Story about the "free birthers." Anyone read it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you PPs, I'm the med free VBAC poster.

Free birthers are likely more a product of the OB system who are desperate to have a say in their own birth rather than narcissists trying to live out some fantasy birth.

there are other options besides a hospital birth and giving birth without anyone with any experience to guide you. If it's not narcissism, what is it?

It is irresponsible to not have another experienced person around. Period. She and her husband were not equipped for this, clearly, because they didn't have the sense to seek assistance until six days had passed. Talk about being more committed to the process than the outcome.

No. Most of us don't have an option between a very medicalized hospital birth and a free birth. You go with what your insurance allows.

No, it's not true that all OBs are out to get you. In this day and age, if you make an effort to actually talk to your OB and establish your preferences, you can have a less medicalized birth. Nobody is going to tie you down and administer an epidural and episiotomy when you arrive at the hospital.

If you have extreme preferences like being AMA and high risk and wanting to go to 43 weeks ... well, that's a different matter.

My OB wasn't out to "get me" but yes, she wanted to schedule a c section at 40 weeks for me and I had a forced induction at 41 weeks. I wanted to go to 42 weeks. I was extremely healthy, so neither were medically indicated. I've had 3 vaginal births, but they were all after 30+ hours of induction. My babies were not ready and I wanted to wait. I have never been allowed to go to 42 weeks like I would like.

My homebirth midwives allow patients to go to 43 weeks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I did not want much medical monitoring or intervention. I didn't want a band around my stomach, I didn't want drugs, I didn't want ... much of anything.

And so I found a midwife who agreed to do what I wanted as long as I and the baby were not in distress. And she agreed to work with me as long as I agreed to medical intervention if either of us were in distress.

Me, DH, Midwife, Doula and Baby were the only ones in the room. I went home 26 hours after giving birth.

I had a hospital birth and went home in the same amount of time.

I had a c-section and went home at 24-hours. You can have whatever kind of birth you want, but this has become so politicized that it's dangerous to babies and women. So much false information out there!

Right, and the first PP here also had a hospital birth. You missed the whole point of her post and you're misinformed about the options available to those of us that want to deliver out of a hospital.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Home birth PP here. That said, the viciousness with which she was then attacked while mourning her baby is really disturbing. And sadly unsurprising.

Because her baby would be alive if she cared to be responsible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Home birth PP here. That said, the viciousness with which she was then attacked while mourning her baby is really disturbing. And sadly unsurprising.

Agree. After all, babies also die (as do mothers - we have an astronomical maternal death rate!!) in the hospital.

Babies die or are brain damaged at a much higher rate if born at home. And home birth would do NOTHING at all to help maternal mortality, which is linked to NOT ENOUGH medical care, not too little medical care. Home birth is not going to do anything for pre-eclampsia, hemmorhage, or a mother with pre-existing cardiac issues.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Home birth PP here. That said, the viciousness with which she was then attacked while mourning her baby is really disturbing. And sadly unsurprising.

Agree. After all, babies also die (as do mothers - we have an astronomical maternal death rate!!) in the hospital.

There are psychos lurking on every corner of the internet ready to be outraged at anything. This is not specific to the "free-birther" or any other movement. Every day, there is another story about another person who received threats and horrible messages from psychos on the internet.

There are idiots everywhere. Some decide to go crazy over free birth. Some decide to go crazy over anti-vaccination. You name it, there is an extremist, idiot group about it somewhere. There is no shortage of stupid people who overreact and no shortage of crazy people who will harass them about it on the internet.

It's the downsides of the internet. Getting crazy people together is one of them. Giving psychos a way to harass from afar is another.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you PPs, I'm the med free VBAC poster.

Free birthers are likely more a product of the OB system who are desperate to have a say in their own birth rather than narcissists trying to live out some fantasy birth.

there are other options besides a hospital birth and giving birth without anyone with any experience to guide you. If it's not narcissism, what is it?

It is irresponsible to not have another experienced person around. Period. She and her husband were not equipped for this, clearly, because they didn't have the sense to seek assistance until six days had passed. Talk about being more committed to the process than the outcome.

