Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this the case for any and all medical procedure and surgeries? I mean if they amputate a limb is pain relief really medically necessary?
Oh this is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Birth is not a medical procedure any more than eating a sandwich is, or taking a big dump. Yes it can be uncomfortable and even painful. Yes sometimes things go awry and medical intervention is needed. But otherwise... it what our bodies were literally designed to do.
And yes, I had an umedicated birth, so don't @ me.
LOL. You’re insane. You are incredibly sexist. Who compares birth to taking a dump??
A person who understands biology, and was prepared for (and had) an unmedicated birth. I think its much more sexist to say "women cannot do the thing they were designed to do without medical intervention." Don't we trust women a little more than that? I have no problem with a woman who wants pain meds, getting pain meds. But to assume it should be the default, or is necessary, because women just can't handle it -- nope, that's sexist.
Until about 100 years ago, women also died at incredibly high rates during childbirth. It's not sexist to point out that biology didn't make us the most efficient birthers of our large-headed progeny. Luckily, biology did give us big brains to enable us to solve problems that evolution did not by using tools and interventions...and it's not sexist to take advantage of medical advances.
Knowing that an epidural enabled me to sustain 2 very difficult labors without needing a c-section, I would absolutely argue that epidurals have contributed to reductions in maternal mortality rates. Also, it's more-or-less guaranteed that I and my babies would have died in childbirth without modern medicine...so talking about "what bodes are designed to do without medical intervention" is meaningless to me. Like many women throughout all of human history, my body wasn't properly designed to birth babies...and it's sexist to somehow imply I'm a defective human because of that.
The incredibly high morbidity and mortality rates you're referencing had more to do with how medicine was practiced during the industrial age while more and more women started birthing at hospitals instead of at home and MWs were delegitimized. There is not a lot of data on birthing before the industrial age but what is available shows that mortality rates were not incredibly high. MWs did routinely and successfully deliver babies in cases that would automatically warrant a c/s today.
Saying that women can not birth without medical intervention is one strategy for removing women's agency -- if it's a medical condition then obviously a doctor should be in charge and decide how everything should be done (in ways convenient to them). It's how we ended up with the horrors of twilight birthing ~80yrs ago. It's also how even today women are dictated to on how they are allowed to labor and birth.
This is a complete lie. Women frequently died from childbirth. Go and look at family trees going back to the 1600s in this country and you’ll see that men frequently had two wives. Why? Because their first wife often died in childbirth.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:For the birth of DD, the anesthesiologist was too late to the hospital (our fault -- long story) and by the time he arrived DW was already in labor. He wouldn't give her an epidural because she was already having regular contractions.
It looked like it really hurt. Certainly hurt my ears.
Hope the anesthesiologist is late to your vasectomy.
Anonymous wrote:I would demand a c section if they couldn't do the epi.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this the case for any and all medical procedure and surgeries? I mean if they amputate a limb is pain relief really medically necessary?
Oh this is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Birth is not a medical procedure any more than eating a sandwich is, or taking a big dump. Yes it can be uncomfortable and even painful. Yes sometimes things go awry and medical intervention is needed. But otherwise... it what our bodies were literally designed to do.
And yes, I had an umedicated birth, so don't @ me.
LOL. You’re insane. You are incredibly sexist. Who compares birth to taking a dump??
A person who understands biology, and was prepared for (and had) an unmedicated birth. I think its much more sexist to say "women cannot do the thing they were designed to do without medical intervention." Don't we trust women a little more than that? I have no problem with a woman who wants pain meds, getting pain meds. But to assume it should be the default, or is necessary, because women just can't handle it -- nope, that's sexist.
Until about 100 years ago, women also died at incredibly high rates during childbirth. It's not sexist to point out that biology didn't make us the most efficient birthers of our large-headed progeny. Luckily, biology did give us big brains to enable us to solve problems that evolution did not by using tools and interventions...and it's not sexist to take advantage of medical advances.
Knowing that an epidural enabled me to sustain 2 very difficult labors without needing a c-section, I would absolutely argue that epidurals have contributed to reductions in maternal mortality rates. Also, it's more-or-less guaranteed that I and my babies would have died in childbirth without modern medicine...so talking about "what bodes are designed to do without medical intervention" is meaningless to me. Like many women throughout all of human history, my body wasn't properly designed to birth babies...and it's sexist to somehow imply I'm a defective human because of that.
