"Pregnant in America." Oh, my.
May 4, 2007 11:32 PM Subscribe
Pregnant in America. A trailer from a documentary ("coming 2007") about contemporary US birth practices, which may not be best practices. The politics make for interesting reading. See also: Monty Python's The Miracle of Birth.
Not even subtle about the axe they're grinding, are they?
posted by basicchannel at 1:08 AM on May 5, 2007
posted by basicchannel at 1:08 AM on May 5, 2007
I live less than a mile from the hospital where I was born. And mere blocks from the living room where my brothers were born. And less than a mile from where my grandparents and my suicidal cousin died. And two blocks from where my adopted Chinese sisters live--and go to school. And around the corner from my Aunt's house--where she birthed all of my cousins. This is also blocks away from where I did my first Sanger sequence (State U in the hood--parents professors) , played my first show, got laid for the first time, got arrested, saw one of my brothers' wives through a home birth, then saw another--then another. After me, my family had no truck with combining hospitals with childbirth.
The hospital ain't all that.
posted by sourwookie at 1:11 AM on May 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
The hospital ain't all that.
posted by sourwookie at 1:11 AM on May 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
According to the WHO maternal mortality stats, we in the US are on par with the Netherlands, and 3 times as high per capita as Canada. However, we are one hundredfold better than the developing world, and also one hundredfold better than we were one hundred years ago.
See also.
As for perinatal mortality, all I could find was this study that says the developing world has rates 5.2 X the developed countries.
Wikipedia states on their infant mortality page that the under five mortality for the US is 8 per 1000, compared to Sweden's low of 3, and Sierra Leone's high of 284. There are 51 countries with lower U5MR than the US.
posted by BrotherCaine at 1:30 AM on May 5, 2007
See also.
As for perinatal mortality, all I could find was this study that says the developing world has rates 5.2 X the developed countries.
Wikipedia states on their infant mortality page that the under five mortality for the US is 8 per 1000, compared to Sweden's low of 3, and Sierra Leone's high of 284. There are 51 countries with lower U5MR than the US.
posted by BrotherCaine at 1:30 AM on May 5, 2007
What a pity the trailer is so clunkily heavy-handed and po-faced. I am interested in this...but ironically felt condescended to..
posted by Jody Tresidder at 5:00 AM on May 5, 2007
posted by Jody Tresidder at 5:00 AM on May 5, 2007
"What a pity the trailer is so clunkily heavy-handed and po-faced."
Agreed. There's a couple of clips of the producer filming himself that seem completely unnecessary other than for him to make it into his own movie trailer.
posted by itchylick at 5:09 AM on May 5, 2007
Agreed. There's a couple of clips of the producer filming himself that seem completely unnecessary other than for him to make it into his own movie trailer.
posted by itchylick at 5:09 AM on May 5, 2007
Wikipedia states on their infant mortality page that the under five mortality for the US is 8 per 1000, compared to Sweden's low of 3, and Sierra Leone's high of 284. There are 51 countries with lower U5MR than the US.
unless you are black (scroll down to the table), in which case your infant mortality rate is likely to be closer to that of the dominican republic or Russia...
the difference between the US and Canada is almost entirely a product of racial disparities in the US. now why would that be...
posted by geos at 5:18 AM on May 5, 2007
unless you are black (scroll down to the table), in which case your infant mortality rate is likely to be closer to that of the dominican republic or Russia...
the difference between the US and Canada is almost entirely a product of racial disparities in the US. now why would that be...
posted by geos at 5:18 AM on May 5, 2007
just looked at the trailer. what garbage. as I just posted, the high infant mortality rate in the US is largely a product of racial disparities. (and among white people class disparities)
for the rich white person watching this movie the problems with the medical model of childbirth in the US are expense and maternal (and infant) stress, not death.
this is coming from someone who had both of his children born at home and would love to advocate for midwifery, which i think could provide an excellent model of care in the US.
posted by geos at 5:24 AM on May 5, 2007
for the rich white person watching this movie the problems with the medical model of childbirth in the US are expense and maternal (and infant) stress, not death.
this is coming from someone who had both of his children born at home and would love to advocate for midwifery, which i think could provide an excellent model of care in the US.
posted by geos at 5:24 AM on May 5, 2007
the high infant mortality rate in the US is largely a product of racial disparities
So, you think that somehow makes it not an issue?
posted by DenOfSizer at 6:09 AM on May 5, 2007
So, you think that somehow makes it not an issue?
posted by DenOfSizer at 6:09 AM on May 5, 2007
I've been doing some on and off research on birth in (North) America since my undergrad. There's nothing particularly new or controversial about the information contained in the clip, at least in the academic sense. Ontario now recognizes midwifery as at least as safe as hospital birth and far cheaper, and so women are covered for whichever they choose. (And I would guess that socialized medicine is actually the reason we have a lower infant mortality rate.)
The documentary looks interesting. I didn't see it so much heavy-handed as reflecting the director's shock as he discovers that whatever when wrong with his baby is far more common than he ever suspected. I suspect, given the comparison with Scandinavian countries, that the director was familiar with Brigitte Jordan's classic Birth in Four Cultures. For anyone interested in this subject, I highly recommend it.
posted by carmen at 6:24 AM on May 5, 2007
The documentary looks interesting. I didn't see it so much heavy-handed as reflecting the director's shock as he discovers that whatever when wrong with his baby is far more common than he ever suspected. I suspect, given the comparison with Scandinavian countries, that the director was familiar with Brigitte Jordan's classic Birth in Four Cultures. For anyone interested in this subject, I highly recommend it.
posted by carmen at 6:24 AM on May 5, 2007
As a 31 year-old guy with lots of friends starting to have kids, let me just quote David Cross:
"Your kid is boring!"
posted by autodidact at 6:38 AM on May 5, 2007
"Your kid is boring!"
posted by autodidact at 6:38 AM on May 5, 2007
Oh Sourwookie, that's nothing. I'm actually two rooms away from where I woke up this morning.
posted by miss lynnster at 8:10 AM on May 5, 2007 [3 favorites]
posted by miss lynnster at 8:10 AM on May 5, 2007 [3 favorites]
DenOfSizer : "the high infant mortality rate in the US is largely a product of racial disparities
"So, you think that somehow makes it not an issue?"
Er, the trailer is about how hospital birth vs. midwifery is an issue. Geos is saying that the mortality difference is a function of race, not birth method. So, yes, he is saying that the race issue somehow makes "it" (midwifery vs. hospital birth) not an issue. He is not, however, saying "it" (difference in mortality due to race) is not an issue.
posted by Bugbread at 9:01 AM on May 5, 2007
"So, you think that somehow makes it not an issue?"