No. Most of us don't have an option between a very medicalized hospital birth and a free birth. You go with what your insurance allows.

No, it's not true that all OBs are out to get you. In this day and age, if you make an effort to actually talk to your OB and establish your preferences, you can have a less medicalized birth. Nobody is going to tie you down and administer an epidural and episiotomy when you arrive at the hospital.

If you have extreme preferences like being AMA and high risk and wanting to go to 43 weeks ... well, that's a different matter.

My OB wasn't out to "get me" but yes, she wanted to schedule a c section at 40 weeks for me and I had a forced induction at 41 weeks. I wanted to go to 42 weeks. I was extremely healthy, so neither were medically indicated. I've had 3 vaginal births, but they were all after 30+ hours of induction. My babies were not ready and I wanted to wait. I have never been allowed to go to 42 weeks like I would like.

Why did she want to schedule a c-section? And how did she "force" you to get an induction? Did she go to court or something? I think there's a lot you're leaving out here where you were going against well-founded medical advice. Doctors don't suggest planned c-sections for no reason. If you want to go to 42-weeks, then have the courage of your convictions and just don't show up for the induction and go to the hospital when you're in labor at 44 weeks. (Also, enjoy your elevated risk of stillbirth.)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you PPs, I'm the med free VBAC poster.

Free birthers are likely more a product of the OB system who are desperate to have a say in their own birth rather than narcissists trying to live out some fantasy birth.

there are other options besides a hospital birth and giving birth without anyone with any experience to guide you. If it's not narcissism, what is it?

It is irresponsible to not have another experienced person around. Period. She and her husband were not equipped for this, clearly, because they didn't have the sense to seek assistance until six days had passed. Talk about being more committed to the process than the outcome.

No. Most of us don't have an option between a very medicalized hospital birth and a free birth. You go with what your insurance allows.

No, it's not true that all OBs are out to get you. In this day and age, if you make an effort to actually talk to your OB and establish your preferences, you can have a less medicalized birth. Nobody is going to tie you down and administer an epidural and episiotomy when you arrive at the hospital.

If you have extreme preferences like being AMA and high risk and wanting to go to 43 weeks ... well, that's a different matter.

My OB wasn't out to "get me" but yes, she wanted to schedule a c section at 40 weeks for me and I had a forced induction at 41 weeks. I wanted to go to 42 weeks. I was extremely healthy, so neither were medically indicated. I've had 3 vaginal births, but they were all after 30+ hours of induction. My babies were not ready and I wanted to wait. I have never been allowed to go to 42 weeks like I would like.

Why did she want to schedule a c-section? And how did she "force" you to get an induction? Did she go to court or something? I think there's a lot you're leaving out here where you were going against well-founded medical advice. Doctors don't suggest planned c-sections for no reason. If you want to go to 42-weeks, then have the courage of your convictions and just don't show up for the induction and go to the hospital when you're in labor at 44 weeks. (Also, enjoy your elevated risk of stillbirth.)

You're a piece of work.

Obviously the threat of going against medical advice, which means insurance might not cover her care, is how they strong-armed her into inducing.

"Well-founded medical advice"? Come on. The only thing that should justify threatening to deny coverage because of going AMA is if you are declining life-saving care. Was her baby in imminent danger? Doubtful. Even things like "low fluid" and "advanced maternal age" are not evidence-based markers of a life-threatening problem.

The risk of stillbirth, even elevated as it is after 42 weeks, is still very very low. Going past 40 weeks is not a death sentence, and it's the mom's choice whether she wants to accept that risk, not the providers. Or at least it should be, but in hers and many cases, that choice is denied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Thank you PPs, I'm the med free VBAC poster.

Free birthers are likely more a product of the OB system who are desperate to have a say in their own birth rather than narcissists trying to live out some fantasy birth.

there are other options besides a hospital birth and giving birth without anyone with any experience to guide you. If it's not narcissism, what is it?

