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

[Anonymous]

A lot of the home birthers/ free birther people also end up homeschooling. You know why? Their children are brain damaged and can’t function in normal schools. Sure, they claim it’s because of standardized testing or “not enough time outside” but the honest truth is that the kid’s brain got fried because their parent refused c-sections or induction. Rolling around in a bathtub because you wanted an “empowering”
Birth means that your kid’s mental and physical health suffered damage before they even had a chance. No amount of breast milk is going to fix a kid who didn’t get oxygen because the midwife wasn’t into “monitoring.”

I’ve seen your weird little kids at the park and at the nature center. Little Ezra and Daisy are not normal.

[Anonymous]

I am in my late 50s so I and most of my friends were somewhat hippie-ish in our 20s-30s and many had home births. Many more had birth-center births. All the kids are now grown; not a one isn't normal and successful.

What is different now in the 2000s that home-birthed and birth-center kids are not normal? I adopted my 3 kids but if I had chosen to give birth I would have absolutely had a water birth, barring high-risk circumstances.

[Anonymous]

I know a woman who delivered at home with only her husband and other kids around.

The baby didn't breathe for the first couple of minutes, sobyhey left the cord attached.

Seems unnecessarily risky to me!

[Anonymous]

Sobyhey = so they

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:A lot of the home birthers/ free birther people also end up homeschooling. You know why? Their children are brain damaged and can’t function in normal schools. Sure, they claim it’s because of standardized testing or “not enough time outside” but the honest truth is that the kid’s brain got fried because their parent refused c-sections or induction. Rolling around in a bathtub because you wanted an “empowering”
Birth means that your kid’s mental and physical health suffered damage before they even had a chance. No amount of breast milk is going to fix a kid who didn’t get oxygen because the midwife wasn’t into “monitoring.”

I’ve seen your weird little kids at the park and at the nature center. Little Ezra and Daisy are not normal.

We homeschool and I'd bet half our net worth that any one of my kids would beat any one of your kids in an IQ test.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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?

Yes. The premise of home birth is there is a midwife monitoring you closely and recommends a transfer before something progresses to a full-blown complication.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Yes. The premise of home birth is there is a midwife monitoring you closely and recommends a transfer before something progresses to a full-blown complication.

But in that case the midwife would have hospital and OB connections. I mean it happens that women just show up at labor and delivery in distress, but it's rare.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Yes. The premise of home birth is there is a midwife monitoring you closely and recommends a transfer before something progresses to a full-blown complication.

But in that case the midwife would have hospital and OB connections. I mean it happens that women just show up at labor and delivery in distress, but it's rare.

I'm pro-home birth but I wouldn't do it without a midwife practice that had a solid transfer protocol in place. That's the safety net that makes home birth a valid choice. I wouldn't choose unassisted birth. There is scientific evidence that women have had birth assistance for millenia and I assume that's for a good reason. Our species needs help to deliver babies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know a woman who delivered at home with only her husband and other kids around.

The baby didn't breathe for the first couple of minutes, sobyhey left the cord attached.

Seems unnecessarily risky to me!

OMG. Do you know a single thing about pregnancy and delivery? The placenta continues to deliver oxygen to the newborn through the umbilical cord. The placenta does not all of a sudden become a ticking time bomb once baby is out. I am not agreeing that freebirth is a good choice, and it's much safer to have a trained attendant (certified nurse-midwife) there to evaluate the situation and act quickly and appropriately. But in the story you tell, the questionable decision was to freebirth without someone trained to evaluate whether this was a true medical emergency and respond appropriately, not to leave the placenta attached to ensure the baby is still getting oxygen. It's not actually evidence-based medicine to clamp the cord immediately if the baby doesn't start breathing right away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Clearly this is your knee-jerk reaction and you didn't read the stories. In many cases, inappropriate medical treatment decisions *lead to* bad outcomes for the mother (and sometimes baby).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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?

Yes. The premise of home birth is there is a midwife monitoring you closely and recommends a transfer before something progresses to a full-blown complication.

well, that's the fantasy of homebirth. homebirth has a higher rate of death and disability precisely because it's difficult to identify and manage a complication in time. Obviously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know a woman who delivered at home with only her husband and other kids around.

The baby didn't breathe for the first couple of minutes, sobyhey left the cord attached.

Seems unnecessarily risky to me!

