Reasons for medication-free childbirth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:13:37: you are such a pompous person. Classic example of the judgmental and boorish "natural" mom.

I'm not pompous; I merely feel strongly about the subject. I'm sure you have things you feel strongly about, too.

[Anonymous]

1337 here.

About 13 hours from water breaking (which happened first) until childbirth. Hard to say how long actual labor was, maybe 8 or 9 hours? Pushing stage was about 30 minutes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:53 hours. Guarantee I would have had any number of interventions such as drugs, episiotomy, forceps, surgery, separation of my baby after delivery....any number of things which could have physically harmed me or my baby.

Great for you that it turned out well. But many, many, many women have interventions and have healthy babies.

Ugh. It's like beating one's head against a brick wall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:13:37: you are such a pompous person. Classic example of the judgmental and boorish "natural" mom.

I'm not pompous; I merely feel strongly about the subject. I'm sure you have things you feel strongly about, too.

Reread your own post.

I could do this and I could do that and mothers who get epidurals are closing themselves off from blah, blah, blah.

Pompous.

You have no idea why other women have made choices to follow a different path from yours, but you are ready to tell them they made the wrong decision and that you are superior to them.

Pompous.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:53 hours. Guarantee I would have had any number of interventions such as drugs, episiotomy, forceps, surgery, separation of my baby after delivery....any number of things which could have physically harmed me or my baby.

Great for you that it turned out well. But many, many, many women have interventions and have healthy babies.

Ugh. It's like beating one's head against a brick wall.

You're right, it is precisely like beating one's head against a brick wall.

I didn't say that those things WOULD have harmed us; merely that they COULD have. Each of those things have risks - risks that you and others may not worry about or risks that you think are inconsequential or risks that you feel are worth taking because there are some benefits you find more appealing - but certainly there are risks. So, for ME I was happy to avoid them since I didn't need those interventions. And yes, babies are affected far far more in "typical" hospital births than in the typical out-of-hospital birth. Go ahead, go ahead and ask your co-workers and friends and neighbors about all their NICU stays, the babies who mysteriously wouldn't breastfeed, the babies who needed to be taken for aggressive deep suctioning, babies who picked up random infections, babies with scars from their forceps, hematomas from the vacuum that pulled them out, babies who started their lives with high doses of broad-spectrum antibiotics, sugar coated pacifiers in their mouths, etc. etc. . Yes, at the end of the day (or week or month), everyone winds up "healthy" - but for me personally, I was looking for MORE than "healthy".

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:53 hours. Guarantee I would have had any number of interventions such as drugs, episiotomy, forceps, surgery, separation of my baby after delivery....any number of things which could have physically harmed me or my baby.

Great for you that it turned out well. But many, many, many women have interventions and have healthy babies.

Ugh. It's like beating one's head against a brick wall.

You're right, it is precisely like beating one's head against a brick wall.

I didn't say that those things WOULD have harmed us; merely that they COULD have. Each of those things have risks - risks that you and others may not worry about or risks that you think are inconsequential or risks that you feel are worth taking because there are some benefits you find more appealing - but certainly there are risks. So, for ME I was happy to avoid them since I didn't need those interventions. And yes, babies are affected far far more in "typical" hospital births than in the typical out-of-hospital birth. Go ahead, go ahead and ask your co-workers and friends and neighbors about all their NICU stays, the babies who mysteriously wouldn't breastfeed, the babies who needed to be taken for aggressive deep suctioning, babies who picked up random infections, babies with scars from their forceps, hematomas from the vacuum that pulled them out, babies who started their lives with high doses of broad-spectrum antibiotics, sugar coated pacifiers in their mouths, etc. etc. . Yes, at the end of the day (or week or month), everyone winds up "healthy" - but for me personally, I was looking for MORE than "healthy".

