Posted by My OB said WHAT?!?.
Aug
31
Posted by My OB said WHAT?!?.
“…We Have To Talk About All The Risks Of A Natural Birth.”
“Okay, then, we have to talk about all of the risks of a natural birth.” – OB to mother when discussing the mother’s birth plan with wishes for a natural unmedicated birth.
There are 72 comments to this post.
Dee the Doula had this to say,
Aug 31, 2011 @ 6:36 pm (Quote)
Bwaaahhhahahaaahahaaa!!!!!!
[Reply]
Mama Wrench had this to say,
Aug 31, 2011 @ 6:43 pm (Quote)
See Doc, this is why I’m only expressing to you my WISHES. I WISH for my birth to be treated as a normal physiological function and, should those risks become actuality, THEN you may interfere with the natural process. That’s what you’re SUPPOSED to get paid for. You’re NOT supposed to get paid to perform unnecessary interventions on an otherwise healthily-progressing birth in which neither I nor my baby are in danger.
[Reply]
“We have to talk about all the risks of a natural birth”
…attempted under my care and in a hospital setting….!!!
Because you’re going to need to travel in a car, be subject to bright lights, talking and decision-making that constantly activates your neocortex….
You’re going to be tethered and chastised for moving, we’re going to manually position you into the lithotomy position for pushing…
We’re going to cut the cord immediately, leaving your placenta engorged and your baby deprived of adequate blood volume and struggling to transition…
Natural birthers always need a uterotonic to prevent hemorrhage (but hemorrhage is your fault for wanting a natural birth)
…but you’ll be pleased to know that IF the baby comes out of your vagina we call that a natural birth..it’s risky…but we’ll save you and your baby from the dangers of nature, thankfully!
[Reply]
*sarcastic* yes, because the risks of a natural birth are soooo much greater than the risks of say, a cesarean or forceps/vacuum extraction, or even the risks of the incredibly potent medication that we will pump into your system if you get an epidural. Those are WAAAAYYY safer options..
ugh.
Don’t get me wrong, I know there are risks.. but seriously!?
[Reply]
Sure thing. Right after we talk about the risks of driving a car. Or using a sharp knife to cut a watermelon. You know, normal stuff that has normal risks.
[Reply]
Kristy Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 7:59 pm (Quote)
“We’ve learned that the ordinary method of using a sharp knife to cut a watermelon can be very dangerous to the person holding the knife… so we recommend strapping the watermelon firmly to a flat surface before cutting. Then if anything goes wrong we are set up to safely perform the “Gallagher Maneuver” so that the watermelon can be disassembled in the quickest manner possible.”
[Reply]
At 35 weeks, my [former] OB schedules a “labor talk,” wherein we are supposed to go over everything that happens/could happen, etc. When I informed him that I wanted an intervention-free birth, he began with the ‘risks of natural birth’ shpeel.
What’s interesting to me is that he then went over a bevy of “risks” to natural birth (shoulder dystocia, uterine rupture, death, etc.), and offered interventions as a “solution.”
“Don’t worry,” he said, “If [fill in the blank rare complication] happens during your labor, we’ll just do a c-section.” Did he go over the risks of a c-section? No. Did he go over the risks of pitocin or epidural or forceps or vacuum? No. But he sure wanted to go over the risks of birthing “without help.”
It turned out to be a blessing in disguise, however, because I knew he was not going to come anywhere near me during my labor, so I found a wonderful home birth midwife at 37 weeks who provided exceptional, competent care. My son was conceived via IVF, so I knew I didn’t have the luxury of saying, “Well, if I don’t like the hospital, I can birth at home next time.” My son was born at home just 25 minutes before his due date. =)
Another eye-rolling piece of the story is this: when I requested my medical records from the OB, there was a copy of a letter sent to the local hospital. In it, my OB informed the hospital that I had chosen a home birth and he was not to be called if I had a hospital transfer. He also told the hospital that he had ended our dr-patient relationship and that he would no longer be my ob (even for routine gyn care.)
[Reply]
Cindy Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 8:17 pm (Quote)
I’m sorry this happened to you but GO YOU for listening to your gut and good riddance to that sOB who shouldn’t get a dime of your money!