Er, the trailer is about how hospital birth vs. midwifery is an issue. Geos is saying that the mortality difference is a function of race, not birth method. So, yes, he is saying that the race issue somehow makes "it" (midwifery vs. hospital birth) not an issue. He is not, however, saying "it" (difference in mortality due to race) is not an issue.
posted by Bugbread at 9:01 AM on May 5, 2007
Seems like the director has been outmaneuvered by Ricki Lake, who just did her own documentary (featuring her own births) The Business of Being Born.
There's a vast subculture of alternative birthing in the U.S., mainly powered by women who felt they've been abused by the system. The most alarming statistic for your average pregnant women is that the U.S. c/section rate is incredibly high compared to most other developed countries. And however good our doctors, c/sec is major abdominal surgery, and brings significant risks with it. It also brings a psychological cost according to this artist. (warning: a bit graphic).
If you talk to and read the blogs of midwives themselves, you will find that the traditional idea of birth...woman flat on back in hospital, screaming and grunting, hooked up to machines...is regarded by almost no one but hospitals as the optimum way to give birth. Like trying to climb Everest backwards. There's a tremendous amount of literature on this topic out there; some of the most recommensed are Silent Knife by Nancy Wainer Cohen and anything by Sheila Kitzinger. Ina May Gaskin who attends births on The Farm, a famous Tennessee commune, is considered a pioneer in this field.
Good midwife blogs: here and here
posted by emjaybee at 9:25 AM on May 5, 2007
There's a vast subculture of alternative birthing in the U.S., mainly powered by women who felt they've been abused by the system. The most alarming statistic for your average pregnant women is that the U.S. c/section rate is incredibly high compared to most other developed countries. And however good our doctors, c/sec is major abdominal surgery, and brings significant risks with it. It also brings a psychological cost according to this artist. (warning: a bit graphic).
If you talk to and read the blogs of midwives themselves, you will find that the traditional idea of birth...woman flat on back in hospital, screaming and grunting, hooked up to machines...is regarded by almost no one but hospitals as the optimum way to give birth. Like trying to climb Everest backwards. There's a tremendous amount of literature on this topic out there; some of the most recommensed are Silent Knife by Nancy Wainer Cohen and anything by Sheila Kitzinger. Ina May Gaskin who attends births on The Farm, a famous Tennessee commune, is considered a pioneer in this field.
Good midwife blogs: here and here
posted by emjaybee at 9:25 AM on May 5, 2007
As a 31 year-old guy with lots of friends starting to have kids, let me just quote David Cross:
"Your kid is boring!"
Do you have a belly-button?
As I said, I'm about as big an advocate for midwifery there is, but the problem with the infant mortality rate isn't about midwifery vs. doctoring but about the absence of a public health system.
one of the many infuriating things about rich liberals is their knee-jerk libertarian instinct: there is a big subtext to the hospital vs. midwife/homebirth which is about rejecting the public (as represented by a big hospital serving lots of different people) for the private. the midwife provides a specialized boutique service which you pay extra for (unless you are one of the lucky few for whom your insurance covers the homebirth.)
the last thing the average 'hypnobirth' customer wants is to be a part of some public system where they don't feel like they are the center of attention (see Britain.)
posted by geos at 9:26 AM on May 5, 2007
"Your kid is boring!"
Do you have a belly-button?
As I said, I'm about as big an advocate for midwifery there is, but the problem with the infant mortality rate isn't about midwifery vs. doctoring but about the absence of a public health system.
one of the many infuriating things about rich liberals is their knee-jerk libertarian instinct: there is a big subtext to the hospital vs. midwife/homebirth which is about rejecting the public (as represented by a big hospital serving lots of different people) for the private. the midwife provides a specialized boutique service which you pay extra for (unless you are one of the lucky few for whom your insurance covers the homebirth.)
the last thing the average 'hypnobirth' customer wants is to be a part of some public system where they don't feel like they are the center of attention (see Britain.)
posted by geos at 9:26 AM on May 5, 2007
you will find that the traditional idea of birth...woman flat on back in hospital, screaming and grunting, hooked up to machines
the worst thing about hospital birth IMHO, isn't scalpel-happy doctors or crazy-stupid machines but the fact that the laboring woman is left *alone* for long stretches of time. i think most of the 'complications' that lead to c-sections for otherwise healthy women start with a basic lack of support during labor and a lack of preparation and/or unrealistic expectations of what birth is like...
no matter where a birth happens, hospital or home, the mother is going to be almost all of the work, and it's a really hard job for which the only reward is the baby. the idea that the doctor is going to give you your baby is *only* true with the c-section.
posted by geos at 9:32 AM on May 5, 2007
the worst thing about hospital birth IMHO, isn't scalpel-happy doctors or crazy-stupid machines but the fact that the laboring woman is left *alone* for long stretches of time. i think most of the 'complications' that lead to c-sections for otherwise healthy women start with a basic lack of support during labor and a lack of preparation and/or unrealistic expectations of what birth is like...
no matter where a birth happens, hospital or home, the mother is going to be almost all of the work, and it's a really hard job for which the only reward is the baby. the idea that the doctor is going to give you your baby is *only* true with the c-section.
posted by geos at 9:32 AM on May 5, 2007
His wife pregnant, first-time filmmaker Steve Buonaugurio sets out to create a film that will expose the underside of the U.S. childbirth industry and help end its neglectful exploitation of pregnancy and birth.
"Hmm... 'underbelly' is a distracting pun here in our serious and dramatic message. Hand me the thesaurus, would ya?"
posted by nonmyopicdave at 9:33 AM on May 5, 2007
"Hmm... 'underbelly' is a distracting pun here in our serious and dramatic message. Hand me the thesaurus, would ya?"
posted by nonmyopicdave at 9:33 AM on May 5, 2007
The Portishead soundtrack was amusing.
Our son was born via midwife (in Japan! and our dog was outside in the garden), and so it was an amazing experience. However, our son developed an infection several days after birth (nothing to do with the midwife) and spent the next month in hospital.
So we experienced both midwife and hospital. Both have their merits...
posted by KokuRyu at 9:36 AM on May 5, 2007
Our son was born via midwife (in Japan! and our dog was outside in the garden), and so it was an amazing experience. However, our son developed an infection several days after birth (nothing to do with the midwife) and spent the next month in hospital.
So we experienced both midwife and hospital. Both have their merits...
posted by KokuRyu at 9:36 AM on May 5, 2007
Some first hand experiences:
Both my older brother and I were born at home, with a midwife and dulla present. My father remarried and his wife gave birth to 3 children all at home, in Birthing Tubs and by the third, he acted as the midwife.
