Hello again, long-lost readers! It has been too long. Today is an important day, so important that it brought me out of my writers-strike and back into the blogosphere (ugh, I hate that word, but its the only one that fit. Sorry.)
Why is today important? The Midwifery Modernization Act, a bill that if passed will drastically remove barriers for homebirth midwifery care, is moving through both the NY Senate and Assembly.
The Midwifery Modernization Act proposes to do away with the requirement for midwives to have a signed Written Practice Agreement (WPA) with a physician or hospital in order to be licensed legally. With the closing of St. Vincent's last month, homebirth midwives lost their licenses, as St. Vincent's was the only hospital in New York City that would sign WPAs. Currently, no hospital in New York City will sign a WPA for homebirth midwives, so all homebirth midwives are actually practicing illegally right now.
Originally, the thinking behind the WPA was that it would make homebirth safer by requiring midwives to establish a relationship with a hospital and physician that they could rely on for transfer during complicated births. However, if no one is willing to sign a WPA with midwives, it's doing nothing but pushing homebirth underground and making hospital transfer a much more complicated and tense situation.
If we can get rid of the WPA, midwives can practice at home legally. My assemblyperson happens to be the chair of the committee that the legislation is going through, so I've already sent her an e-mail and fax and called her today. You can find your senator and assembly person here and do the same. And here is a sample letter you can send:
I am writing to express my full support for bill S5007 /A8117, the Midwifery Modernization Act (MMA). This legislation would amend the Education Law to remove the requirement for a midwife to have a written practice agreement (WPA) with a physician in order to practice midwifery. The education and training that licensed midwives receive is what ensures quality care, and not the WPA. Instead, it is a barrier to practice and limits access to care and choice of provider for New York women and families.
Midwives are licensed independent providers who routinely consult and collaborate with other providers as needed in order to provide safe care to their clients. Research has shown that midwifery care has good outcomes, including lower cesarean rates, shorter hospital stays, and higher rates of breastfeeding among the women they serve. By requiring a WPA, midwifery care is limited by a physician’s willingness to sign rather than the skill and scope of practice of the midwife.
Importantly, the MMA will not expand or change midwives' scope of practice. As a consumer of women’s health care, it is important to me to have the option of choosing a midwife.
If midwives are unable to practice in my community because there are a limited number of physicians or because those who are there refuse to sign an agreement, this limits my birthing options and access to care. Midwifery care is evidence-based, cost-effective, and essential to the well-being of New York women and families across the state, especially for underserved populations, including rural and/or low-income women.
By supporting this bill you ensure that women across New York State have access to midwifery care, birthing choices, and a healthy New York.
Sincerely,
Monday, June 7, 2010
Sunday, April 4, 2010
A Birth Story- Brought to you by The Doula Project
I'm a member of The Doula Project, an budding organization dedicated to "supporting women across the spectrum of pregnancy." It's an incredible organization- the founders are expanding the definition of doula so that we might reach out to women in need of all kinds of reproductive support. We offer free birth doula services to women who cannot otherwise afford it, we support women emotionally and physically during abortion procedures, and we offer birth doula services to birth-mothers choosing adoption through the Spence-Chapin adoption agency.
I joined last summer when I had lots of cover letters and no job, was uncertain about taking the leap of becoming a doula, and basically needed to be involved in something other than writing cover letters and being uncertain about becoming a doula. Fortunately, joining the Doula Project was one of the best decisions I ever made, and has enriched my birth doula work in truly profound ways.
Last February, one of the "5 in 15" births was a volunteer birth I took on through The Doula Project. One of the founders asked me if she could post the birth story I wrote for my client on The Doula Project website's blog. I changed names, my client gave me the go ahead, and it's now up on their site! Take a look here: http://www.doulaproject.org/news/birth-story.html
I joined last summer when I had lots of cover letters and no job, was uncertain about taking the leap of becoming a doula, and basically needed to be involved in something other than writing cover letters and being uncertain about becoming a doula. Fortunately, joining the Doula Project was one of the best decisions I ever made, and has enriched my birth doula work in truly profound ways.
