The Importance of Warmth for your Baby

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is a necessary c-section? Who are you to tel someone how much risk they are willing to subject their baby to? Is a 5% chance of death sufficient? What about a 2% of cerebral palsy? What about a 13% chance of hypoxic brain injury?

Isn't the OB supposed to be educated enough to make a recommendation? They typically prefer to go with doing the surgery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It seems almost irresponsible to risk a Cesarean if it's not absolutely necessary. Why don't obstetricians educate mothers?

That's just not how it works. C-sections are done because the baby appears to be in distress or labor is not progressing. An "absolutely necessary" standard would err on the side of injured/dead babies and mothers. Most women would want a c-section well before the "absolutely necessary" stage, and would take on a great deal of risk to their own health to prevent harms to the baby. Do you seriously think the mom should just keep pushing until the heart rate drops to 0?

C-sections are done for lots of reasons. If every C-section were a necessary C-section, C-section rates wouldn't vary among hospitals for low-risk patients.

Nobody is saying that better prevention of primary c-sections is not ONE goal of many to improve maternal outcomes. But people always focus on it to to the exclusion of other more important causes; and also exaggerate the harms of c-sections, while minimizing the harms to the mother of forceps births. Safe maternal care requires at least a 20% c-section rate, so we have to focus on all aspects of maternity care, not only c-sections. A single-minded obsession with reducing c-sections results in things like the horrible scandals in England: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/aug/12/midwives-to-stop-using-term-normal-birth

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is a necessary c-section? Who are you to tel someone how much risk they are willing to subject their baby to? Is a 5% chance of death sufficient? What about a 2% of cerebral palsy? What about a 13% chance of hypoxic brain injury?

Isn't the OB supposed to be educated enough to make a recommendation? They typically prefer to go with doing the surgery.

No, they don't. And I don't think you have any clue what you're talking about.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American childbirth is nothing to be proud of. Our obstetricians have not been trained in the age old art of waiting. Allowing nature to take its course is something they are "too busy" to do. They're too "overqualified" to sit down and do nothing. That's one reason why they hate the idea of homebirth.

Totally! That and their arbitrary preference for live babies.

Your fear-mongering is unnecessary. We're not in the dark ages any more. Childbirth is not an illness.

Childbirth is not life-threatening because of modern medicine. It didn't just become less dangerous on its own. And it does become an illness for many women.

I hate to break it to you, but IF I had been in a hospital for our baby's birth, it WOULD have been an emergency surgical birth. Her presentation wasn't the easiest, but I had two incredibly educated and experienced midwives who knew exactly what to do. The only part that hurt, was the restiching. Ouch. Medication was unnecessary.

Our homebirth was the best decision I ever made. I had previously been at hospital births with a few friends, and I preferred to avoid it if it wasn't necessary. In the hospital, you must conform to all of their rules and restrictions.

I'm glad you got away with it. You played the odds and won. Congratulations! I am sincerely glad.

Not everyone is willing to spin that wheel.

If I had opted for a hospital birth experience, there would certainly been a Cesarean or forceps. Thank God for my expert midwives who spared me from unnecessary surgery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American childbirth is nothing to be proud of. Our obstetricians have not been trained in the age old art of waiting. Allowing nature to take its course is something they are "too busy" to do. They're too "overqualified" to sit down and do nothing. That's one reason why they hate the idea of homebirth.

Totally! That and their arbitrary preference for live babies.

Your fear-mongering is unnecessary. We're not in the dark ages any more. Childbirth is not an illness.

Childbirth is not life-threatening because of modern medicine. It didn't just become less dangerous on its own. And it does become an illness for many women.

I hate to break it to you, but IF I had been in a hospital for our baby's birth, it WOULD have been an emergency surgical birth. Her presentation wasn't the easiest, but I had two incredibly educated and experienced midwives who knew exactly what to do. The only part that hurt, was the restiching. Ouch. Medication was unnecessary.