The incredibly high morbidity and mortality rates you're referencing had more to do with how medicine was practiced during the industrial age while more and more women started birthing at hospitals instead of at home and MWs were delegitimized. There is not a lot of data on birthing before the industrial age but what is available shows that mortality rates were not incredibly high. MWs did routinely and successfully deliver babies in cases that would automatically warrant a c/s today.
Saying that women can not birth without medical intervention is one strategy for removing women's agency -- if it's a medical condition then obviously a doctor should be in charge and decide how everything should be done (in ways convenient to them). It's how we ended up with the horrors of twilight birthing ~80yrs ago. It's also how even today women are dictated to on how they are allowed to labor and birth.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this the case for any and all medical procedure and surgeries? I mean if they amputate a limb is pain relief really medically necessary?
Oh this is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Birth is not a medical procedure any more than eating a sandwich is, or taking a big dump. Yes it can be uncomfortable and even painful. Yes sometimes things go awry and medical intervention is needed. But otherwise... it what our bodies were literally designed to do.
And yes, I had an umedicated birth, so don't @ me.
LOL. You’re insane. You are incredibly sexist. Who compares birth to taking a dump??
A person who understands biology, and was prepared for (and had) an unmedicated birth. I think its much more sexist to say "women cannot do the thing they were designed to do without medical intervention." Don't we trust women a little more than that? I have no problem with a woman who wants pain meds, getting pain meds. But to assume it should be the default, or is necessary, because women just can't handle it -- nope, that's sexist.
NP. I was also prepared for an unmedicated birth. Then PROM happened, contractions didn't start on their own, and I was put on pitocin. Then the pitocin was cranked up because I wasn't dilating at all. So, yeah, after 12 hours of that particular torture (which, sorry, all my planning/hypnobirthing/natural childbirth classes didn't help), I took the epidural when my midwife suggested it. It's wrong to suggest that women who eventually need an epidural just weren't well prepared. Stuff happens.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I used to listen to the Birth Hour and there would occasionally be someone on who would note they couldn't have an epidural, but they usually knew that in advance. Seems odd that this wasn't communicated to your friend until after the induction was started when they could have strategized to avoid her being in so much pain. That sounds like bad coordination/communication on the part of the medical team. Epidural analgesia can have serious side effects even among totally healthy people so I have to think it's not unheard of to risk someone out.
CRNA here from above. This is somewhat rare. Usually complications/conditions that take epidurals off the table are discussed during pregnancy. However it could be that the anesthesiologist on call that night was a little more conservative and didn't feel comfortable doing it despite her getting epidurals in the past. It could be be a condition that tends to worsen with each pregnancy so maybe its something that would get an OK the first time around but not for the 2nd or 3rd birth. Its really hard to say. I have made a few calls that are contested. I immediately call my boss who always backs us up. I had one woman call the head of the hospital (as in the CEO…not even a DR) who then called me and apologized but felt like he "had to try." I am a mom, I am a care provider, I want you to be comfortable but I mostly want you to be alive. As someone who has given birth with and without epidural I realize how much relief it can provide BUT that relief has to be compared to possible risks and I can't make you a good candidate because a.) you know "people" b.) you have had one before c.) Dr. ABC and Dr. XYZ said it would be fine.
Can you please share some conditions that would make you refuse an epidural? Who would be a candidate for a no-epidural decision if you were making it?
Also, what are the other options for pain relief? GA?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this the case for any and all medical procedure and surgeries? I mean if they amputate a limb is pain relief really medically necessary?
Oh this is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Birth is not a medical procedure any more than eating a sandwich is, or taking a big dump. Yes it can be uncomfortable and even painful. Yes sometimes things go awry and medical intervention is needed. But otherwise... it what our bodies were literally designed to do.
And yes, I had an umedicated birth, so don't @ me.
LOL. You’re insane. You are incredibly sexist. Who compares birth to taking a dump??
A person who understands biology, and was prepared for (and had) an unmedicated birth. I think its much more sexist to say "women cannot do the thing they were designed to do without medical intervention." Don't we trust women a little more than that? I have no problem with a woman who wants pain meds, getting pain meds. But to assume it should be the default, or is necessary, because women just can't handle it -- nope, that's sexist.