Last February, one of the "5 in 15" births was a volunteer birth I took on through The Doula Project. One of the founders asked me if she could post the birth story I wrote for my client on The Doula Project website's blog. I changed names, my client gave me the go ahead, and it's now up on their site! Take a look here: http://www.doulaproject.org/news/birth-story.html
Sunday, March 14, 2010
The 5 births in 15 days
There is so much to write about. I have plans for so many posts, so here is a list. Maybe I'll get to them someday:
FIVE births in FIFTEEN days. I'm birth-exhausted. Both of clients with due dates in March have given birth, so I'm just waiting on my April clients and I feel lucky to have this break (although I am on call for two of those April clients right now). I have five clients lined up for April, and I'm just praying, praying, praying, that they won't all give birth in 15 days. 30 days would be great. Could you do that for me, ladies?
I like giving stats on births, so let's recap the 5 in 15. All in-hospital. One had a midwife, four had doctors. One was induced (for low-fluids). All had epidurals. Three were c-sections: one was for "failure to progress", one was for "non-reassuring signs" in baby's heart rate, and one was scheduled in advance for breech presentation. Shortest (meaning my time spent at the labor, not the length of the labor itself) (and not counting the scheduled c-section, because that's about 40 minutes): 10 hours. Longest: 30 hours. Two tied at 30 hours.
But the most exciting birth by far, was one I was unfortunately unable to attend. On March 11th, one of my clients woke up to some mild contractions. Listening to both my advice and that of her childbirth educator, she went back to sleep, thinking her first-time labor would be a long one. She woke up two hours later, contractions still mild, and turned on a movie. She called me after the movie and told me, with great poise and lucidity, that she was in labor. Gauging her stage of labor by her voice, I thought "she's still in early labor" and said my usual "Great! Call me when anything changes or gets more intense" (among other things, I'm not that boring of a doula). I get a call from her husband one hour later and he says "We're going to the hospital, she can feel the baby coming out." I thought, "Yeah right. I spoke to her an hour ago and she sounded no where near this stage. She didn't even sound like she was in active labor. She probably just feels some premature pushing pressure." But, I leave for the hospital, and by the time I get above ground, I get a message from her husband:
"We didn't make it to the hospital, because she had the baby in the taxi! It's a boy!"
I learned a very important lesson. When a mom says, "I feel the baby coming out", ask "Do you feel like you have to push, or do you feel the baby's head literally coming out of your vagina?" Because later, she told me she felt the baby's head literally coming out of her vagina.
Full story here.
First, too many births at once, then a missed birth? Can't a doula get a break?
- The closing of St. Vincents/my GREAT birth experience there
- My thoughts on the relationship between pain management (medical or not) and birth outcomes
- A post that I already started, sitting in my drafts folder, about the NY Times article on Freda Rosenfeld, the lactation consultant
- Not birth related, but relevant to early parenting: the debate about babywearing, the safety of "slings", and where Metro Minis, my place of regular employment, fits in!
- The really groundbreaking Amnesty International report on maternal mortality in the US (I'm very proud because I helped work on it as an intern last spring)
- The recent NIH conference on VBAC (Vaginal Birth After Cesarean)
FIVE births in FIFTEEN days. I'm birth-exhausted. Both of clients with due dates in March have given birth, so I'm just waiting on my April clients and I feel lucky to have this break (although I am on call for two of those April clients right now). I have five clients lined up for April, and I'm just praying, praying, praying, that they won't all give birth in 15 days. 30 days would be great. Could you do that for me, ladies?
I like giving stats on births, so let's recap the 5 in 15. All in-hospital. One had a midwife, four had doctors. One was induced (for low-fluids). All had epidurals. Three were c-sections: one was for "failure to progress", one was for "non-reassuring signs" in baby's heart rate, and one was scheduled in advance for breech presentation. Shortest (meaning my time spent at the labor, not the length of the labor itself) (and not counting the scheduled c-section, because that's about 40 minutes): 10 hours. Longest: 30 hours. Two tied at 30 hours.
But the most exciting birth by far, was one I was unfortunately unable to attend. On March 11th, one of my clients woke up to some mild contractions. Listening to both my advice and that of her childbirth educator, she went back to sleep, thinking her first-time labor would be a long one. She woke up two hours later, contractions still mild, and turned on a movie. She called me after the movie and told me, with great poise and lucidity, that she was in labor. Gauging her stage of labor by her voice, I thought "she's still in early labor" and said my usual "Great! Call me when anything changes or gets more intense" (among other things, I'm not that boring of a doula). I get a call from her husband one hour later and he says "We're going to the hospital, she can feel the baby coming out." I thought, "Yeah right. I spoke to her an hour ago and she sounded no where near this stage. She didn't even sound like she was in active labor. She probably just feels some premature pushing pressure." But, I leave for the hospital, and by the time I get above ground, I get a message from her husband:
"We didn't make it to the hospital, because she had the baby in the taxi! It's a boy!"