[Reply]
IF Survivor Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 8:21 pm (Quote)
What a jerk. I’m so glad that you found better care.
[Reply]
Bonita Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 8:39 pm (Quote)
Wow! He definately did you a favor! I wouldn’t want that jerk around me at all, ESPECIALLY if you would have had to transfer. I know if I had had to transfer there were several drs at the hospital I would have had to go to that I wouldn’t have wanted near me because of their dangerous attitude!
[Reply]
Nancy Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 9:06 pm (Quote)
So wait, let me get this straight…he really wrote a letter that was, in essence, “She can’t fire me; I’m firing her!”
hahaha, that makes my day.
[Reply]
silverhawkwarrior Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 10:56 pm (Quote)
Awww, Doc, did the well-informed mama hurt your feelings? She’s so mean, huh? Poor baby. Here, suck on these ice chips until you feel better. We won’t let that assertive, competent person come back to scare you anymore.
[Reply]
Dreamy Reply:
September 1st, 2011 at 3:15 am (Quote)
So… The risks of natural birth, for the most part, are the RISKS INHERENT IN BIRTH? Great argument?
[Reply]
Jess Reply:
September 1st, 2011 at 8:08 am (Quote)
Worse….every “risk he listed is INCREASED by the use of routine interventions. True shoulder dystocia is pretty rare, but augmenting labor certainly doesn’t help. Uterine rupture? Definitely more likely with the use of pitocin. Death? Seriously? He played THAT card? Don’t even get me started. Don’t we all know by now that a woman is 4 times MORE likely to die following a cesarean delivery than any type of vaginal one.
But that’s cool….go on and tell her about the risk of death by delivering naturally, and then reassure her that if anything goes wrong you’ll just do a c-section. LMAO. Don’t mention that her ACTUAL risk of death increases four-fold if he does. That’s irrelevant. The only thing that’s relevant is her 25% *lower* chance of death if he DOESN’T cut her open….and rubbing her face in it. This doctor can’t be terribly intelligent.
[Reply]
Samantha Reply:
September 1st, 2011 at 11:36 am (Quote)
When I told my OB/GYN’s nurse that I was probably going to switch to a midwife, the woman actually yelled at me. She told me how I had wasted the doctor’s time with my visit, (time that I and my insurance company paid for) at 5-6 weeks gestation for some abdominal pain I was concerned was an ectopic pregnancy. Even if I had been with a midwife at that point, she still would have sent me for a sonogrom.
Then about a week later I received a certified letter, which I had to sign for, that dropped me from the doctor’s service since I was using a midwife.
It is kinda nice to hear that other doctors have done the same, I thought that doctor was just such a jerk for that letter.
Congrats on switching and having a woderful homebirth!!
[Reply]
hey doc. bringing life into the world is risky. women know this. that’s why a successful birth is such a blessing. it’s normal to want to minimise the risk to mums and babies but at a certain point, obstetric interventions become violent both to our bodies and our spirits. and anyway some level of risk is still there no matter what doctors do. women want to birth with dignity and humanity. let’s talk about that.
[Reply]
Serious question: *are* there any special risks to “natural” childbirth, over and above the risks of birth in general? (Assuming here that if a problem does occur, appropriate interventions happen, up to and including caesarean if it’s necessary.)
The OP tells us the OB mentioned shoulder dystocia (surely less likely if the mother is allowed to move, and more likely in enforced lithotomy), uterine rupture (less likely if pitocin is avoided), and DEATH (not even gonna go there). These don’t seem to me to be areas where natural childbirth (again assuming openness to intervention when needed) *increases* risk.
[Reply]
Linnea hummbleBee Reply:
September 1st, 2011 at 3:04 am (Quote)
Exactly. After getting sick the last few weeks of my pg I ended up risking out of my birth center and having a “natural” birth with CNMs at the hospital. (No pain meds, but a slow 3-day induction – 24 hrs cervadil, followed by about 34 hours laboring after SROM, followed by the *slightest* dose of pit and 1.5 hrs of active labor)
In the end everyone freaked out, NICU team and senior OB attending were on hand because my active labor went so fast that she was having some decels, and all DOZEN people in the room with me directed my 15 minutes of pushing in lithomy. Lo and behold – it’s a recipe for shoulder dystocia! I am thoroughly convinced that the complications I ran into during my “natural” birth were actually entirely due to the interventions pushed upon me.