It is irresponsible to not have another experienced person around. Period. She and her husband were not equipped for this, clearly, because they didn't have the sense to seek assistance until six days had passed. Talk about being more committed to the process than the outcome.

No. Most of us don't have an option between a very medicalized hospital birth and a free birth. You go with what your insurance allows.

No, it's not true that all OBs are out to get you. In this day and age, if you make an effort to actually talk to your OB and establish your preferences, you can have a less medicalized birth. Nobody is going to tie you down and administer an epidural and episiotomy when you arrive at the hospital.

If you have extreme preferences like being AMA and high risk and wanting to go to 43 weeks ... well, that's a different matter.

My OB wasn't out to "get me" but yes, she wanted to schedule a c section at 40 weeks for me and I had a forced induction at 41 weeks. I wanted to go to 42 weeks. I was extremely healthy, so neither were medically indicated. I've had 3 vaginal births, but they were all after 30+ hours of induction. My babies were not ready and I wanted to wait. I have never been allowed to go to 42 weeks like I would like.

Why did she want to schedule a c-section? And how did she "force" you to get an induction? Did she go to court or something? I think there's a lot you're leaving out here where you were going against well-founded medical advice. Doctors don't suggest planned c-sections for no reason. If you want to go to 42-weeks, then have the courage of your convictions and just don't show up for the induction and go to the hospital when you're in labor at 44 weeks. (Also, enjoy your elevated risk of stillbirth.)

You're a piece of work.

Obviously the threat of going against medical advice, which means insurance might not cover her care, is how they strong-armed her into inducing.

"Well-founded medical advice"? Come on. The only thing that should justify threatening to deny coverage because of going AMA is if you are declining life-saving care. Was her baby in imminent danger? Doubtful. Even things like "low fluid" and "advanced maternal age" are not evidence-based markers of a life-threatening problem.

The risk of stillbirth, even elevated as it is after 42 weeks, is still very very low. Going past 40 weeks is not a death sentence, and it's the mom's choice whether she wants to accept that risk, not the providers. Or at least it should be, but in hers and many cases, that choice is denied.

Still not convinced. Who told her she wouldn't get insurance coverage? Again nobody is denying your choice; you just don't actually have the courage to stand up for yourself. Or more correctly, you want to have it both ways: refuse the OB's medical advice, and have the OB continue to care for you, and then also likely sue/blame the OB if something went wrong due to your own decision to refuse their advice.

Short of a court order, nobody is "taking away your choice." What they are doing is telling you you're making a bad choice -- that's what you don't like.

Also, if you actually act like a rational, sane, person, then chances are you can have a meaninful conversation with your OB about waiting to induce. This means that you have to acknowledge that you understand the increased risk, and probably come to some sort of agreement about following the OB's advice when the risk gets too high. But if you go in armed with printouts from evidencebasedbirth.com, acting like the OB is your enemy, and like you know more than they do ... then it will be much harder to have this kind of shared decisionmaking conversation.

[Anonymous]

Still not convinced. Who told her she wouldn't get insurance coverage? Again nobody is denying your choice; you just don't actually have the courage to stand up for yourself. Or more correctly, you want to have it both ways: refuse the OB's medical advice, and have the OB continue to care for you, and then also likely sue/blame the OB if something went wrong due to your own decision to refuse their advice.

Short of a court order, nobody is "taking away your choice." What they are doing is telling you you're making a bad choice -- that's what you don't like.

Also, if you actually act like a rational, sane, person, then chances are you can have a meaninful conversation with your OB about waiting to induce. This means that you have to acknowledge that you understand the increased risk, and probably come to some sort of agreement about following the OB's advice when the risk gets too high. But if you go in armed with printouts from evidencebasedbirth.com, acting like the OB is your enemy, and like you know more than they do ... then it will be much harder to have this kind of shared decisionmaking conversation.

All of this. Also, how is all of this about what YOU want? Your OB also has a responsibility to weigh the risks of your placenta degrading and other risks. How would you feel if you had needed an emergency c-section because your placenta wasn't providing nutrients or they could no longer feel the baby kicking, or if he/she had to have his clavicle broken to be delivered because the baby grew too large?