In the third birth process, I made a striking observation as my baby brother was 3 weeks overdue causing my stepmother to look as though she had swallowed a large watermelon.
Everywhere we went women would yell and scream (literally) at my stepmother that she was putting her baby at risk by not having an induced labor at a hospital which included invasive drugs (that are ultimately passed on to the child through breastfeeding) and cold impersonal machinery. She would smile gracefully and thank them for their concern. After she got so big that she became uncomfortable, she ended up eating a small amount of cayenne pepper in her home and induced her own labor, while my little sisters sat in the room with her and held her hands while she gave birth in the water tub. Her total labor was 45 minutes, start to finish and my little brother was gigantic (12lbs 2 oz.), healthy and continues to be an amazingly brilliant child.
It struck me then how brainwashed women/society in general has become, (that we NEED hospitals, we NEED C-Sections etc.) that other women would verbally accost a pregnant women. We have been giving birth at home since the dawn of the human age, and it distresses me to think that some people could think having a baby at home is a certain death sentence.
by the way Geos, midwives are not just an option for rich liberals. Many Midwives and their accompanying dullas offer a sliding scale, and different options for their level of involvement to accommodate different budgets. My parents are low to middle income adults in rural South Carolina, but they were able to find Midwives and Dullas. Spreading that kind of poisonous tripe will ultimately scare women off from even seeking Midwives as an option.
A film like this has an obvious slant, because the film maker is showing his opinion and an unpopular one at that. He isn't an impartial journalist making an impartial documentary to illustrate both sides of the coin.
posted by rubyeyo at 10:16 AM on May 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
Both my older brother and I were born at home, with a midwife and dulla present. My father remarried and his wife gave birth to 3 children all at home, in Birthing Tubs and by the third, he acted as the midwife.
In the third birth process, I made a striking observation as my baby brother was 3 weeks overdue causing my stepmother to look as though she had swallowed a large watermelon.
Everywhere we went women would yell and scream (literally) at my stepmother that she was putting her baby at risk by not having an induced labor at a hospital which included invasive drugs (that are ultimately passed on to the child through breastfeeding) and cold impersonal machinery. She would smile gracefully and thank them for their concern. After she got so big that she became uncomfortable, she ended up eating a small amount of cayenne pepper in her home and induced her own labor, while my little sisters sat in the room with her and held her hands while she gave birth in the water tub. Her total labor was 45 minutes, start to finish and my little brother was gigantic (12lbs 2 oz.), healthy and continues to be an amazingly brilliant child.
It struck me then how brainwashed women/society in general has become, (that we NEED hospitals, we NEED C-Sections etc.) that other women would verbally accost a pregnant women. We have been giving birth at home since the dawn of the human age, and it distresses me to think that some people could think having a baby at home is a certain death sentence.
by the way Geos, midwives are not just an option for rich liberals. Many Midwives and their accompanying dullas offer a sliding scale, and different options for their level of involvement to accommodate different budgets. My parents are low to middle income adults in rural South Carolina, but they were able to find Midwives and Dullas. Spreading that kind of poisonous tripe will ultimately scare women off from even seeking Midwives as an option.
A film like this has an obvious slant, because the film maker is showing his opinion and an unpopular one at that. He isn't an impartial journalist making an impartial documentary to illustrate both sides of the coin.
posted by rubyeyo at 10:16 AM on May 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
geos:the last thing the average 'hypnobirth' customer wants is to be a part of some public system where they don't feel like they are the center of attention
Yeah, 'cause all of the women who want to avoid medical complications caused by unnecessary medical interventions are just silly, self-centered, elitist bitches. You forgot to mention "sex and the city", "designer childern" and "to posh to push". I suppose you'll have to save those for your next ant-woman rant. /snark
posted by echolalia67 at 10:26 AM on May 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
Yeah, 'cause all of the women who want to avoid medical complications caused by unnecessary medical interventions are just silly, self-centered, elitist bitches. You forgot to mention "sex and the city", "designer childern" and "to posh to push". I suppose you'll have to save those for your next ant-woman rant. /snark
posted by echolalia67 at 10:26 AM on May 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
See also, What Babies Want, a feature length documentary which was finished in 2004 (I was a Producer and the Editor), with Noah Wyle as the narrator.
The trailer is here.
Interestingly enough, besides hardly being an original idea, it looks like this guy had at least some overlap of experts with us.
And yes, I agree that this looks pretty heavy handed.
And, to follow up on rubyeyo, documentary and journalism aren't the same thing. Journalism tries to be impartial. Documentary has a point of view.
posted by MythMaker at 10:28 AM on May 5, 2007
The trailer is here.
Interestingly enough, besides hardly being an original idea, it looks like this guy had at least some overlap of experts with us.
And yes, I agree that this looks pretty heavy handed.
And, to follow up on rubyeyo, documentary and journalism aren't the same thing. Journalism tries to be impartial. Documentary has a point of view.
posted by MythMaker at 10:28 AM on May 5, 2007
The squatting birth video on one the sites emjaybee linked to is pretty cool -- the mom is remarkably chill, and she gets to scoop up the baby about a second after it pops out. (warning: full frontal childbirth)
posted by brain_drain at 10:40 AM on May 5, 2007
posted by brain_drain at 10:40 AM on May 5, 2007
If I seem a little angry, it's because I see a "birthing women are just weak-willed, irrational creatures, who if they just thought about it a little more rationally, could have a superior birthing experience if they just did it my way" from both the medical intervention & natural childbirth schools of thinking.
I went through 42 hours of labor with my son, 36 of it in a hospital. I went in thinking that they would just send me home if it was too early. Instead, they found out that I had mild preeclampsia, discouraged me from leaving, and pushed induction as the safest option for me. I was put in bed on constant monitoring (they said that they would track down a wireless monitor so that I could move around - they never came through) and was never allowed to get up and move. I was discouraged from shifting positions because my son's heartrate would drop every time I rolled over and therefore had to lie on my left side for most of the 36 hours. I was treated as stupid for wanting to try to labor naturally and for wanting an epidural when the pain became intense, depending on which staff member was attending me. I had two epidurals, neither of which worked. When I asked for additional pain meds, I was treated as if I was being hysterical. When I begged to be allowed to get up and move, they told me that I would not be able to walk because of the epidurals - they said the same thing about getting into the squatting position to push and were shocked when I was able to pull myself up into position. They found merconium in the amniotic fluid when they broke my waters, which meant I had an additional 15 people in the room - not exactly conducive to focusing on pushing. When he was born, the medical staff expressed suprise that he was so large, expecting me to have an 8lb baby instead of a 9lb, 10oz one.