OMG. Do you know a single thing about pregnancy and delivery? The placenta continues to deliver oxygen to the newborn through the umbilical cord. The placenta does not all of a sudden become a ticking time bomb once baby is out. I am not agreeing that freebirth is a good choice, and it's much safer to have a trained attendant (certified nurse-midwife) there to evaluate the situation and act quickly and appropriately. But in the story you tell, the questionable decision was to freebirth without someone trained to evaluate whether this was a true medical emergency and respond appropriately, not to leave the placenta attached to ensure the baby is still getting oxygen. It's not actually evidence-based medicine to clamp the cord immediately if the baby doesn't start breathing right away.

Hello. The risky part is that they had nobody trained in neonatal resusciation and no equipment either. No amount of delayed cord clamping is going to help an asphyxiated baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Clearly this is your knee-jerk reaction and you didn't read the stories. In many cases, inappropriate medical treatment decisions *lead to* bad outcomes for the mother (and sometimes baby).

Look sugar. The fact is, that states that have improved maternal outcomes have focused on MORE AND BETTER medical care. Not less. Stuff like the pre-eclampsia and hemmorhage protocols in California. They also focus on reducing c-section rates, but to do this SAFELY you need additional intervention in the form of research-based understandings of when to let labor proceed and when to intervene. So that's not just "let everyone give birth at home." Not by a long shot. The idea that the infant and maternal mortality rate is going to be solved by doulas and homebirths is unbearably absurd and privileged.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If by “more care” you mean “the most basic care available” then yes, they needed more care.

Because what’s really happening in Westernized countries is obstetrics providers (OBs and midwives) becoming too dependent on technology ($$$$$) to tell them if something is wrong. Modern women dying of 16th century childbirth killers is making them wake up to the fact that we’ve reached the point of over-dependence on technology to the exclusion of basic medical care. More isn’t always better.

I read through all the Lost Mother stories and have been following these articles on maternal mortality. Most of the deaths and near deaths detailed there were from complications that are treatable, but the providers missed something they would have picked up on had they paid more attention to the new mom’s symptoms instead of dismissing everything but a beeping monitor or a positive lab result. The miraculous medical advance California started implementing to reduce deaths from severe postpartum hemorrhage? Crash carts to weigh bloody pads on a scale rather than the old method of care, which was to assume a woman was bleeding normally until she started going into shock. Oh, and reducing elective inductions and c-sections to reduce the risk of severe postpartum hemorrhage happening in the first place. Novel approach medical community!

And doctors are generally hugely dismissive of the risks associated with the technology they use, believing that if something is life-saving in some circumstances it must be harmless when applied to everyone, even healthy people. It’s not! Especially not when you are getting the stellar combination of ultra-technology + minimum basic care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

If by “more care” you mean “the most basic care available” then yes, they needed more care.

Because what’s really happening in Westernized countries is obstetrics providers (OBs and midwives) becoming too dependent on technology ($$$$$) to tell them if something is wrong. Modern women dying of 16th century childbirth killers is making them wake up to the fact that we’ve reached the point of over-dependence on technology to the exclusion of basic medical care. More isn’t always better.

I read through all the Lost Mother stories and have been following these articles on maternal mortality. Most of the deaths and near deaths detailed there were from complications that are treatable, but the providers missed something they would have picked up on had they paid more attention to the new mom’s symptoms instead of dismissing everything but a beeping monitor or a positive lab result. The miraculous medical advance California started implementing to reduce deaths from severe postpartum hemorrhage? Crash carts to weigh bloody pads on a scale rather than the old method of care, which was to assume a woman was bleeding normally until she started going into shock. Oh, and reducing elective inductions and c-sections to reduce the risk of severe postpartum hemorrhage happening in the first place. Novel approach medical community!

And doctors are generally hugely dismissive of the risks associated with the technology they use, believing that if something is life-saving in some circumstances it must be harmless when applied to everyone, even healthy people. It’s not! Especially not when you are getting the stellar combination of ultra-technology + minimum basic care.

Can't you even see the contradictions? You first write, that OBs are "too dependent on technology" and then you acknolege the proven efforts to reduce mortality (crash carts and other techniques to ACCESS technology). There is some role for reducing c-sections, but again, that's STILL dependent on modern technology to monitor the labor. And I don't believe there is any evidence about inductions increasing maternal mortality -- the research I've seen indicates the reverse.

Women need MORE and BETTER medical care. Not less.