I learned a very important lesson. When a mom says, "I feel the baby coming out", ask "Do you feel like you have to push, or do you feel the baby's head literally coming out of your vagina?" Because later, she told me she felt the baby's head literally coming out of her vagina.
Full story here.
First, too many births at once, then a missed birth? Can't a doula get a break?
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Acupuncture in Pregnancy
The Wall St Journal published this article today about the effectiveness of acupuncture for treating depression during pregnancy. True, true, true. I'm a big proponent of acupuncture during pregnancy (and beyond). I thought I'd take this time to give a shout out to my favorite acupuncturist Stephanie Propper. She's not only an L.Ac, but she also has a masters in obstetric Traditional Oriental Medicine. I've sent clients to her for turning their breech babies, inducing labor when medical induction looms ahead, and for just regular prenatal care. She also does acupuncture during homebirths (or any birth location where she'd be allowed to practice acupuncture), providing pain relief (acupuncture can actually provide anesthesia), preventing stalled labor, and generally keeping Mama calm and confident.
Want her contact info, let me know.
Want her contact info, let me know.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
"Don't eat... the #1 Cause of Death During Labor is Aspiration!"
(Title taken from one of my most loved/loathed blogs, www.myobsaidwhat.com)
The New York Times recently summarized the results of a study on eating and drinking during labor. Conventional practice forbids eating and drinking everything, except some ice chips here and there. Reason for this: if Mama has a full stomach (even of liquid), she could vomit and choke while under general anesthesia during a c-section. But general anesthesia is only used for emergency c-sections, because it is the fastest acting type of anesthesia. Most c-sections are not emergent, however- the nice thing about labor is that it usually lets you know something's wrong well in advance. Mama usually has at least an hour, usually many more, of bad signs (irregular fetal heart rate, meconium, weaker and spaced out contractions, stalled dilation) before the decision of a section is even brought up. And in that hour, maybe you transfer from home or birth center to the hospital, and in the hospital, your doctor or midwife starts taking some necessary interventions to avoid that section. So if you do make the decision for a section, you get a regional anesthesia, mosey on over to the operating room fully aware and not nauseous, without the danger of aspiration. But given this usual c-section course of events, mamas are still forbidden to eat or drink.
(I HATE ice-chips. Some people like them but I despise them. When I'm thirsty, I drink, I don't chew and hurt my teeth with stupid, useless ice chips. When I'm in labor, even if I'm in a hospital and they don't let me have anything but ice chips, as soon as that nurse leaves my room, hand me my liter of coconut water and I'll be a happy girl.)
In the Times article, a doctor spoke about this antiquated reasoning using a great parallel: ' “My own view of this has always been that you could say one shouldn’t eat or drink anything before getting into a car on the same basis, because you could be in an automobile accident and you might require general anesthesia,” said Dr. Marcie Richardson, an obstetrician and gynecologist at Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates in Boston.'
Thankfully, the study found that there is NO harm or benefit to eating or drinking during labor. Some hospitals are finally lifting the ban on drinking, so women can drink if they want to. Yay!
But I'm interested in the study's claim that there is no benefit to eating and drinking during labor. The uterus is a muscle, and muscles need hydration and energy in the form of carbohydrates in order to work effectively. I've heard a number of doctors and midwives say that proper hydration is crucial to the effectiveness of contractions and mamas' energy when pushing time comes. And I've seen that when contractions slow and become less effective, midwives and doctors blame dehydration and push liquids or IV fluids. I couldn't read the whole study, unfortunately, so I couldn't tell if every woman in the study had an IV- I have a feeling that they must have, if eating and drinking had no benefit. With an IV, extra liquid is indeed unnecessary, for the mama's purely physiological functioning.
But what about her emotional functioning? I believe so fully that labor is the most intense example of the mind-body connection. When women feel strong, they birth strong. Their emotional state sends cues to their body, telling their body whether the environment is safe enough for a vulnerable baby to enter. If mama feels out of control, can't make decisions for herself, feels trapped, her body is going to read that and slow its birth process, because there must be some danger in her environment causing her to feel that way, and her body won't risk allowing a baby to enter into that environment.