You have a really extreme notion of a routine hospital birth. You aren't doing much to help your case, you just sound a little hysterical.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:53 hours. Guarantee I would have had any number of interventions such as drugs, episiotomy, forceps, surgery, separation of my baby after delivery....any number of things which could have physically harmed me or my baby.

Great for you that it turned out well. But many, many, many women have interventions and have healthy babies.

Ugh. It's like beating one's head against a brick wall.

You're right, it is precisely like beating one's head against a brick wall.

I didn't say that those things WOULD have harmed us; merely that they COULD have. Each of those things have risks - risks that you and others may not worry about or risks that you think are inconsequential or risks that you feel are worth taking because there are some benefits you find more appealing - but certainly there are risks. So, for ME I was happy to avoid them since I didn't need those interventions. And yes, babies are affected far far more in "typical" hospital births than in the typical out-of-hospital birth. Go ahead, go ahead and ask your co-workers and friends and neighbors about all their NICU stays, the babies who mysteriously wouldn't breastfeed, the babies who needed to be taken for aggressive deep suctioning, babies who picked up random infections, babies with scars from their forceps, hematomas from the vacuum that pulled them out, babies who started their lives with high doses of broad-spectrum antibiotics, sugar coated pacifiers in their mouths, etc. etc. . Yes, at the end of the day (or week or month), everyone winds up "healthy" - but for me personally, I was looking for MORE than "healthy".

You have a really extreme notion of a routine hospital birth. You aren't doing much to help your case, you just sound a little hysterical.

I agree with the PP. Who are your friends? I don't have any friends who *didn't* have hospital births and none of them had any of the stuff you are talking about. So I guess your idea for a straw poll is pretty meaningless for me.

What happened to you, lady?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:53 hours. Guarantee I would have had any number of interventions such as drugs, episiotomy, forceps, surgery, separation of my baby after delivery....any number of things which could have physically harmed me or my baby.

Great for you that it turned out well. But many, many, many women have interventions and have healthy babies.

Ugh. It's like beating one's head against a brick wall.

You're right, it is precisely like beating one's head against a brick wall.

I didn't say that those things WOULD have harmed us; merely that they COULD have.

Sure, you said could, but how you wrote this still carries a strong insinuation that basically, you are very anti-intervention, even though it sounds as though you have actually no experience with it.

Are you a NICU nurse? A medical professional with experience in this area? Otherwise, what is the source of your fanaticism?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:53 hours. Guarantee I would have had any number of interventions such as drugs, episiotomy, forceps, surgery, separation of my baby after delivery....any number of things which could have physically harmed me or my baby.

Great for you that it turned out well. But many, many, many women have interventions and have healthy babies.

Ugh. It's like beating one's head against a brick wall.

You're right, it is precisely like beating one's head against a brick wall.

I didn't say that those things WOULD have harmed us; merely that they COULD have. Each of those things have risks - risks that you and others may not worry about or risks that you think are inconsequential or risks that you feel are worth taking because there are some benefits you find more appealing - but certainly there are risks. So, for ME I was happy to avoid them since I didn't need those interventions. And yes, babies are affected far far more in "typical" hospital births than in the typical out-of-hospital birth. Go ahead, go ahead and ask your co-workers and friends and neighbors about all their NICU stays, the babies who mysteriously wouldn't breastfeed, the babies who needed to be taken for aggressive deep suctioning, babies who picked up random infections, babies with scars from their forceps, hematomas from the vacuum that pulled them out, babies who started their lives with high doses of broad-spectrum antibiotics, sugar coated pacifiers in their mouths, etc. etc. . Yes, at the end of the day (or week or month), everyone winds up "healthy" - but for me personally, I was looking for MORE than "healthy".

You have a really extreme notion of a routine hospital birth. You aren't doing much to help your case, you just sound a little hysterical.