Until about 100 years ago, women also died at incredibly high rates during childbirth. It's not sexist to point out that biology didn't make us the most efficient birthers of our large-headed progeny. Luckily, biology did give us big brains to enable us to solve problems that evolution did not by using tools and interventions...and it's not sexist to take advantage of medical advances.
Knowing that an epidural enabled me to sustain 2 very difficult labors without needing a c-section, I would absolutely argue that epidurals have contributed to reductions in maternal mortality rates. Also, it's more-or-less guaranteed that I and my babies would have died in childbirth without modern medicine...so talking about "what bodes are designed to do without medical intervention" is meaningless to me. Like many women throughout all of human history, my body wasn't properly designed to birth babies...and it's sexist to somehow imply I'm a defective human because of that.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:
A person who understands biology, and was prepared for (and had) an unmedicated birth. I think its much more sexist to say "women cannot do the thing they were designed to do without medical intervention." Don't we trust women a little more than that? I have no problem with a woman who wants pain meds, getting pain meds. But to assume it should be the default, or is necessary, because women just can't handle it -- nope, that's sexist.
Until about 100 years ago, women also died at incredibly high rates during childbirth. It's not sexist to point out that biology didn't make us the most efficient birthers of our large-headed progeny. Luckily, biology did give us big brains to enable us to solve problems that evolution did not by using tools and interventions...and it's not sexist to take advantage of medical advances.
Knowing that an epidural enabled me to sustain 2 very difficult labors without needing a c-section, I would absolutely argue that epidurals have contributed to reductions in maternal mortality rates. Also, it's more-or-less guaranteed that I and my babies would have died in childbirth without modern medicine...so talking about "what bodes are designed to do without medical intervention" is meaningless to me. Like many women throughout all of human history, my body wasn't properly designed to birth babies...and it's sexist to somehow imply I'm a defective human because of that.
No one is implying you're defective for having an epidural. But to OP's point-the anesthesiologist, who presumably had a medically appropriate reason for denying the epidural, isn't defective either.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I used to listen to the Birth Hour and there would occasionally be someone on who would note they couldn't have an epidural, but they usually knew that in advance. Seems odd that this wasn't communicated to your friend until after the induction was started when they could have strategized to avoid her being in so much pain. That sounds like bad coordination/communication on the part of the medical team. Epidural analgesia can have serious side effects even among totally healthy people so I have to think it's not unheard of to risk someone out.
CRNA here from above. This is somewhat rare. Usually complications/conditions that take epidurals off the table are discussed during pregnancy. However it could be that the anesthesiologist on call that night was a little more conservative and didn't feel comfortable doing it despite her getting epidurals in the past. It could be be a condition that tends to worsen with each pregnancy so maybe its something that would get an OK the first time around but not for the 2nd or 3rd birth. Its really hard to say. I have made a few calls that are contested. I immediately call my boss who always backs us up. I had one woman call the head of the hospital (as in the CEO…not even a DR) who then called me and apologized but felt like he "had to try." I am a mom, I am a care provider, I want you to be comfortable but I mostly want you to be alive. As someone who has given birth with and without epidural I realize how much relief it can provide BUT that relief has to be compared to possible risks and I can't make you a good candidate because a.) you know "people" b.) you have had one before c.) Dr. ABC and Dr. XYZ said it would be fine.
Can you please share some conditions that would make you refuse an epidural? Who would be a candidate for a no-epidural decision if you were making it?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:I used to listen to the Birth Hour and there would occasionally be someone on who would note they couldn't have an epidural, but they usually knew that in advance. Seems odd that this wasn't communicated to your friend until after the induction was started when they could have strategized to avoid her being in so much pain. That sounds like bad coordination/communication on the part of the medical team. Epidural analgesia can have serious side effects even among totally healthy people so I have to think it's not unheard of to risk someone out.