[Reply]
Details Reply:
September 1st, 2011 at 4:51 am (Quote)
The only one I canthink fo is the risk of bleeding out with no OV which of course as we have discussed about once a week around here, a competent EMT or Vet can place in 20 seconds but L&D nurses and OB’s seem to have trouble with. And then of course there is the shot of mirg?… or cytoec as a back-up. So I would say no.
[Reply]
Details Reply:
September 1st, 2011 at 4:52 am (Quote)
* no IV to run Pit into if necessary.
[Reply]
Jess Reply:
September 1st, 2011 at 8:17 am (Quote)
You don’t need an IV to administer pitocin for a hemorrhage. I hemorrhaged during a homebirth and pitocin was administered via injection, and undoubtedly took effect FASTER because it was sitting next to the bed in the birth supplies (rather than having to be fetched by a nurse) and did not have to be hooked up, calibrated, and travel through a line to get into my blood stream. It went right in. I was also given methergin sublingually. There is no need to have an IV to treat hemorrhage….
IF treatment failed and one required a blood transfusion, then of course it would be neccessary. But the amount of time required to set up a transfusion would allow plenty of time to get an IV in, even if it took several tries.
There’s simply no evidence that having an IV or even a heplock in place really decreases the likelihood of death, despite whatever personal anecdotes you here about “Well I would have died IF….” No, highly doubtful that the IV being in place saved your life….unless your medical staff was simply not competent to treat you without it because they’d never learned proper emergency treatment procedures….which is unfortunate because sometimes women pop out babies in hospital parking lots. That’s like a hospital saying that don’t allow VBACs because they aren’t staffed for emergency surgeries….LOL, really?! Not very well prepared, are ya?
[Reply]
Details Reply:
September 1st, 2011 at 12:32 pm (Quote)
Jess, did you not get that I was correcting my own typo where I orignally put OV rather than IV and went on to agree with everything you just said including that we had a vet on here who said she could get an IV set up on an uncooperative and fur covered pet is about 20 seconds? Glad to have you vent because I agree with everything you just said.
[Reply]
Aron Reply:
September 1st, 2011 at 5:19 am (Quote)
And even then, a mom can still hemmorhage 12 hours post partum when they’v already removed her IV if she did end up with one.
I know some hospitals (or individual units within those hospitals) still require every admitted patient to at least have a heplock (saline lock, really). But more and more of them are following the current best evidence which says that IVs are a great way to intruduce infection, so only use them when necessary. Kind of like how Foley catheters are generally only used for the shortest time possible now since they are basically a bacteria highway.
[Reply]
Rach had this to say,
Sep 1, 2011 @ 5:19 am (Quote)
Ok, deal. Let’s talk. But only if you agree to sit through my shpiel about the dangers of sticking your hands and sharp things where they don’t belong. No? Ok, no deal then.
Jen, I’m so glad you ran far and fast, you followed your gut. I’m always so impressed when someone has the gumption to do that, against what “other people” think.
[Reply]
juliewashere88 had this to say,
Sep 1, 2011 @ 6:17 pm (Quote)
Um, natural birth DOES come with risks. I wasn’t aware informed consent to medical care was a one-way thing.
[Reply]
Jade Reply:
September 1st, 2011 at 7:47 pm (Quote)
which is why discussing them would be fine but only if the Dr was willing to discuss all of the risks of birth, everything, natural birth, epidurals, narcotics, nitrous oxide, episiotomies, GA, pushing in lithotomy, pitocin, C/S. The whole lot not jsut pick and choose which risks they want to discuss.
[Reply]
juliewashere88 Reply:
September 1st, 2011 at 8:51 pm (Quote)
Agreed. The OP said he didn’t discuss the risks of other things, and he should have.
But the quote itself is not wrong.