Imagine: you've been laboring for 15 hours without anything to drink. Your mouth and throat feels like cotton and all you get is three or four ice chips every twenty minutes. Forget about plain old discomfort in your mouth- what about some compassion? Someone to actually listen to you, validate your frustrations, instead of threatening you with death during an emergency c-section, when the question of a c-section, nonetheless an emergency c-section, hasn't even been raised. Before, you were thirsty and tired. Now, you're worrying about an emergency c-section and vomiting into your lungs. What kind of message does that send to your body? Maybe your body says- there's way too much anxiety here for a baby to be born. Then you've got a self-fulfilling prophecy (well, nurse or doctor or midwife self-fulfilling prophecy): they say c-section, and a few hours later, you get c-section. Not necessarily because they forced it on you when they decided, but maybe because that one tiny remark set off a chain of events in your body, preventing the birth of your baby in any way except surgically.
So, enough with the pessimism, because the results of this study are wonderfully promising. I promise, my next post will be a happy one- just like more births will be if women eat and drink as they please.
The New York Times recently summarized the results of a study on eating and drinking during labor. Conventional practice forbids eating and drinking everything, except some ice chips here and there. Reason for this: if Mama has a full stomach (even of liquid), she could vomit and choke while under general anesthesia during a c-section. But general anesthesia is only used for emergency c-sections, because it is the fastest acting type of anesthesia. Most c-sections are not emergent, however- the nice thing about labor is that it usually lets you know something's wrong well in advance. Mama usually has at least an hour, usually many more, of bad signs (irregular fetal heart rate, meconium, weaker and spaced out contractions, stalled dilation) before the decision of a section is even brought up. And in that hour, maybe you transfer from home or birth center to the hospital, and in the hospital, your doctor or midwife starts taking some necessary interventions to avoid that section. So if you do make the decision for a section, you get a regional anesthesia, mosey on over to the operating room fully aware and not nauseous, without the danger of aspiration. But given this usual c-section course of events, mamas are still forbidden to eat or drink.
(I HATE ice-chips. Some people like them but I despise them. When I'm thirsty, I drink, I don't chew and hurt my teeth with stupid, useless ice chips. When I'm in labor, even if I'm in a hospital and they don't let me have anything but ice chips, as soon as that nurse leaves my room, hand me my liter of coconut water and I'll be a happy girl.)
In the Times article, a doctor spoke about this antiquated reasoning using a great parallel: ' “My own view of this has always been that you could say one shouldn’t eat or drink anything before getting into a car on the same basis, because you could be in an automobile accident and you might require general anesthesia,” said Dr. Marcie Richardson, an obstetrician and gynecologist at Harvard Vanguard Medical Associates in Boston.'
Thankfully, the study found that there is NO harm or benefit to eating or drinking during labor. Some hospitals are finally lifting the ban on drinking, so women can drink if they want to. Yay!
But I'm interested in the study's claim that there is no benefit to eating and drinking during labor. The uterus is a muscle, and muscles need hydration and energy in the form of carbohydrates in order to work effectively. I've heard a number of doctors and midwives say that proper hydration is crucial to the effectiveness of contractions and mamas' energy when pushing time comes. And I've seen that when contractions slow and become less effective, midwives and doctors blame dehydration and push liquids or IV fluids. I couldn't read the whole study, unfortunately, so I couldn't tell if every woman in the study had an IV- I have a feeling that they must have, if eating and drinking had no benefit. With an IV, extra liquid is indeed unnecessary, for the mama's purely physiological functioning.
But what about her emotional functioning? I believe so fully that labor is the most intense example of the mind-body connection. When women feel strong, they birth strong. Their emotional state sends cues to their body, telling their body whether the environment is safe enough for a vulnerable baby to enter. If mama feels out of control, can't make decisions for herself, feels trapped, her body is going to read that and slow its birth process, because there must be some danger in her environment causing her to feel that way, and her body won't risk allowing a baby to enter into that environment.
Imagine: you've been laboring for 15 hours without anything to drink. Your mouth and throat feels like cotton and all you get is three or four ice chips every twenty minutes. Forget about plain old discomfort in your mouth- what about some compassion? Someone to actually listen to you, validate your frustrations, instead of threatening you with death during an emergency c-section, when the question of a c-section, nonetheless an emergency c-section, hasn't even been raised. Before, you were thirsty and tired. Now, you're worrying about an emergency c-section and vomiting into your lungs. What kind of message does that send to your body? Maybe your body says- there's way too much anxiety here for a baby to be born. Then you've got a self-fulfilling prophecy (well, nurse or doctor or midwife self-fulfilling prophecy): they say c-section, and a few hours later, you get c-section. Not necessarily because they forced it on you when they decided, but maybe because that one tiny remark set off a chain of events in your body, preventing the birth of your baby in any way except surgically.