I wonder how much time you have actually spent on a L&D floor? It's easy to blow off what I'm saying as "hysterical" when you haven't actually witnessed it. I've worked (off and on) on L&D for seven years. At times, I've seen up to 50% of every baby born, have one of the procedures/interventions I mentioned above. It is no secret that routine hospital birth does indeed lead to several potential consequences for the baby, partly due to routine protocols, and partly due to the effect of certain medications/procedures during labor. Again, almost all of these babies wind up with a clean bill of health and sent home with mom and dad (although certainly some do not). Regardless, it was not what I wanted for my babies and that was why I chose my out-of-hospital, natural childbirths - just to answer OP's question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:53 hours. Guarantee I would have had any number of interventions such as drugs, episiotomy, forceps, surgery, separation of my baby after delivery....any number of things which could have physically harmed me or my baby.

Great for you that it turned out well. But many, many, many women have interventions and have healthy babies.

Ugh. It's like beating one's head against a brick wall.

You're right, it is precisely like beating one's head against a brick wall.

I didn't say that those things WOULD have harmed us; merely that they COULD have.

Sure, you said could, but how you wrote this still carries a strong insinuation that basically, you are very anti-intervention, even though it sounds as though you have actually no experience with it.

Are you a NICU nurse? A medical professional with experience in this area? Otherwise, what is the source of your fanaticism?

Yes.

By the same token, I wonder what the source of your disbelief is? Your own imagination about how safe and healthy typical hospital births are?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I didn't say that those things WOULD have harmed us; merely that they COULD have. Each of those things have risks - risks that you and others may not worry about or risks that you think are inconsequential or risks that you feel are worth taking because there are some benefits you find more appealing - but certainly there are risks. So, for ME I was happy to avoid them since I didn't need those interventions. And yes, babies are affected far far more in "typical" hospital births than in the typical out-of-hospital birth. Go ahead, go ahead and ask your co-workers and friends and neighbors about all their NICU stays, the babies who mysteriously wouldn't breastfeed, the babies who needed to be taken for aggressive deep suctioning, babies who picked up random infections, babies with scars from their forceps, hematomas from the vacuum that pulled them out, babies who started their lives with high doses of broad-spectrum antibiotics, sugar coated pacifiers in their mouths, etc. etc. . Yes, at the end of the day (or week or month), everyone winds up "healthy" - but for me personally, I was looking for MORE than "healthy".

Ummm...do you think that there are only risks with births where there are "interventions"? Listen, I lived in Europe for a few years and had my second child there. Natural labor there is much more popular, and so there are more stats available and more "anecdotal" information. There are risks involved with natural labor, especially a home birth. And what you forget is that natural labor can sometimes lead to interventions and those very procedures you are denouncing have saved lives.

I had an epidural and you know what? I breast fed my baby (both times) right away. Both scored wonderfully (9/10 on APGAR). No support at all needed for them...alert and perfect. Neither were carted away for cleaning, etc. I could get up within the hour both times after my epidural and left the hospital after 12 hours after the birth of my second.

I honestly don't see how natural labor would have made things go better.

Of course, you will be quick to belittle my experience by saying that it is just *one* example. But you have no qualms about only pointing out the advantages of homebirth and talking about your one experience by making it sound like all natural labors go that way. That isn't any truer than me saying that all labors with epidurals turn out my way.

I would just love for people to give it a rest and acknowledge that there are different ways of going about things. Of course some will think that their way is the best way b/c they are Type A individuals who are uber-competitive and view childbirth as another thing for them to "win" and be "best" at.

[Anonymous]

i just wanted to remind everyone the purpose of the thread. the OP asked why natural birth mamas chose that route. if you didn't choose that route (which describes about 1/2 of these posters) go start another thread as to why you dislike natural birthers.

[Anonymous]

fanatical natural birth poster--you are so making this up to support your point. I've been a L&D nurse for 10 years in the great Baltimore/DC area and would say without a doubt that these procedures/interventions that you speak of are by no means part of 50% of all deliveries. Most are QUITE rare. You are quoting facts that simply aren't true in order to support your agenda.