I asked all the many doctors that treated me during both my pregnancies a MILLION questions, with an eye toward me gaining knowledge, not laying down the law to them. Did everything go exactly as I wanted it? No, not in either case. But I felt well taken care of and listened to. My first OB flat out told me she would induce at 40 weeks because in her experience she had observed unfavorable outcomes by waiting longer, and she was not willing to take the risk as the provider. I could live with that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Still not convinced. Who told her she wouldn't get insurance coverage? Again nobody is denying your choice; you just don't actually have the courage to stand up for yourself. Or more correctly, you want to have it both ways: refuse the OB's medical advice, and have the OB continue to care for you, and then also likely sue/blame the OB if something went wrong due to your own decision to refuse their advice.

Short of a court order, nobody is "taking away your choice." What they are doing is telling you you're making a bad choice -- that's what you don't like.

Also, if you actually act like a rational, sane, person, then chances are you can have a meaninful conversation with your OB about waiting to induce. This means that you have to acknowledge that you understand the increased risk, and probably come to some sort of agreement about following the OB's advice when the risk gets too high. But if you go in armed with printouts from evidencebasedbirth.com, acting like the OB is your enemy, and like you know more than they do ... then it will be much harder to have this kind of shared decisionmaking conversation.

All of this. Also, how is all of this about what YOU want? Your OB also has a responsibility to weigh the risks of your placenta degrading and other risks. How would you feel if you had needed an emergency c-section because your placenta wasn't providing nutrients or they could no longer feel the baby kicking, or if he/she had to have his clavicle broken to be delivered because the baby grew too large?

I asked all the many doctors that treated me during both my pregnancies a MILLION questions, with an eye toward me gaining knowledge, not laying down the law to them. Did everything go exactly as I wanted it? No, not in either case. But I felt well taken care of and listened to. My first OB flat out told me she would induce at 40 weeks because in her experience she had observed unfavorable outcomes by waiting longer, and she was not willing to take the risk as the provider. I could live with that.

And my OB flat out told me we don't recommend inducing until 42 weeks unless there is a good reason, but we can discuss it if you want. That made sense for me when I asked questions about risks of waiting v. inducing WRT my history and preferences. That is true shared decision-making, not being told my risks have been weighed for me and here's what's going to happen.

[Anonymous]

FYI guys, it is a complete and utter myth that insurance won't cover going "AMA". They won't cover medically unnecessary care; but, for example, what are you even talking about that you "had" to show up for an induction at 40 weeks? What is there to not cover at that point? Are you claiming that they would not have covered your birth when you showed up in labor at 41 weeks? Bullshit, and you know it. Logic, guys.
Same goes for checking yourself out of a hospital "AMA" 24 hours after a c-section. I wouldn't do it, but your shortened hospital stay doesn't become medically unnecessary because you left early.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:FYI guys, it is a complete and utter myth that insurance won't cover going "AMA". They won't cover medically unnecessary care; but, for example, what are you even talking about that you "had" to show up for an induction at 40 weeks? What is there to not cover at that point? Are you claiming that they would not have covered your birth when you showed up in labor at 41 weeks? Bullshit, and you know it. Logic, guys.
Same goes for checking yourself out of a hospital "AMA" 24 hours after a c-section. I wouldn't do it, but your shortened hospital stay doesn't become medically unnecessary because you left early.

NP. I was told for my first two births in the hospital (both well respected hospitals in different states) that if I left early AMA, my insurance probably wouldn't cover it. This time, I called my insurance company prior to the birth to ask this exact question, and they confirmed that yes they'd pay of course as long as I had a legit reason to be in the hospital in the first place which of course childbirth is. So I was armed and ready and curious what this hospital (a third one, and one that would definitely be considered within the top few in the country) would try on me.... and I literally couldn't believe it when I was told the same myth yet again by a nurse.