Looking back, it's really difficult to know which of the interventions were well and truly necessary. I don't know if I can trust the medical perspective that I was at risk and it was all of the interventions were beneficial to produce the best possible outcome. Nor can I really trust the perspective of the natural childbirth school of thought which would probably say that none of the interventions were necessary and that I could have done just fine without being in the hospital. I honestly don't feel like there is a place to go where I can get unbiased information on what happened, so that I can make a more informed decision about how to proceed with the next one.
posted by echolalia67 at 11:04 AM on May 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
I went through 42 hours of labor with my son, 36 of it in a hospital. I went in thinking that they would just send me home if it was too early. Instead, they found out that I had mild preeclampsia, discouraged me from leaving, and pushed induction as the safest option for me. I was put in bed on constant monitoring (they said that they would track down a wireless monitor so that I could move around - they never came through) and was never allowed to get up and move. I was discouraged from shifting positions because my son's heartrate would drop every time I rolled over and therefore had to lie on my left side for most of the 36 hours. I was treated as stupid for wanting to try to labor naturally and for wanting an epidural when the pain became intense, depending on which staff member was attending me. I had two epidurals, neither of which worked. When I asked for additional pain meds, I was treated as if I was being hysterical. When I begged to be allowed to get up and move, they told me that I would not be able to walk because of the epidurals - they said the same thing about getting into the squatting position to push and were shocked when I was able to pull myself up into position. They found merconium in the amniotic fluid when they broke my waters, which meant I had an additional 15 people in the room - not exactly conducive to focusing on pushing. When he was born, the medical staff expressed suprise that he was so large, expecting me to have an 8lb baby instead of a 9lb, 10oz one.
Looking back, it's really difficult to know which of the interventions were well and truly necessary. I don't know if I can trust the medical perspective that I was at risk and it was all of the interventions were beneficial to produce the best possible outcome. Nor can I really trust the perspective of the natural childbirth school of thought which would probably say that none of the interventions were necessary and that I could have done just fine without being in the hospital. I honestly don't feel like there is a place to go where I can get unbiased information on what happened, so that I can make a more informed decision about how to proceed with the next one.
posted by echolalia67 at 11:04 AM on May 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
I was planning to have my twins with a natural childbirth, doula and husband at my side. Sadly, I woke up hemorraging one morning and ended up with an emergency c-section that actually likely saved my son's life (he had managed to double-knot his umbilical cord at some point, so every push would have tightened the knot, cutting off his oxygen supply).
That said, I'm still all for natural childbirth with little or no medical intervention.
And watching the video of this unassisted homebirth of twins inspired me to no end. (Link is the story only - video must be ordered, but the story should be enough for most of you!)
posted by OhPuhLeez at 11:16 AM on May 5, 2007
That said, I'm still all for natural childbirth with little or no medical intervention.
And watching the video of this unassisted homebirth of twins inspired me to no end. (Link is the story only - video must be ordered, but the story should be enough for most of you!)
posted by OhPuhLeez at 11:16 AM on May 5, 2007
echolalia67 : "I suppose you'll have to save those for your next ant-woman rant."
Er, don't you have to have a first anti-woman rant in order to have a "next" anti-woman rant? Geos' rant was against the rich and self-centered, not against women. This isn't to say that geos was right in his anti-rich anti-self-centered rant. He may well have been accusing non-rich, non-self-centered folks of being rich and self-centered. I dunno. But it certainly wasn't an anti-woman rant.
posted by Bugbread at 11:37 AM on May 5, 2007
Er, don't you have to have a first anti-woman rant in order to have a "next" anti-woman rant? Geos' rant was against the rich and self-centered, not against women. This isn't to say that geos was right in his anti-rich anti-self-centered rant. He may well have been accusing non-rich, non-self-centered folks of being rich and self-centered. I dunno. But it certainly wasn't an anti-woman rant.
posted by Bugbread at 11:37 AM on May 5, 2007
Giving birth at home is only "as safe as giving birth in a hospital" if you don't turn out to need a doctor, or a bunch of them. I have two friends who lost their full-term fetuses during childbirth at home. They'll never know if their babies might have been saved by emergency Cesarean if they'd been in a hospital, with their heartbeats monitored and a OR nearby.
Statistics are useless here unless you're prepared to accept a bad outcome in your own case, or your sister's, or your friend's, just because it wasn't likely. Yes, American hospitals make a lot of money on childbirth. Yes, it's an industry. So is midwivery. You want to bet your baby's, or niece's, or godchild's life on the savings? (Or, the mother's?)
My sister gave birth twice, with her husband, and parents, and a midwife and dulla present and no medical involvement - but she did it in a hospital where complications could have been handled immediately.
posted by nicwolff at 11:57 AM on May 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
Statistics are useless here unless you're prepared to accept a bad outcome in your own case, or your sister's, or your friend's, just because it wasn't likely. Yes, American hospitals make a lot of money on childbirth. Yes, it's an industry. So is midwivery. You want to bet your baby's, or niece's, or godchild's life on the savings? (Or, the mother's?)
My sister gave birth twice, with her husband, and parents, and a midwife and dulla present and no medical involvement - but she did it in a hospital where complications could have been handled immediately.
posted by nicwolff at 11:57 AM on May 5, 2007 [1 favorite]
bugbread, read the quote again -- echolia67 didn't accuse geos of having an anti-woman rant, it was about an ant-woman rant, and I think she can defend herself well enough.
posted by brain_drain at 11:59 AM on May 5, 2007
posted by brain_drain at 11:59 AM on May 5, 2007
Eyes Down For A Full House! The miracle of birth in a single YouTube link of three dimensional animation in a time lapse view, compleat with soothing cello music for those of you out there a bit queasy about this sort of thing. Unfortunately you'll have to provide your own screams. ..or morphine.
In response to this, one YouToober commented "yea, no kids 4 me..."
Don't blink! You'll miss the close up of cervix dialation and effacement whatever that means, which alone is worth the price of admission. Did you make popcorn?
Courtesy of nucleusinc.com.
posted by ZachsMind at 12:03 PM on May 5, 2007
In response to this, one YouToober commented "yea, no kids 4 me..."
Don't blink! You'll miss the close up of cervix dialation and effacement whatever that means, which alone is worth the price of admission. Did you make popcorn?