I myself had a natural birth and have supported many, many women who labored naturally but I can't the arrogance of the extreme segments of the natural birth community who preach that anything less than natural is harmful to baby, mother, bonding etc.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:53 hours. Guarantee I would have had any number of interventions such as drugs, episiotomy, forceps, surgery, separation of my baby after delivery....any number of things which could have physically harmed me or my baby.

Great for you that it turned out well. But many, many, many women have interventions and have healthy babies.

Ugh. It's like beating one's head against a brick wall.

You're right, it is precisely like beating one's head against a brick wall.

I didn't say that those things WOULD have harmed us; merely that they COULD have. Each of those things have risks - risks that you and others may not worry about or risks that you think are inconsequential or risks that you feel are worth taking because there are some benefits you find more appealing - but certainly there are risks. So, for ME I was happy to avoid them since I didn't need those interventions. And yes, babies are affected far far more in "typical" hospital births than in the typical out-of-hospital birth. Go ahead, go ahead and ask your co-workers and friends and neighbors about all their NICU stays, the babies who mysteriously wouldn't breastfeed, the babies who needed to be taken for aggressive deep suctioning, babies who picked up random infections, babies with scars from their forceps, hematomas from the vacuum that pulled them out, babies who started their lives with high doses of broad-spectrum antibiotics, sugar coated pacifiers in their mouths, etc. etc. . Yes, at the end of the day (or week or month), everyone winds up "healthy" - but for me personally, I was looking for MORE than "healthy".

You have a really extreme notion of a routine hospital birth. You aren't doing much to help your case, you just sound a little hysterical.

I wonder how much time you have actually spent on a L&D floor? It's easy to blow off what I'm saying as "hysterical" when you haven't actually witnessed it. I've worked (off and on) on L&D for seven years. At times, I've seen up to 50% of every baby born, have one of the procedures/interventions I mentioned above. It is no secret that routine hospital birth does indeed lead to several potential consequences for the baby, partly due to routine protocols, and partly due to the effect of certain medications/procedures during labor. Again, almost all of these babies wind up with a clean bill of health and sent home with mom and dad (although certainly some do not). Regardless, it was not what I wanted for my babies and that was why I chose my out-of-hospital, natural childbirths - just to answer OP's question.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I didn't say that those things WOULD have harmed us; merely that they COULD have. Each of those things have risks - risks that you and others may not worry about or risks that you think are inconsequential or risks that you feel are worth taking because there are some benefits you find more appealing - but certainly there are risks. So, for ME I was happy to avoid them since I didn't need those interventions. And yes, babies are affected far far more in "typical" hospital births than in the typical out-of-hospital birth. Go ahead, go ahead and ask your co-workers and friends and neighbors about all their NICU stays, the babies who mysteriously wouldn't breastfeed, the babies who needed to be taken for aggressive deep suctioning, babies who picked up random infections, babies with scars from their forceps, hematomas from the vacuum that pulled them out, babies who started their lives with high doses of broad-spectrum antibiotics, sugar coated pacifiers in their mouths, etc. etc. . Yes, at the end of the day (or week or month), everyone winds up "healthy" - but for me personally, I was looking for MORE than "healthy".

Ummm...do you think that there are only risks with births where there are "interventions"? Listen, I lived in Europe for a few years and had my second child there. Natural labor there is much more popular, and so there are more stats available and more "anecdotal" information. There are risks involved with natural labor, especially a home birth. And what you forget is that natural labor can sometimes lead to interventions and those very procedures you are denouncing have saved lives.

I had an epidural and you know what? I breast fed my baby (both times) right away. Both scored wonderfully (9/10 on APGAR). No support at all needed for them...alert and perfect. Neither were carted away for cleaning, etc. I could get up within the hour both times after my epidural and left the hospital after 12 hours after the birth of my second.

I honestly don't see how natural labor would have made things go better.