[Reply]
Eileen Reply:
September 1st, 2011 at 11:17 pm (Quote)
Like what?
What risks does a natural birth have that are not inherent in ANY birth?
The *only* risk I can come up with increasing from having a natural birth would be needing a blood transfusion and somehow bleeding out on your way to get one. Or possibly needing life saving procedures on the newborn and not getting to the hospital in time to receive them. But those are not risks of natural birth, those are risks of not being in a hospital. If (truly) natural birth happened in a hospital (which I know is rare) even those risks would not exist.
The problem with this statement is not only that the doctor did not discuss the risks of interventions, too, but that the risks associated with “natural birth” are the risks associated with ANY birth. Having a “non-natural” birth does not eliminate or reduce the risks.
[Reply]
Eileen Reply:
September 1st, 2011 at 11:18 pm (Quote)
To clarify: Discussing the risks of any birth is fine. It is the fact that he evidently only discusses the risks of any birth if the mother wants to go natural.
[Reply]
Jade Reply:
September 2nd, 2011 at 5:43 am (Quote)
“Having a “non-natural” birth does not eliminate or reduce the risks.”
infact it does the opposite.
I don’t understand the distinction here, why does it need to be called “natural birth” surely it is just BIRTH. Anything in addition to birth (IVs, drugs, induction etc surely deviates from how everything is supposed to work and therefore it is anything (and everything) that is over and above nothing (natural) that needs discussing. I mean no one discusses the risks of going for a BM (which I presume there are some I mean you could get hemorrhoids, you could get fissures..etc) but if you were to use/get an enema then the risks would be discussed even if it were to just tell you that it is likely you will poo everywhere)
ok so that went off on a tangent but oh well.
[Reply]
Jen Reply:
September 4th, 2011 at 1:29 pm (Quote)
To clarify, my OB felt it necessary to discuss the “risks” of an intervention-free birth, but during that conversations, he listed the interventions as SOLUTIONS. He did NOT discuss the risks of a c-section or pitocin, for instance, even when pressed. He told me not to worry, because we could always do a c-section. I understand that there are risks inherent to ANY birth, but he and I parted ways when his view of birth added to my risk.
[Reply]
Jade Reply:
September 4th, 2011 at 5:32 pm (Quote)
I realise that is what happened in your case. My big paragraph was just a general statement about the silliness of him (or anyone else) discussing “natural birth” when really it is just “birth”
[Reply]
juliewashere88 Reply:
September 6th, 2011 at 1:51 pm (Quote)
Then it’s silly to refer to any birth, regardless of how it’s done, as anything but simply, “birth.”
I can agree with that to a degree. All births are births. But it’s not really linguistically useful when discussing different methods.
[Reply]
Jade Reply:
September 6th, 2011 at 6:54 pm (Quote)
Yes it is useful because “birth” would refer to the basic run of the mill, no induction, no drugs, no instruments type birth. After that you would start adding other words “augmented birth” “medicated birth” “instrumental birth”. Surely the simple one word “birth” would refer to birth, as it is in it’s natural state?
[Reply]
juliewashere88 Reply:
September 6th, 2011 at 7:55 pm (Quote)
No, birth should refer to birth. Any birth. One person’s birth is not superior to another’s who did it differently.
Suppose I wanted to only call cesarean birth birth, and called vaginal delivery without interventions natural birth. You seem to have trouble with the terminology because you perceive that it others natural birth. But what you’re actually doing is othering different methods of birth.
I see no reason one method should be held on some sort of pedestal as the right way to do things and everything else is inferior.
It’s all birth. Modifiers exist to add specifics.
[Reply]
Jade Reply:
September 6th, 2011 at 9:14 pm (Quote)
I didn’t say that one was superior or inferior. I agree, modifiers add specifics, like deviations from normal. augmentation is a deavtion from normal, so is episiotomy, epidural, c/s, other narcotics, and many other things, the introduction of medicines, procedures and surgery are deviations from birth in it’s natural state and all carry risks (and benefits).
