intended for babies to arrive through C-section, he would have made a portal in the woman's side.

Like other migratory birds, loons tend to flock.

Whichever deity you may believe in, the christian "bible" is far from a medical textbook.....just what, may I ask, would it do for hypertensive crisis? Head trauma? Acute CHF? Give me appropriate medical treatment anyday.