So, enough with the pessimism, because the results of this study are wonderfully promising. I promise, my next post will be a happy one- just like more births will be if women eat and drink as they please.
Sunday, January 17, 2010
Nina's Needlepoint!
It's finished! She's going to put it on a pillow, which we'll put on our designated breastfeeding chair at Metro Minis. Don't worry, I'll also document the progress of the pillow...
Wednesday, January 13, 2010
Unnecesareans
The WHO recently released results of a survey in which they found that nearly half of all births in China are surgical. China's c-section rate is 46%. I hate to get over-dramatic, but this is appalling. Not because I'm so ideologically attached to vaginal birth, but because this is actually really, really dangerous. The WHO recommends that a nation's cesarean rate should be no higher than 10-15%. Above 15%, the risks of cesarean surgery outweigh the advantages to moms' and babies' health. Looking at it from another perspective, that means that, under ideal maternity care conditions, only 10-15% of labors will truly necessitate surgical intervention in the form of a c-section, and 85-90% of labors will progress normally and safely.
So, to explain why, when the cesarean rate is above 15%, the risks of c-section surgery outweigh the benefits to mom and baby. These risks exist with any c-section, but when the life of the mom or the baby depends on immediate delivery, these benefits of saving the lives of the mom and her baby outweigh the risks of the surgery alone.
But when a c-section is done on woman whose labor falls into the 85-90% that are normal and healthy, mom and baby are exposed to these pretty scary risks completely unnecessarily. Immediate risks to the mom include: infection, surgical injury, blood clots and stroke, emergency hysterectomy, less early contact with baby, depression and psychological trauma . Long term risks to the mom include: chronic pelvic pain, difficulty passing bowel movements, increased likelihood to be injured during future surgeries, future infertility, depression and psychological trauma, and maternal death. Short and long-term effects on the baby include: surgical cuts, breathing problems, difficulty breastfeeding, and asthma throughout childhood and beyond. And if the mom wants (and is able, despite the risk of fertility problems) to become pregnant and deliver again, here are the risks to both her and her baby: ectopic pregnancy, placenta previa, placenta accreta, placental absorption, uterine rupture, stillbirth or death shortly after birth, low birth weight, preterm birth, fetal malformation, and central nervous system injury to the baby. (all above found here)
Now, China's rate is pretty scary, but how does our country fare? In 2007 (most recent data available, from Choices in Childbirth's New York Guide to a Healthy Birth), 31.8% of births were done by c-section. In New York state, it was 33.7%. Rates in the New York city metro area vary, but no hospital has a rate below 15%. The lowest is 18.5% at North Central Bronx Hospital (whose maternity ward is staffed entirely by midwives, by the way). The highest is 52.7% at Lawrence Hospital-Bronxville in Westchester.
It was not always this high. Let's compare cesarean rates to maternal mortality, if we want to see a quick correlation between c-section and maternal health. In 1987, the year many of my peers were born, the US c-section rate was 24.4% and the mortality rate was 7.2 deaths per 100,000. We have to use 2003 now for the most recent data. In 2003, our c-section rate was higher, 27.6%. Guess what was also higher? Our maternal mortality rate: 12.1 deaths per 100,000. I'm not saying that this absolutely means that c-sections cause more maternal deaths, because that is beyond my powers of statistics to prove. I am saying that the conventional wisdom of c-sections allowing birth to be safer is completely false, and that most people hold this conventional wisdom is very dangerous for women's and babies' lives.
Why why why why why why why why??????????
Reasons are hard to quantify. This one is a myth though: that women are choosing c-sections as a matter of convenience. When women say they chose the c-section, they also say that they didn't get to that decision on their own, but from pressure from their doctors about time and convenience, and inadequate and biased information given about the risks. Other reasons include a general lack of faith in vaginal birth and "low priority of enhancing women's abilities to give birth," "side effects of common interventions" (a common cascade: epidural, epidural slows labor, pitocin to speed labor, pitocin stresses the uterus and the baby, baby is stressed and uterus isn't working right, c-section), casual attitudes about surgery and c-section in particular, limited access to information and awareness of the risks, and again, providers fear of malpractice claims and lawsuits (a bit plagiarized from Childbirth Connection- they just say it so good!)