Courtesy of nucleusinc.com.
posted by ZachsMind at 12:03 PM on May 5, 2007
On a more serious note, thanks for the SLR link nicwolff -- they have some kick-ass midwives practicing at that hospital.
posted by brain_drain at 12:07 PM on May 5, 2007
posted by brain_drain at 12:07 PM on May 5, 2007
by the way Geos, midwives are not just an option for rich liberals. Many Midwives and their accompanying dullas offer a sliding scale, and different options for their level of involvement to accommodate different budgets. My parents are low to middle income adults in rural South Carolina, but they were able to find Midwives and Dullas. Spreading that kind of poisonous tripe will ultimately scare women off from even seeking Midwives as an option.
why don't you read my posts: both of my children were born at home with midwives. the first one was paid by health insurance, the second out of pocket with money we couldn't really afford. both bills were considerably less than what a hospital would have charged. i wasn't arguing that midwifery was only an option for the rich, i was arguing that one of the reasons why homebirth is a fad right now, and it is a fad among a certain liberal set, is that it is a way of avoiding what amounts to our public health system: hospitals, outside of whether it is a good decision on it's merits (which I think it is...)
Yeah, 'cause all of the women who want to avoid medical complications caused by unnecessary medical interventions are just silly, self-centered, elitist bitches. You forgot to mention "sex and the city", "designer childern" and "to posh to push". I suppose you'll have to save those for your next ant-woman rant. /snark
what did i say that was anti-woman? or did you assume that since i don't identify with liberal democrats that i am a republican...
what offends me about this trailer is the way the filmmaker conflates the issue of whether homebirth is 'better' than birth in a hospital with the issue of infant mortality. if we had a public healthcare system that offered free or affordable care to everyone, i guaruntee that we could reduce the infant mortality rate to that of sweden regardless of whether a single baby was born with a midwife.
it is a hard fact of economics that the middle classes will always bear the largest burden from income taxation simply because as a group they have the most total income: income times number of people. a system of public health will cost alot of money and will require upper middle class white men to pay for the healthcare, say for an 'out of wedlock' pregnancy, of poor black women.
now you tell me that the Democratic party has the political will and imagination to make that actually happen. there is a real reason why black babies die at almost 3 times the rate of white babies in this country and it has nothing to do with midwifery.
posted by geos at 12:08 PM on May 5, 2007
why don't you read my posts: both of my children were born at home with midwives. the first one was paid by health insurance, the second out of pocket with money we couldn't really afford. both bills were considerably less than what a hospital would have charged. i wasn't arguing that midwifery was only an option for the rich, i was arguing that one of the reasons why homebirth is a fad right now, and it is a fad among a certain liberal set, is that it is a way of avoiding what amounts to our public health system: hospitals, outside of whether it is a good decision on it's merits (which I think it is...)
Yeah, 'cause all of the women who want to avoid medical complications caused by unnecessary medical interventions are just silly, self-centered, elitist bitches. You forgot to mention "sex and the city", "designer childern" and "to posh to push". I suppose you'll have to save those for your next ant-woman rant. /snark
what did i say that was anti-woman? or did you assume that since i don't identify with liberal democrats that i am a republican...
what offends me about this trailer is the way the filmmaker conflates the issue of whether homebirth is 'better' than birth in a hospital with the issue of infant mortality. if we had a public healthcare system that offered free or affordable care to everyone, i guaruntee that we could reduce the infant mortality rate to that of sweden regardless of whether a single baby was born with a midwife.
it is a hard fact of economics that the middle classes will always bear the largest burden from income taxation simply because as a group they have the most total income: income times number of people. a system of public health will cost alot of money and will require upper middle class white men to pay for the healthcare, say for an 'out of wedlock' pregnancy, of poor black women.
now you tell me that the Democratic party has the political will and imagination to make that actually happen. there is a real reason why black babies die at almost 3 times the rate of white babies in this country and it has nothing to do with midwifery.
posted by geos at 12:08 PM on May 5, 2007
OK, I am going to chime in here because I have had a child in both the US and Britain both as c-sections. My first child was an emergency after 3 days in the hospital, attempts at an induction and three vacuum attempts to get my son out. The second was a scheduled c-section on the advice of the British midwives, OB/GYN consultant and my own friend who is an American pediatric/emergency/NICU nurse.
I was not happy about my American HMO experience and there are things I would have definitely changed and was not pleased with but I have to admit that they never hassled me about choosing an epidural or were stinting on the monitoring or meds. My husband was allowed to be with me the whole time at the hospital.
The midwife-socialized medicine experience in the UK was interesting and if I had to describe it I would say that it is healthcare provided and organized as imagined by DMV or your University health services; moments of goodness with just plain incompetance (I will spare you the details).
However, when you talk of midwives be aware that the training of midwives varies from nation to nation. As an example to qualify as a nurse midwife is many years of study and just a few credits shy of your masters in nursing. Midwifery in the UK is a three year program. That being said, I would choose my American experience over my UK midwife experience and that is in no small part due to the NHS's present difficulties (but that is my outsider's perspective).
I would like to say that the midwife experience can be great BUT only if it is within a framework of organizational support and not being nickel and dimed in equipment options, training and medical support.
How paranoid was I about the medical staff at the hospital? I brought in my own nurse/friend as an advocate because the most vulnerable you will feel is in a medical setting and to top that are people coming at you with *knives*, wearing masks and you can't defend yourself.
I know that I would have died without the intervention. But I am very aware that doctors on both sides of the Atlantic are quick with the knife which occasioned me to ask, "Is he (the consultant) knife happy?" to a midwife and to be fair, I was warned by a US nurse as well on my US experience.
Take and interpret this as you will and your mileage will DEFINITELY vary with each birth experience.
posted by jadepearl at 12:28 PM on May 5, 2007
I was not happy about my American HMO experience and there are things I would have definitely changed and was not pleased with but I have to admit that they never hassled me about choosing an epidural or were stinting on the monitoring or meds. My husband was allowed to be with me the whole time at the hospital.
The midwife-socialized medicine experience in the UK was interesting and if I had to describe it I would say that it is healthcare provided and organized as imagined by DMV or your University health services; moments of goodness with just plain incompetance (I will spare you the details).
However, when you talk of midwives be aware that the training of midwives varies from nation to nation. As an example to qualify as a nurse midwife is many years of study and just a few credits shy of your masters in nursing. Midwifery in the UK is a three year program. That being said, I would choose my American experience over my UK midwife experience and that is in no small part due to the NHS's present difficulties (but that is my outsider's perspective).
I would like to say that the midwife experience can be great BUT only if it is within a framework of organizational support and not being nickel and dimed in equipment options, training and medical support.
How paranoid was I about the medical staff at the hospital? I brought in my own nurse/friend as an advocate because the most vulnerable you will feel is in a medical setting and to top that are people coming at you with *knives*, wearing masks and you can't defend yourself.
I know that I would have died without the intervention. But I am very aware that doctors on both sides of the Atlantic are quick with the knife which occasioned me to ask, "Is he (the consultant) knife happy?" to a midwife and to be fair, I was warned by a US nurse as well on my US experience.