CRNA here from above. This is somewhat rare. Usually complications/conditions that take epidurals off the table are discussed during pregnancy. However it could be that the anesthesiologist on call that night was a little more conservative and didn't feel comfortable doing it despite her getting epidurals in the past. It could be be a condition that tends to worsen with each pregnancy so maybe its something that would get an OK the first time around but not for the 2nd or 3rd birth. Its really hard to say. I have made a few calls that are contested. I immediately call my boss who always backs us up. I had one woman call the head of the hospital (as in the CEO…not even a DR) who then called me and apologized but felt like he "had to try." I am a mom, I am a care provider, I want you to be comfortable but I mostly want you to be alive. As someone who has given birth with and without epidural I realize how much relief it can provide BUT that relief has to be compared to possible risks and I can't make you a good candidate because a.) you know "people" b.) you have had one before c.) Dr. ABC and Dr. XYZ said it would be fine.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this the case for any and all medical procedure and surgeries? I mean if they amputate a limb is pain relief really medically necessary?
Oh this is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Birth is not a medical procedure any more than eating a sandwich is, or taking a big dump. Yes it can be uncomfortable and even painful. Yes sometimes things go awry and medical intervention is needed. But otherwise... it what our bodies were literally designed to do.
And yes, I had an umedicated birth, so don't @ me.
LOL. You’re insane. You are incredibly sexist. Who compares birth to taking a dump??
A person who understands biology, and was prepared for (and had) an unmedicated birth. I think its much more sexist to say "women cannot do the thing they were designed to do without medical intervention." Don't we trust women a little more than that? I have no problem with a woman who wants pain meds, getting pain meds. But to assume it should be the default, or is necessary, because women just can't handle it -- nope, that's sexist.
NP. I was also prepared for an unmedicated birth. Then PROM happened, contractions didn't start on their own, and I was put on pitocin. Then the pitocin was cranked up because I wasn't dilating at all. So, yeah, after 12 hours of that particular torture (which, sorry, all my planning/hypnobirthing/natural childbirth classes didn't help), I took the epidural when my midwife suggested it. It's wrong to suggest that women who eventually need an epidural just weren't well prepared. Stuff happens.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this the case for any and all medical procedure and surgeries? I mean if they amputate a limb is pain relief really medically necessary?
Oh this is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Birth is not a medical procedure any more than eating a sandwich is, or taking a big dump. Yes it can be uncomfortable and even painful. Yes sometimes things go awry and medical intervention is needed. But otherwise... it what our bodies were literally designed to do.
And yes, I had an umedicated birth, so don't @ me.
LOL. You’re insane. You are incredibly sexist. Who compares birth to taking a dump??
A person who understands biology, and was prepared for (and had) an unmedicated birth. I think its much more sexist to say "women cannot do the thing they were designed to do without medical intervention." Don't we trust women a little more than that? I have no problem with a woman who wants pain meds, getting pain meds. But to assume it should be the default, or is necessary, because women just can't handle it -- nope, that's sexist.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Isn’t this the case for any and all medical procedure and surgeries? I mean if they amputate a limb is pain relief really medically necessary?
Oh this is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard. Birth is not a medical procedure any more than eating a sandwich is, or taking a big dump. Yes it can be uncomfortable and even painful. Yes sometimes things go awry and medical intervention is needed. But otherwise... it what our bodies were literally designed to do.
And yes, I had an umedicated birth, so don't @ me.
LOL. You’re insane. You are incredibly sexist. Who compares birth to taking a dump??
A person who understands biology, and was prepared for (and had) an unmedicated birth. I think its much more sexist to say "women cannot do the thing they were designed to do without medical intervention." Don't we trust women a little more than that? I have no problem with a woman who wants pain meds, getting pain meds. But to assume it should be the default, or is necessary, because women just can't handle it -- nope, that's sexist.
Until about 100 years ago, women also died at incredibly high rates during childbirth. It's not sexist to point out that biology didn't make us the most efficient birthers of our large-headed progeny. Luckily, biology did give us big brains to enable us to solve problems that evolution did not by using tools and interventions...and it's not sexist to take advantage of medical advances.
Knowing that an epidural enabled me to sustain 2 very difficult labors without needing a c-section, I would absolutely argue that epidurals have contributed to reductions in maternal mortality rates. Also, it's more-or-less guaranteed that I and my babies would have died in childbirth without modern medicine...so talking about "what bodes are designed to do without medical intervention" is meaningless to me. Like many women throughout all of human history, my body wasn't properly designed to birth babies...and it's sexist to somehow imply I'm a defective human because of that.