Of course, you will be quick to belittle my experience by saying that it is just *one* example. But you have no qualms about only pointing out the advantages of homebirth and talking about your one experience by making it sound like all natural labors go that way. That isn't any truer than me saying that all labors with epidurals turn out my way.

I would just love for people to give it a rest and acknowledge that there are different ways of going about things. Of course some will think that their way is the best way b/c they are Type A individuals who are uber-competitive and view childbirth as another thing for them to "win" and be "best" at.

I honestly don't know how much more I could have qualified my comments. I never said that all babies born with epidurals have problems - not even close. I merely said that FOR ME, I PERSONALLY did not want to take those risks. The way I PERSONALLY chose to avoid those risks was to avoid the hospitals and avoid their protocols.

It is absolutely infuriating that so many people seem to have huge mental blocks about this. We COULD NOT CARE LESS how anyone else chooses to birth. Every woman has to decide for herself what is best for her and her family. OP wanted to know the various reasons women choose natural birth, and for ME PERSONALLY it was to avoid the risks that come with unnecessary medications or interventions. Had I actually needed any medical interventions, I would have been the first to step up and accept them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I didn't say that those things WOULD have harmed us; merely that they COULD have. Each of those things have risks - risks that you and others may not worry about or risks that you think are inconsequential or risks that you feel are worth taking because there are some benefits you find more appealing - but certainly there are risks. So, for ME I was happy to avoid them since I didn't need those interventions. And yes, babies are affected far far more in "typical" hospital births than in the typical out-of-hospital birth. Go ahead, go ahead and ask your co-workers and friends and neighbors about all their NICU stays, the babies who mysteriously wouldn't breastfeed, the babies who needed to be taken for aggressive deep suctioning, babies who picked up random infections, babies with scars from their forceps, hematomas from the vacuum that pulled them out, babies who started their lives with high doses of broad-spectrum antibiotics, sugar coated pacifiers in their mouths, etc. etc. . Yes, at the end of the day (or week or month), everyone winds up "healthy" - but for me personally, I was looking for MORE than "healthy".

Ummm...do you think that there are only risks with births where there are "interventions"? Listen, I lived in Europe for a few years and had my second child there. Natural labor there is much more popular, and so there are more stats available and more "anecdotal" information. There are risks involved with natural labor, especially a home birth. And what you forget is that natural labor can sometimes lead to interventions and those very procedures you are denouncing have saved lives.

I had an epidural and you know what? I breast fed my baby (both times) right away. Both scored wonderfully (9/10 on APGAR). No support at all needed for them...alert and perfect. Neither were carted away for cleaning, etc. I could get up within the hour both times after my epidural and left the hospital after 12 hours after the birth of my second.

I honestly don't see how natural labor would have made things go better.

Of course, you will be quick to belittle my experience by saying that it is just *one* example. But you have no qualms about only pointing out the advantages of homebirth and talking about your one experience by making it sound like all natural labors go that way. That isn't any truer than me saying that all labors with epidurals turn out my way.

I would just love for people to give it a rest and acknowledge that there are different ways of going about things. Of course some will think that their way is the best way b/c they are Type A individuals who are uber-competitive and view childbirth as another thing for them to "win" and be "best" at.

I honestly don't know how much more I could have qualified my comments. I never said that all babies born with epidurals have problems - not even close. I merely said that FOR ME, I PERSONALLY did not want to take those risks. The way I PERSONALLY chose to avoid those risks was to avoid the hospitals and avoid their protocols.

It is absolutely infuriating that so many people seem to have huge mental blocks about this. We COULD NOT CARE LESS how anyone else chooses to birth. Every woman has to decide for herself what is best for her and her family. OP wanted to know the various reasons women choose natural birth, and for ME PERSONALLY it was to avoid the risks that come with unnecessary medications or interventions. Had I actually needed any medical interventions, I would have been the first to step up and accept them.

If you could care less, it wouldn't be so infuriating.