Take and interpret this as you will and your mileage will DEFINITELY vary with each birth experience.
posted by jadepearl at 12:28 PM on May 5, 2007
That being said, I would choose my American experience over my UK midwife experience and that is in no small part due to the NHS's present difficulties (but that is my outsider's perspective).
I think this Thatcherism red in tooth and claw... but I'm no expert.
A public heath care system will always cost serious money. There has to be the political support to sustain it or it is easy to cut money and let those who can afford it buy their own care... i don't really see how choosing an alternative path to childbirth builds that political support, i tend to think it does the opposite, maybe i'm wrong... we did what we did because it seemed like the right choice and at some level we could afford it. if our health-insurance had been the emergency room we might have made very different choices...
posted by geos at 12:36 PM on May 5, 2007
I think this Thatcherism red in tooth and claw... but I'm no expert.
A public heath care system will always cost serious money. There has to be the political support to sustain it or it is easy to cut money and let those who can afford it buy their own care... i don't really see how choosing an alternative path to childbirth builds that political support, i tend to think it does the opposite, maybe i'm wrong... we did what we did because it seemed like the right choice and at some level we could afford it. if our health-insurance had been the emergency room we might have made very different choices...
posted by geos at 12:36 PM on May 5, 2007
It struck me then how brainwashed women/society in general has become
This is true. Your mother and sibling happened to survive childbirth at home, therefore all mothers and children will. It follows immediately from the clear fact that your experience is completely and utterly universal that the only reason people have children in hospitals is because of brainwashing.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:34 PM on May 5, 2007
This is true. Your mother and sibling happened to survive childbirth at home, therefore all mothers and children will. It follows immediately from the clear fact that your experience is completely and utterly universal that the only reason people have children in hospitals is because of brainwashing.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:34 PM on May 5, 2007
ROU_Xenophobe, that is unfair. What rubyeyo said was, "it distresses me to think that some people could think having a baby at home is a certain death sentence." It's pretty clear that (in the U.S. at least) many people are relatively ignorant about alternative birthing methods and likely end up giving birth in a hospital not based on an informed decision but rather because doctor/hospital birthing is the default approach. There are good reasons for hospital birthing (my own personal preference), but a reasonable decision can be made to do a home birth.
posted by brain_drain at 1:49 PM on May 5, 2007
posted by brain_drain at 1:49 PM on May 5, 2007
Epidurals have also killed women and led to crashing fetal heart rates. They're also very much pushed on women in hospitals.
Those women will never know if their baby would have lived -- and some husbands will never know if their wives would have lived -- had they given birth in the privacy and comfort of their own home.
Anecdotes =/= data. The data indicates that in an uncomplicated pregnancy, outcomes are equal or possibly slightly better for midwife-assisted home births. In other words, your baby is equally likely to die in a hospital, and many of these deaths are even CAUSED by hospital interventions.
posted by InnocentBystander at 2:23 PM on May 5, 2007
Those women will never know if their baby would have lived -- and some husbands will never know if their wives would have lived -- had they given birth in the privacy and comfort of their own home.
Anecdotes =/= data. The data indicates that in an uncomplicated pregnancy, outcomes are equal or possibly slightly better for midwife-assisted home births. In other words, your baby is equally likely to die in a hospital, and many of these deaths are even CAUSED by hospital interventions.
posted by InnocentBystander at 2:23 PM on May 5, 2007
What rubyeyo said was, "it distresses me to think that some people could think having a baby at home is a certain death sentence."
Which might be meaningful if anyone actually thought that.
It's pretty clear that (in the U.S. at least) many people are relatively ignorant about alternative birthing methods
It is? Is there any evidence of this whatsoever? Any surveys of pregnant women where respondents are unaware of midwifery or options other than full-on hospital childbirth? Any other form of evidence about what mothers in the US are or aren't ignorant of?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:55 PM on May 5, 2007
Which might be meaningful if anyone actually thought that.
It's pretty clear that (in the U.S. at least) many people are relatively ignorant about alternative birthing methods
It is? Is there any evidence of this whatsoever? Any surveys of pregnant women where respondents are unaware of midwifery or options other than full-on hospital childbirth? Any other form of evidence about what mothers in the US are or aren't ignorant of?
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 2:55 PM on May 5, 2007
it is a hard fact of economics that the middle classes will always bear the largest burden from income taxation simply because as a group they have the most total income: income times number of people.
This is actually not true, under the system of income tax in the US. A person who is rich pays more in absolute dollars of tax than a person who is poor for two reasons: he/she earns more, so there is more income to tax, and he/she is taxed at a higher rate because our tax system is progressive. Income inequality is SO DAMN LARGE that it drowns out your "number of people" argument.
This post, created from data from the NYTimes, has a great graph (2nd one, with blue and orange lines). If you look at the orange line and find the spot where the slope is equal to 1, this is the point equality where (revenue/taxpayer) = his taxation. This point of equality, to my eye, seems to be at about the line separating the richest 17% from the poorest 83%. Everybody on the 83% of the line benefits from taxation, and everyone on the 17% side loses out.
If people voted in their self-interest, we would have nationally-funded health care for everyone.
Also, the diagonal line shows the tax burden if everyone paid the same dollar amount. Going from there to the blue line is the result of tax progressivity, and going from the blue line to the orange line is the result of income inequality. Like I said earlier, income inequality turns out to be the more significant factor by far than tax progressivity.
posted by Maxwell_Smart at 4:25 PM on May 5, 2007
This is actually not true, under the system of income tax in the US. A person who is rich pays more in absolute dollars of tax than a person who is poor for two reasons: he/she earns more, so there is more income to tax, and he/she is taxed at a higher rate because our tax system is progressive. Income inequality is SO DAMN LARGE that it drowns out your "number of people" argument.
This post, created from data from the NYTimes, has a great graph (2nd one, with blue and orange lines). If you look at the orange line and find the spot where the slope is equal to 1, this is the point equality where (revenue/taxpayer) = his taxation. This point of equality, to my eye, seems to be at about the line separating the richest 17% from the poorest 83%. Everybody on the 83% of the line benefits from taxation, and everyone on the 17% side loses out.
If people voted in their self-interest, we would have nationally-funded health care for everyone.