It's amazing and disgusting how they try to scare people. Anyway, the ONLY thing I wasn't sure about - and what they argued this time - is that if I ended up being readmitted for a related/same issue or complications that are in any way related to the birth, then insurance wouldn't pay for the readmission. I haven't confirmed that, but I would do that if I ever had a 4th child.

In my case, it wasn't me being held this time against my will but the baby (first two times it was me), and so I had to keep the baby there longer even though it was CLEARLY not the best thing for the baby (I was struggling with milk production due to being overtired, no sleep for mom in hospital, etc) because I didn't want CPS on my doorstep the next day. Of course everything was totally fine once I got home.

So I can see why people don't want to deal with hospitals. They're great when things go wrong, and I agree it's irresponsible to not be near one if you have the choice, but they really aren't the best places for most healthy mom/baby pairs to be within a couple of hours after the birth.

[Anonymous]

I am not a freebirther but I did have three homebirths with certified nurse-midwives and a hospital less than 10 minutes away.

I do think though that it's important to recognize as well the risks to women and babies both*from* the hospital. Some non-zero number of babies are born still due directly to medical interventions/malpractice. And a much larger than necessary number of women are harmed --many permanently -- or even killed by medical malpractice as well. One of the reasons that maternal mortality is so much higher in the US than in other developed countries is that women become secondary to babies in the labor and delivery process. Like so many of the PP upthread -- you cast aspersions and yes, hatred towards women who choose to freebirth (and/or homebirth) and accuse them of caring about their experiences more than their babies' lives, but there are very real risks to modern obstetric practices.

Women die *because* of medical practices -- and malpractice and not always for lack of them. In fact, half the maternal deaths are preventable! That's not about how dangerous childbirth is inherently -- it's how screwed up and flawed our obstetric system is.

Yes, a live mother and baby at the end of the process is absolutely the goal, but the mother should not have to sacrifice her own physical well-being because of the laser focus on delivering her baby rather than keeping her safe and comfortable throughout the process.

See this story just published today in the NY Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/opinion/sunday/maternal-mortality-rates.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

And of course this landmark series from ProPublica earlier this year:

https://www.propublica.org/series/lost-mothers

So instead of hating on freebirthers, maybe you could be a little more critical of our truly poor healthcare system and try to imagine why women would object to being part of that system. It's not a choice I would make -- but it's also not appropriate IMO to dismiss all concerns about the medical system as whacko.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am not a freebirther but I did have three homebirths with certified nurse-midwives and a hospital less than 10 minutes away.

I do think though that it's important to recognize as well the risks to women and babies both*from* the hospital. Some non-zero number of babies are born still due directly to medical interventions/malpractice. And a much larger than necessary number of women are harmed --many permanently -- or even killed by medical malpractice as well. One of the reasons that maternal mortality is so much higher in the US than in other developed countries is that women become secondary to babies in the labor and delivery process. Like so many of the PP upthread -- you cast aspersions and yes, hatred towards women who choose to freebirth (and/or homebirth) and accuse them of caring about their experiences more than their babies' lives, but there are very real risks to modern obstetric practices.

Women die *because* of medical practices -- and malpractice and not always for lack of them. In fact, half the maternal deaths are preventable! That's not about how dangerous childbirth is inherently -- it's how screwed up and flawed our obstetric system is.

Yes, a live mother and baby at the end of the process is absolutely the goal, but the mother should not have to sacrifice her own physical well-being because of the laser focus on delivering her baby rather than keeping her safe and comfortable throughout the process.

See this story just published today in the NY Times:

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/16/opinion/sunday/maternal-mortality-rates.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage

And of course this landmark series from ProPublica earlier this year:

https://www.propublica.org/series/lost-mothers

So instead of hating on freebirthers, maybe you could be a little more critical of our truly poor healthcare system and try to imagine why women would object to being part of that system. It's not a choice I would make -- but it's also not appropriate IMO to dismiss all concerns about the medical system as whacko.

Completely illogical. The women who died in those stories needed more medical care, not less.

[Anonymous]

Question for the home Birthers: what happens if a woman is discovered to need an emergency c-section while doing a home birth? Can an ambulance get the mom to the hospital in time?