Our homebirth was the best decision I ever made. I had previously been at hospital births with a few friends, and I preferred to avoid it if it wasn't necessary. In the hospital, you must conform to all of their rules and restrictions.

I'm glad you got away with it. You played the odds and won. Congratulations! I am sincerely glad.

Not everyone is willing to spin that wheel.

If I had opted for a hospital birth experience, there would certainly been a Cesarean or forceps. Thank God for my expert midwives who spared me from unnecessary surgery.

You again. You're not actually convincing anyone. It's not normal to want to push your baby's health to the edge like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American childbirth is nothing to be proud of. Our obstetricians have not been trained in the age old art of waiting. Allowing nature to take its course is something they are "too busy" to do. They're too "overqualified" to sit down and do nothing. That's one reason why they hate the idea of homebirth.

Totally! That and their arbitrary preference for live babies.

Your fear-mongering is unnecessary. We're not in the dark ages any more. Childbirth is not an illness.

Childbirth is not life-threatening because of modern medicine. It didn't just become less dangerous on its own. And it does become an illness for many women.

I hate to break it to you, but IF I had been in a hospital for our baby's birth, it WOULD have been an emergency surgical birth. Her presentation wasn't the easiest, but I had two incredibly educated and experienced midwives who knew exactly what to do. The only part that hurt, was the restiching. Ouch. Medication was unnecessary.

Our homebirth was the best decision I ever made. I had previously been at hospital births with a few friends, and I preferred to avoid it if it wasn't necessary. In the hospital, you must conform to all of their rules and restrictions.

I'm glad you got away with it. You played the odds and won. Congratulations! I am sincerely glad.

Not everyone is willing to spin that wheel.

If I had opted for a hospital birth experience, there would certainly been a Cesarean or forceps. Thank God for my expert midwives who spared me from unnecessary surgery.

Having had 3 c-sections, I can think of at least 100 worse things I have had to do. The home birth movement has really done a disservice to women with their demonization of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American childbirth is nothing to be proud of. Our obstetricians have not been trained in the age old art of waiting. Allowing nature to take its course is something they are "too busy" to do. They're too "overqualified" to sit down and do nothing. That's one reason why they hate the idea of homebirth.

Totally! That and their arbitrary preference for live babies.

Your fear-mongering is unnecessary. We're not in the dark ages any more. Childbirth is not an illness.

Childbirth is not life-threatening because of modern medicine. It didn't just become less dangerous on its own. And it does become an illness for many women.

I hate to break it to you, but IF I had been in a hospital for our baby's birth, it WOULD have been an emergency surgical birth. Her presentation wasn't the easiest, but I had two incredibly educated and experienced midwives who knew exactly what to do. The only part that hurt, was the restiching. Ouch. Medication was unnecessary.

Our homebirth was the best decision I ever made. I had previously been at hospital births with a few friends, and I preferred to avoid it if it wasn't necessary. In the hospital, you must conform to all of their rules and restrictions.

I'm glad you got away with it. You played the odds and won. Congratulations! I am sincerely glad.

Not everyone is willing to spin that wheel.

If I had opted for a hospital birth experience, there would certainly been a Cesarean or forceps. Thank God for my expert midwives who spared me from unnecessary surgery.

You again. You're not actually convincing anyone. It's not normal to want to push your baby's health to the edge like that.

Time to start respecting mothers (of every race) if they want to give birth in a hospital.

[Anonymous]

Are you guys just 100% clueless about how to deal with a troll? Man, you are keeping this flame alive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:American childbirth is nothing to be proud of. Our obstetricians have not been trained in the age old art of waiting. Allowing nature to take its course is something they are "too busy" to do. They're too "overqualified" to sit down and do nothing. That's one reason why they hate the idea of homebirth.

Totally! That and their arbitrary preference for live babies.

Your fear-mongering is unnecessary. We're not in the dark ages any more. Childbirth is not an illness.