Also, the diagonal line shows the tax burden if everyone paid the same dollar amount. Going from there to the blue line is the result of tax progressivity, and going from the blue line to the orange line is the result of income inequality. Like I said earlier, income inequality turns out to be the more significant factor by far than tax progressivity.
posted by Maxwell_Smart at 4:25 PM on May 5, 2007
This is actually not true, under the system of income tax in the US. A person who is rich pays more in absolute dollars of tax than a person who is poor for two reasons: he/she earns more, so there is more income to tax, and he/she is taxed at a higher rate because our tax system is progressive. Income inequality is SO DAMN LARGE that it drowns out your "number of people" argument.
the link you cited says that the top 20% in income pay 30% of total tax revenue which proves my point exactly... the middle income bracket share the produce the largest share of total revenue...
therein lies the miracle of Thatcherism/Reaganism as successful political movements.
posted by geos at 5:25 PM on May 5, 2007
the link you cited says that the top 20% in income pay 30% of total tax revenue which proves my point exactly... the middle income bracket share the produce the largest share of total revenue...
therein lies the miracle of Thatcherism/Reaganism as successful political movements.
posted by geos at 5:25 PM on May 5, 2007
Nope. Read it more carefully. The top 20% of income (which is earned by far fewer than the top 20% of people) accounts for 30% of tax revenue.
Or, to turn it around, from the orange line, 30% of tax revenue comes from the richest 2% of taxpayers.
By the way, if it wasnt clear from my comments, I believe in a more progressive tax system.
posted by Maxwell_Smart at 5:31 PM on May 5, 2007
Or, to turn it around, from the orange line, 30% of tax revenue comes from the richest 2% of taxpayers.
By the way, if it wasnt clear from my comments, I believe in a more progressive tax system.
posted by Maxwell_Smart at 5:31 PM on May 5, 2007
And the miracle of Thatcherism/Reaganism is that people believe it will be a net negative to the middle class to moderlately-upper-middle-class provide comprehensive health care (which is what you seem to be arguing.)
posted by Maxwell_Smart at 5:33 PM on May 5, 2007
posted by Maxwell_Smart at 5:33 PM on May 5, 2007
i guaruntee that we could reduce the infant mortality rate to that of sweden regardless of whether a single baby was born with a midwife.
Given the stories I've heard from friends working in free clinics about patient compliance, I seriously doubt that implementing national health care in this country would "cure" our perinatal mortality problems and bring us up to par with Sweden. Maybe national health care combined with compulsory pre-natal care and education would do it, but I never underestimate the human capacity for ignorance and error.
posted by BrotherCaine at 7:29 PM on May 5, 2007
Given the stories I've heard from friends working in free clinics about patient compliance, I seriously doubt that implementing national health care in this country would "cure" our perinatal mortality problems and bring us up to par with Sweden. Maybe national health care combined with compulsory pre-natal care and education would do it, but I never underestimate the human capacity for ignorance and error.
posted by BrotherCaine at 7:29 PM on May 5, 2007
Get the best of both worlds: have a midwife or doula or someone similar coaching you and taking care of you throughout the birth, with a sympathetic doc who is willing to forgo the "on your back, Frenchie!" type of typical hospital birth -- but be in (or near) the hospital in case something goes wrong that makes it an issue or survivial instead of comfort.
I say this as a father whose son (one of twins, boy and girl) pulled the ripcord early (via placental abruption) and forced a cesarian section (because of that whole mother-and-babies-bleeding-out part) -- and who it turned out had knotted his umbilical cord and would have likely died during a normal childbirth as it tightened. Yet, prior to the placental abruption, all looked well and they were actually positioned correctly for a natural birth (boy first) had they held out the last few weeks.
posted by davejay at 7:53 PM on May 5, 2007
I say this as a father whose son (one of twins, boy and girl) pulled the ripcord early (via placental abruption) and forced a cesarian section (because of that whole mother-and-babies-bleeding-out part) -- and who it turned out had knotted his umbilical cord and would have likely died during a normal childbirth as it tightened. Yet, prior to the placental abruption, all looked well and they were actually positioned correctly for a natural birth (boy first) had they held out the last few weeks.
posted by davejay at 7:53 PM on May 5, 2007
Sadly, I woke up hemorraging one morning and ended up with an emergency c-section that actually likely saved my son's life
That said, I'm still all for natural childbirth with little or no medical intervention.
Huh? You can't have it both ways. You can't be for "little or no medical intervention" except for the time that it saved your child's life.
geos is dead on about almost everything so I won't bother rehashing what he has already covered. But, child mortality in the US is about MONEY, not about midwifery or hospitals. Proper prenatal care and mother nutrition is more important than the method of delivery you choose.
Giving birth in a hospital may not be all warm and cozy and they might not allow you to burn incense and squat in a kiddie pool, but there are a myriad of people armed with miraculous technology who can spring into action in a moment's notice during delivery.
With a midwife, you have comfort, and hope. The hope that everything will be okay.
And, honestly, it probably will be. Most births, be at home or at the hospital, are problem-free. We've been giving birth for several millennia now, and we've gotten pretty good at it.
But, babies are born with all sorts of exotic and unexpected complications every single day. Having 50 people with $50 million worth of equipment 30 seconds away is much more comforting than having a midwife and having of a backup plan of calling 911.
More alarming is what sudden afflictions can beset the mother. A perfectly normal birth can result in a dead mother mere minutes afterwards.
It's a risk. Maybe it is a slight risk. Maybe that is acceptable to you. It wasn't acceptable to me and my wife when it was time to give birth. Midwifery was never really considered.
My wife suffered from a sudden, aggressive, and unexplained increase in blood pressure AFTER delivery. The usual treatments were ineffective, and she had a cadre of people checking her around the clock. She was hospitalized for 3 days post-delivery to get it under control, and our son arrived jaundiced so he got some time under the tanning lamp while she convalesced.
It's kind of like having insurance. The chance of your house burning down is pretty remote. But, someone's house will burn down tonight. And if it does, and you don't have insurance, the loss is catastrophic. So, you take the insurance, but still hope for the best.
Same with delivery. You go to the big building with lots of doctors and technology. You hope everything will be fine. And the chance of something happening to you is pretty remote. But, someone's baby will be in delivery distress tonight. And the loss is catastrophic.
Put another way, we don't have babies in hospitals for the 99 out of 100 that are complication free. We do it for the 1 out of 100 that has problems.
posted by Ynoxas at 9:34 PM on May 5, 2007
That said, I'm still all for natural childbirth with little or no medical intervention.
Huh? You can't have it both ways. You can't be for "little or no medical intervention" except for the time that it saved your child's life.
geos is dead on about almost everything so I won't bother rehashing what he has already covered. But, child mortality in the US is about MONEY, not about midwifery or hospitals. Proper prenatal care and mother nutrition is more important than the method of delivery you choose.
Giving birth in a hospital may not be all warm and cozy and they might not allow you to burn incense and squat in a kiddie pool, but there are a myriad of people armed with miraculous technology who can spring into action in a moment's notice during delivery.