[Reply]
juliewashere88 Reply:
September 6th, 2011 at 1:33 pm (Quote)
Oh, I definitely agree that the doctor should have discussed the risks of interventions too. But the fact of the matter remains that there are risks even without interventions and they’re worth talking about.
Since you asked about risks specific to natural delivery, and I’m assuming you mean those that aren’t common in just about any birth… Right off the top of my head, there’s increased risk of brain hemorrhage for newborns born vaginally and it’s not associated with interventions like forceps. http://www.news-medical.net/news/2007/01/30/21591.aspx
[Reply]
Jade Reply:
September 6th, 2011 at 7:00 pm (Quote)
That says they were born vaginally, it doesn’t say the mothers were not induced, augmented, pain medicated, epiduraled and other articles about the same topic are not sure sure that instrumental delivery is not the isse.
[Reply]
juliewashere88 Reply:
September 6th, 2011 at 7:47 pm (Quote)
“In our study, neither the size of the baby or the baby’s head, the length of the labor, nor the use of vacuum or forceps to assist the delivery caused the bleeds,” Dr. Gilmore said. “The bleeds are probably caused by pressure on the skull during delivery.”
[Reply]
Jade Reply:
September 6th, 2011 at 9:16 pm (Quote)
you didn’t read my comment. I said “OTHER articles about the same topic are not sure sure that instrumental delivery is not the issue.”
[Reply]
juliewashere88 Reply:
September 9th, 2011 at 7:42 am (Quote)
What other articles? You didn’t give any so I quoted the only one provided.
[Reply]
Jade Reply:
September 9th, 2011 at 8:48 am (Quote)
This one explains the flaws in the study as well as some common questions http://www.lamaze.org/ChildbirthEducators/ResourcesforEducators/TalkingPoints/Hemorrhage/tabid/453/Default.aspx
This one actually says quite to teh contrary in regards to ICH risks http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199912023412301
[Reply]
Cindy Reply:
September 6th, 2011 at 7:27 pm (Quote)
Well there are risks to eating with your mouth, like choking for instance, but we don’t just feed everyone by tube to lessen the risk.
There is also a chance you could die in an automobile, but people who refuse to get in a vehicle are actually considered to have a mental disorder.
There are many everyday things that have risks but the alternative to doing them (feeding tube for an otherwise healthy person, not getting in a car ever) are obviously outside of normal and should only happen in extreme cases. I just don’t understand why the ob felt the need to only go over the inherent risks to the normal task of childbirth and not the many risks of (what should be) abnormal use of interventions.
[Reply]
juliewashere88 Reply:
September 6th, 2011 at 7:49 pm (Quote)
… Because it’s the the complications one is at risk for with natural birth that causes interventions to exist at all?
Yes, he should have talked about the risks of those too, BUT those interventions do exist for a reason.
[Reply]
Cindy Reply:
September 6th, 2011 at 7:59 pm (Quote)
YES they exist for a reason as do feeding tubes. There are times when it is necessary, but they are few and far between because the human body is meant to birth a baby vaginally.
The doctor was using these inherent risks as a means to bully the OP into doing whatever the doctor wanted. The OP said as much which is WHY this quote is here. The “let me talk to you about the risk of natural childbirth” was not altruistic or becuse he cared about her, and he proved it with his ridiculous letter to the hospital. The talk in this situation was a veiled attempt to scare the patient into doing whatever the doctor decides is “necessary” at the time and a way to cover his own bum.
[Reply]
juliewashere88 Reply:
September 9th, 2011 at 7:41 am (Quote)
I’ve already addressed the doctor’s bullying in two previous comments. Yes, he failed for having an agenda.
But what I was talking about was the fact that any form of birth, including one without interventions, comes with risks. Some risks are higher for cesarean, some are higher for vaginal. Someone already had a pissing contest with me about these risks when, in another thread, I had the nerve to challenge the snobbish notion that CHOOSING an elective cesarean is invariably inferior to choosing to birth vaginally (heresy, apparently. Women are allowed to choose, but only if they choose to do what the natural birth advocates want,) so I’ll not get into it again here.