I'm sick of talking and thinking about this. My solution: midwives. They specialize in protecting safe, vaginal births. Obstetricians are great surgeons and indispensable for the 10-15% of births that require c-section. But for the 85-90% of births that don't, let's save women's and babies' lives by letting midwives take care of them. A funny parallel is this: OBs are SUVs that you only need in conditions you'll find yourself in 10-15% time. Midwives are regular cars that do the trick the rest of the time, quite well.
On that note, I'm out. With my phone attached to me at the hip for when one of my clients needs some doula love.
PS: I didn't come up with the awesome title of this post, it comes from the title of a really good blog, http://www.theunnecesarean.com/blog/).
So, to explain why, when the cesarean rate is above 15%, the risks of c-section surgery outweigh the benefits to mom and baby. These risks exist with any c-section, but when the life of the mom or the baby depends on immediate delivery, these benefits of saving the lives of the mom and her baby outweigh the risks of the surgery alone.
But when a c-section is done on woman whose labor falls into the 85-90% that are normal and healthy, mom and baby are exposed to these pretty scary risks completely unnecessarily. Immediate risks to the mom include: infection, surgical injury, blood clots and stroke, emergency hysterectomy, less early contact with baby, depression and psychological trauma . Long term risks to the mom include: chronic pelvic pain, difficulty passing bowel movements, increased likelihood to be injured during future surgeries, future infertility, depression and psychological trauma, and maternal death. Short and long-term effects on the baby include: surgical cuts, breathing problems, difficulty breastfeeding, and asthma throughout childhood and beyond. And if the mom wants (and is able, despite the risk of fertility problems) to become pregnant and deliver again, here are the risks to both her and her baby: ectopic pregnancy, placenta previa, placenta accreta, placental absorption, uterine rupture, stillbirth or death shortly after birth, low birth weight, preterm birth, fetal malformation, and central nervous system injury to the baby. (all above found here)
Now, China's rate is pretty scary, but how does our country fare? In 2007 (most recent data available, from Choices in Childbirth's New York Guide to a Healthy Birth), 31.8% of births were done by c-section. In New York state, it was 33.7%. Rates in the New York city metro area vary, but no hospital has a rate below 15%. The lowest is 18.5% at North Central Bronx Hospital (whose maternity ward is staffed entirely by midwives, by the way). The highest is 52.7% at Lawrence Hospital-Bronxville in Westchester.
It was not always this high. Let's compare cesarean rates to maternal mortality, if we want to see a quick correlation between c-section and maternal health. In 1987, the year many of my peers were born, the US c-section rate was 24.4% and the mortality rate was 7.2 deaths per 100,000. We have to use 2003 now for the most recent data. In 2003, our c-section rate was higher, 27.6%. Guess what was also higher? Our maternal mortality rate: 12.1 deaths per 100,000. I'm not saying that this absolutely means that c-sections cause more maternal deaths, because that is beyond my powers of statistics to prove. I am saying that the conventional wisdom of c-sections allowing birth to be safer is completely false, and that most people hold this conventional wisdom is very dangerous for women's and babies' lives.
Why why why why why why why why??????????
Reasons are hard to quantify. This one is a myth though: that women are choosing c-sections as a matter of convenience. When women say they chose the c-section, they also say that they didn't get to that decision on their own, but from pressure from their doctors about time and convenience, and inadequate and biased information given about the risks. Other reasons include a general lack of faith in vaginal birth and "low priority of enhancing women's abilities to give birth," "side effects of common interventions" (a common cascade: epidural, epidural slows labor, pitocin to speed labor, pitocin stresses the uterus and the baby, baby is stressed and uterus isn't working right, c-section), casual attitudes about surgery and c-section in particular, limited access to information and awareness of the risks, and again, providers fear of malpractice claims and lawsuits (a bit plagiarized from Childbirth Connection- they just say it so good!)
I'm sick of talking and thinking about this. My solution: midwives. They specialize in protecting safe, vaginal births. Obstetricians are great surgeons and indispensable for the 10-15% of births that require c-section. But for the 85-90% of births that don't, let's save women's and babies' lives by letting midwives take care of them. A funny parallel is this: OBs are SUVs that you only need in conditions you'll find yourself in 10-15% time. Midwives are regular cars that do the trick the rest of the time, quite well.
On that note, I'm out. With my phone attached to me at the hip for when one of my clients needs some doula love.
PS: I didn't come up with the awesome title of this post, it comes from the title of a really good blog, http://www.theunnecesarean.com/blog/).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