With a midwife, you have comfort, and hope. The hope that everything will be okay.
And, honestly, it probably will be. Most births, be at home or at the hospital, are problem-free. We've been giving birth for several millennia now, and we've gotten pretty good at it.
But, babies are born with all sorts of exotic and unexpected complications every single day. Having 50 people with $50 million worth of equipment 30 seconds away is much more comforting than having a midwife and having of a backup plan of calling 911.
More alarming is what sudden afflictions can beset the mother. A perfectly normal birth can result in a dead mother mere minutes afterwards.
It's a risk. Maybe it is a slight risk. Maybe that is acceptable to you. It wasn't acceptable to me and my wife when it was time to give birth. Midwifery was never really considered.
My wife suffered from a sudden, aggressive, and unexplained increase in blood pressure AFTER delivery. The usual treatments were ineffective, and she had a cadre of people checking her around the clock. She was hospitalized for 3 days post-delivery to get it under control, and our son arrived jaundiced so he got some time under the tanning lamp while she convalesced.
It's kind of like having insurance. The chance of your house burning down is pretty remote. But, someone's house will burn down tonight. And if it does, and you don't have insurance, the loss is catastrophic. So, you take the insurance, but still hope for the best.
Same with delivery. You go to the big building with lots of doctors and technology. You hope everything will be fine. And the chance of something happening to you is pretty remote. But, someone's baby will be in delivery distress tonight. And the loss is catastrophic.
Put another way, we don't have babies in hospitals for the 99 out of 100 that are complication free. We do it for the 1 out of 100 that has problems.
posted by Ynoxas at 9:34 PM on May 5, 2007
Seems to me people are making a binary system where one doesn't necessarily exist. That is, most folks (not all) are talking about "which is better? Natural childbirth, or hospital childbirth". As a few have pointed out, what is better is natural childbirth in a hospital. It provides the benefits of both: midwife assisted birth if there are no complications, and doctors all around if there are complications.
And, yes, that costs money, and money doesn't grow on trees. If the main brunt of this discussion were "what is the most cost-effective" or "which is cheapest", then this would be a very important point. However, I see little of that, and just a lot of "which results in the least mortality".
posted by Bugbread at 4:50 AM on May 6, 2007
And, yes, that costs money, and money doesn't grow on trees. If the main brunt of this discussion were "what is the most cost-effective" or "which is cheapest", then this would be a very important point. However, I see little of that, and just a lot of "which results in the least mortality".
posted by Bugbread at 4:50 AM on May 6, 2007
Me...after 27 hours of labor trying to give birth to an 11 pound baby...I was thrilled when my doctor *finally* agreed to a c-section. And then, only because my heart rate dropped below 40, and the baby's went above 120. We were both going to die unless they operated.
Scoff if you will, but I *wanted* a c-section. I did not want to try and pass an 11 pound baby through my birth canal. That sounded like no damn fun at all. I really wanted to welcome my son into the world, not be pissed off at him for the next 40 years, because I needed adult diapers if I had a good giggle.
I personally feel that we could have saved more than a day, and a whole lot of pain if they had agreed to do the c-section the first time I asked for it. But no, they wanted me to walk around and bounce on a ball, and whathaveyou. Fuck that. Get this baby out of me and make this insane pain stop!
Now, don't get me wrong. I was raised by hippies and have seen my fair share of live birth, both human and other mammal. I wasn't afraid of the concept, I wasn't afraid of the mechanics...where my fear came in was basic physics.
The "all hospitals bad...only home birth is good" people are a lot like the Nipple Nazis who insist that any child given a bottle of formula will be lucky to see their first birthday, and even if they do, they'll become serial killers.
posted by dejah420 at 3:16 PM on May 6, 2007
Scoff if you will, but I *wanted* a c-section. I did not want to try and pass an 11 pound baby through my birth canal. That sounded like no damn fun at all. I really wanted to welcome my son into the world, not be pissed off at him for the next 40 years, because I needed adult diapers if I had a good giggle.
I personally feel that we could have saved more than a day, and a whole lot of pain if they had agreed to do the c-section the first time I asked for it. But no, they wanted me to walk around and bounce on a ball, and whathaveyou. Fuck that. Get this baby out of me and make this insane pain stop!
Now, don't get me wrong. I was raised by hippies and have seen my fair share of live birth, both human and other mammal. I wasn't afraid of the concept, I wasn't afraid of the mechanics...where my fear came in was basic physics.
The "all hospitals bad...only home birth is good" people are a lot like the Nipple Nazis who insist that any child given a bottle of formula will be lucky to see their first birthday, and even if they do, they'll become serial killers.
posted by dejah420 at 3:16 PM on May 6, 2007
As a woman, who may at some point have children, this is an issue I have pondered, particuarly as I have friends my age who are having children already.
For me there is no question. I will be giving birth in a hospital. Probably with a fair amount of chemical assist. Low pain tolerance, and no uncomplicated births or pregnancies in my family for the last two generations leads me to think that I should take that route. Without medical intervention, my mother and I would have died when I was being born - and my younger brother's delivery was even worse.
In addition, there's something to be said for giving birth in a familiar, comfortable place, surrounded by people you know and trust. For me, that means a particular hospital - the one where I was born, where my Mum worked most of my life, and where my brother was a patient for a fair portion of his. I've also known my OB/GYN since I was 18, and he's been dealing with the previous two generations of my family's women.
A doula and midwife homebirth may suit some, but the idea of giving birth monitored by strangers, in an environment not suited for the purpose, without the backup I'm statistically likely to need frightens the living daylights out of me.
posted by ysabet at 11:32 PM on May 8, 2007
For me there is no question. I will be giving birth in a hospital. Probably with a fair amount of chemical assist. Low pain tolerance, and no uncomplicated births or pregnancies in my family for the last two generations leads me to think that I should take that route. Without medical intervention, my mother and I would have died when I was being born - and my younger brother's delivery was even worse.
In addition, there's something to be said for giving birth in a familiar, comfortable place, surrounded by people you know and trust. For me, that means a particular hospital - the one where I was born, where my Mum worked most of my life, and where my brother was a patient for a fair portion of his. I've also known my OB/GYN since I was 18, and he's been dealing with the previous two generations of my family's women.
A doula and midwife homebirth may suit some, but the idea of giving birth monitored by strangers, in an environment not suited for the purpose, without the backup I'm statistically likely to need frightens the living daylights out of me.
posted by ysabet at 11:32 PM on May 8, 2007
« Older Yezidi woman stoned to death in "honour killing" | Ethics, mental health, reviewed Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Octoparrot at 12:16 AM on May 5, 2007