The human body is not meant to do anything. I’m sorry, it’s just a pet peeve of mine when people say that the human body is meant for some specific thing because individual human beings aren’t inherently meant for anything at all. Not all women are able or even willing to birth naturally or at all.
Birth is inherently dangerous. Before modern medical practice, those evil interventions, complications related to pregnancy and birth were a leading cause of death in women. 1000 women still die every day world-wide from pregnancy-related causes, mostly because they lack access to proper medical care. I wouldn’t call such a staggering statistic rare and I doubt their grieving families would either.
Yes, doctors frequently abuse these interventions for their own convenience, and I don’t blame anyone for not trusting OBs in general for just this reason. Hell, if I had no other reason to decide that I never want to go through birth, the awful doctors quoted here would be enough.
But none of this changes the fact that vaginal birth without interventions comes with risks and it’s worth discussing. I’m amazed how all of us here can crow about informed consent until it comes to something the group glorifies and declares unassailable.
[Reply]
Jade Reply:
September 9th, 2011 at 7:54 am (Quote)
I was one of the people who engaged in your “pissing contest”
The human body is made for doing specific things, hence the existence of particular teeth, a certain digestive system, the abscence of an egg laying ability, and of course many many more things that are applicable to our species. Individual human beings are most certainly meant for some things and not others, you can’t decide that you would rather lay an egg to incubate your baby because it would be a whole lot easier than gestating it in your uterus which was designed to carry a baby. Whether you choose to take up those functions is to a certain degree your own choosing. last time I checked you couldn’t decide to be a ruminent animal since you kind of lack the required stomach for chewing cud. You can’t just decide that drinking is a bit of a pain in the ass and you would rather gain your water by osmosis. To claim that our body is not designed for specific things is ludicrous.
And now that we have modern medicine, how many women die of causes that are purely iatrogenic and would never have happened without interventions. I am damn sure that that number has skyrocketed in the last 100 years. So yes, we are indeed saving some people that would have died but we are also killing many who would have lived and traumatising even more whose birth experinces could ahve been perfect had they birthed 100 years ago.
[Reply]
juliewashere88 Reply:
September 9th, 2011 at 8:04 am (Quote)
So, you’re basing what a body is meant to do on what no body can do? So I can’t fly unassisted, so I must be meant for, oh I don’t know, marathon running?
If women are meant for vaginal birth? Why can’t every women be pregnant? Why can’t every woman birth vaginally? Why do some people’s bodies simply not make room for a baby to pass through? Why do women die giving birth?
Never-mind that our bodies aren’t actually designed at all.
As for your second paragraph, bull. The maternal mortality rate has dropped dramatically because of the advent of modern medicine. If you doubt that, check out areas of the world that still lack availability of proper medical care. Any rare cases of death related to interventions are nothing compared to how many more would die without them.
[Reply]
jade Reply:
September 9th, 2011 at 8:09 am (Quote)
So how exactly do you propose our species is supposed to reproduce? C/s birth? egg laying? birthing our embryos and keeping them in a pouch like marsupials? swallowing the eggs like fish? storing them in our stomachs like seahorses? What a dumb statement. Of course there will be exceptions to the rule, people who for whatever reason cannot reproduce, but as a whole our species is supposed to give birth to live young.
[Reply]
juliewashere88 Reply:
September 9th, 2011 at 8:15 am (Quote)
Just because something is the only way we can do things doesn’t mean it’s something we’re meant to do. I don’t get how you can look at a statement where I said we’re not meant to do anything and desperately to to make it seem like I’m saying we’re meant for something else.
Look, if you’re not actually going to bother yourself to read what I write when you respond to me, you’re just wasting my time.
Cindy Reply:
September 9th, 2011 at 8:29 am (Quote)
I’m not going to engage in a pissing contest. You are continually bringing up that all women should be told of the inherent risks of natural childbirth and I am specifically talking about THIS SITUATION in which the doctor was attempting to bully THIS OP.