Childbirth is not life-threatening because of modern medicine. It didn't just become less dangerous on its own. And it does become an illness for many women.

I hate to break it to you, but IF I had been in a hospital for our baby's birth, it WOULD have been an emergency surgical birth. Her presentation wasn't the easiest, but I had two incredibly educated and experienced midwives who knew exactly what to do. The only part that hurt, was the restiching. Ouch. Medication was unnecessary.

Our homebirth was the best decision I ever made. I had previously been at hospital births with a few friends, and I preferred to avoid it if it wasn't necessary. In the hospital, you must conform to all of their rules and restrictions.

I'm glad you got away with it. You played the odds and won. Congratulations! I am sincerely glad.

Not everyone is willing to spin that wheel.

If I had opted for a hospital birth experience, there would certainly been a Cesarean or forceps. Thank God for my expert midwives who spared me from unnecessary surgery.

You've posted about your experience multiple times here, no? I'm glad you had a good experience and are happy with your choice.

If we are going with anecdotes, it's worth also linking to Hurt by Homebirth, a compilation of links to online articles about injuries and deaths in situations where women made the choice to homebirth. Sometimes you get lucky, sometimes you don't. Anecdotes go both ways.

Further up in the thread are links to summary statistics that look at the general rates of outcomes, not just anecdotes.

[Anonymous]

There's an amazing book, "Immaculate Deception"
about childbirth in America.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
There's an amazing book, "Immaculate Deception"
about childbirth in America.

That was published in 1975, right?

Is that your post, OP? I'm sensing a consistent theme for the woo sources cited in this thread.

[Anonymous]

PS: I mean, it's not that there wasn't something to say at the time. But you get that medical care is a lot different than it was 40 years ago, right? We can learn things from the past, but you can't ignore things like the evolving understanding of SIDS or, in fact, the changing understanding of perinatal morbidity and mortality.

If you only cite sources from the mid-1900s, it doesn't inspire confidence that you understand what is going on now and what has happened since then.

[Anonymous]

Male obstetricians have kept women down (literally!) for far too long. When she wants to get up and walk down the hall, who are you to say she can't? When she needs her mother or girlfriend there, who are you to say she can't? When she wants to hold her baby, who are you to say "not yet"?

You doctors seem to believe her baby's birth is all about you. It ain't. You got it backwards. You take orders from her. She's in charge of her own body. Not you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Male obstetricians have kept women down (literally!) for far too long. When she wants to get up and walk down the hall, who are you to say she can't? When she needs her mother or girlfriend there, who are you to say she can't? When she wants to hold her baby, who are you to say "not yet"?

You doctors seem to believe her baby's birth is all about you. It ain't. You got it backwards. You take orders from her. She's in charge of her own body. Not you.

?? In my hospital birth, they had telemetry monitors so I could walk around freely (until I requested an received a blissful epidural!), could have anyone I wanted in the room, and they handed me my baby right away. Do you think this is 1962?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Male obstetricians have kept women down (literally!) for far too long. When she wants to get up and walk down the hall, who are you to say she can't? When she needs her mother or girlfriend there, who are you to say she can't? When she wants to hold her baby, who are you to say "not yet"?

You doctors seem to believe her baby's birth is all about you. It ain't. You got it backwards. You take orders from her. She's in charge of her own body. Not you.

It's absolutely true that a woman is in charge of her own body.

If you enter into a partnership with a professional who explicitly assumes responsibility for medical outcomes, then it becomes more of a negotiated relationship, and things are more complicated. Relationships are always more complicated.

I think viewing the woman as "taking orders" from the doctor is incorrect, but so is viewing the doctor as "taking orders" from the woman. I mean, if the woman "orders" the doctor to do something medically irresponsible, it's the doctor's duty not to do it. That's why they have a license and are led tot he responsibility of it, not just held to the wishes of patients.