I’m sorry you have a pet peeve about people saying the human body is designed to do something. This does not change that it is a fact that the human body is made to birth a child vaginally just as it is made to swallow, to gag on food that is too big, to vomit when something dangerous is ingested, etc. There are circumstances in which the body of the particular human isn’t functioning the way it is supposed to. Does that make it the person’s fault? Of course not. OF COURSE NOT. I have several infertile family members, and it’s not their fault. To say that because there are people that can’t reproduce, cant swallow, don’t have a gag reflex etc is part of how the body is SUPPOSED to function just doesn’t ring true.
I still stand by the statement that ALL risks should be discussed, but not as an attempt to bully the patient one way or the other as was the case here specifically.
[Reply]
Jade Reply:
September 9th, 2011 at 8:40 am (Quote)
Thankyou Cindy.
I read what you wrote Julie, it is just ludicrous “If women are meant for vaginal birth?” As I said, what other kind of birth would we be meant for?
[Reply]
Cindy Reply:
September 9th, 2011 at 8:42 am (Quote)
And by this I’m not talking about a philosophical argument on whether people are meant to have children because of some plan or God or whatever. I don’t believe in that so I’m only talking about the bodily function of the reproductive system which ends in labor and vaginal birth. Choosing to or not to have children should be the choice of the people reproducing or not reproducing, and I never meant to imply otherwise.
[Reply]
Jade Reply:
September 9th, 2011 at 8:59 am (Quote)
How do you explain the fact that the US, who ahve one of the highest intervention rates in the world, still have such a terrible maternal mortality rate? If interventions are such a good thing then why do countries with a high intervention, C/S, epidural rate, still have such disgraceful maternal mortality rates?
[Reply]
Jade Reply:
September 6th, 2011 at 9:20 pm (Quote)
so you genuinely believe that interventions are ONLY used when a true need arises? They are never over used?
The OB did not go on to discuss the risks of using the intervention that was supposed to “solve” the problem. The mother might have decided that she would rather run the first risk than expose herself to the risk from the intervention which may be a higher risk/more catastrophic/not an acceptable risk for her (for example, although an epidural can have some benefits when used properly and with informed consent, I personally would NEVER agree to one because among other things there is a risk that it could drop your BP, that is not a risk that I am willing to run since my BP is 70/40)
[Reply]
juliewashere88 Reply:
September 9th, 2011 at 7:41 am (Quote)
“so you genuinely believe that interventions are ONLY used when a true need arises? They are never over used?”
I never said any such thing. Please read what I actually wrote.
[Reply]
Jade Reply:
September 9th, 2011 at 7:44 am (Quote)
‘Because it’s the the complications one is at risk for with natural birth that causes interventions to exist at all?”
that clearly says that onterventions only exist due to complications.
[Reply]
juliewashere88 Reply:
September 9th, 2011 at 7:57 am (Quote)
Sure, if you want to ignore what was actually written and decide it means something other than what it says.
Those interventions exist because natural birth comes with complications. That isn’t saying those interventions aren’t ever used when not necessary.
[Reply]
Jade Reply:
September 6th, 2011 at 9:27 pm (Quote)
I discussed this above in regards to bowel movements too. No doubt you are at risk of getting hemorrhoids, anal fissures, constipation, diarrhea. Doctors don’t talk to you about the inherrent risk of using your bowel as it was meant to be. If the need arises to people with a colostomy bag or even just enemas the Dr will discuss the risks of those interventions (even if it is just to tell you that with an enema your chances of defacating somewhere you didn’t mean to is quite high). By the same token, people don’t jsut choose to have a colostomy bag fitted because they can’t be bothered dealing with the whole, having to find a toilet junk (as a comparison for non medical based C/S)
[Reply]
Add Your Comment.
Okay, after we talk about all the risks of unnecessary interventions, augmentations, and medications.
[Reply]
Katie R Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 6:27 pm Katie R(Quote)
Like that’ll ever happen.
[Reply]
Jane Reply:
August 31st, 2011 at 6:36 pm Jane(Quote)
That was my first thought too. Is this doctor ALSO going to tell patients all the risks of episiotomies? Epidurals? No? Why not?
[Reply]
K Reply:
September 1st, 2011 at 12:04 pm K(Quote)
That was my first thought.
Oh yes, we need to talk about all of the possible risks, for each birth choice.
[Reply]