This just hit the AP wires today. Let's hear it for The Big Push for Midwives! You ROCK!
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5i8fJ2C7TgNkq8F70slj14c7HwR1QD960CNDG2
I'm off to feed my kids
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
BOLD Red Tent - Paris
Our BOLD organizer in Paris, France sent me a link to a YouTube presentation of their BOLD Red Tent last year. Check it out!
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=grzeLsrjc4Q
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=grzeLsrjc4Q
Thursday, January 22, 2009
C-Sections to Blame for Childbirth Complicatons
Need more evidence that choosing a C-Section could be dangerous for your health? Several newspapers this week have reported a study published in the new issue of Obstetrics & Gynecology linking the upward swing in the number of Cesarean sections performed in the United States to rising rates of serious complications in women giving birth.
"By examining hospital discharges nationwide, a team of researchers found that rates of kidney failure, respiratory distress syndrome, shock and ventilator use associated with childbirth climbed more than 20 percent from 1998-99 to 2004-05, while rates for pulmonary embolism and blood transfusions rose 50percent and 92 percent, respectively...Researchers said more frequent delivery by C-section--a major surgery--seemed to explain or contribute to the increases."
Think it's time we stop bashing birth advocates for trying to raise awareness about the dangers of C-sections? How about holding those pushing unnecessary C-sections accountable for their actions?
Sure, everyone has a right to choose what birth they want, but with women being denied VBACs (vaginal birth after cesareans) at so many hospitals in the United States and few understanding the risks of C-sections (and that entering most hospitals today moms have a 1 in 3 chance they'll have a C-section) we have to ask ourselves does choice really exist for the majority of pregnant women?
Studies like these need to be a wake up call to hospital administrators, doctors and those who work for insurance companies deciding coverage for pregnant women. Is the dollar above pregnant women's health?
"By examining hospital discharges nationwide, a team of researchers found that rates of kidney failure, respiratory distress syndrome, shock and ventilator use associated with childbirth climbed more than 20 percent from 1998-99 to 2004-05, while rates for pulmonary embolism and blood transfusions rose 50percent and 92 percent, respectively...Researchers said more frequent delivery by C-section--a major surgery--seemed to explain or contribute to the increases."
Think it's time we stop bashing birth advocates for trying to raise awareness about the dangers of C-sections? How about holding those pushing unnecessary C-sections accountable for their actions?
Sure, everyone has a right to choose what birth they want, but with women being denied VBACs (vaginal birth after cesareans) at so many hospitals in the United States and few understanding the risks of C-sections (and that entering most hospitals today moms have a 1 in 3 chance they'll have a C-section) we have to ask ourselves does choice really exist for the majority of pregnant women?
Studies like these need to be a wake up call to hospital administrators, doctors and those who work for insurance companies deciding coverage for pregnant women. Is the dollar above pregnant women's health?
Friday, January 16, 2009
Childbirth, Choices, Fears
As we head into Inauguration Weekend here in the United States I have been thinking alot about how fear fuels so much of how our society acts and how fear leads us to make poor choices, clouding our instincts.
This week I had tea with a girlfriend, the mother of two boys 4 and 9,who shared with me her health saga. For the past year she has struggled with a wide range of debilitating symptoms including fatigue but more recently disturbing vision problems (several months ago she went for over 24 hours with blurry vision, more recently letters in words seem to disappear). She has seen several doctors and no one seems to know what's wrong or think much of it. Meanwhile, every day she struggles with her health. As she spoke I wondered why she has not seen a health care provider outside the traditional medical model of care - these days acupuncturists and chiropractors seem almost mainstream medicine! - but the response I got was this: "my husband doesn't believe in that kind of stuff."
Oh boy, I thought, I've heard that line before. That's the classic line so many mothers told me when I wrote my play of why they did not make the choice to have a a midwife or a doula.
I'm often surprised when people don't get that there's a childbirth crisis because there clearly a health care crisis in America (if you've seen Michael Moore's film SICKO you know what I mean). But the deeper issue in all of this seems to be fear and how people make choices entrenched in the culture of fear.
How is it possible that a mother is unable to see and can barely get out of bed in the morning and she's not going to see an acupuncturist, chiropractor, energy healer and every other care provider who can provide a different model of care from the one that is clearly not helping her?
Why do we have so much faith in fear, but little faith in ourselves?
As Americans head into Inauguration Weekend, with the promise of hope upon us, my hope is that fear can begin to take a backseat to hope, that women can access their true selves once again and reclaim their innate sisterhood - in childbirth and life.
Once childbirth choices are no longer made from a place of fear the revolution will have begun.
This week I had tea with a girlfriend, the mother of two boys 4 and 9,who shared with me her health saga. For the past year she has struggled with a wide range of debilitating symptoms including fatigue but more recently disturbing vision problems (several months ago she went for over 24 hours with blurry vision, more recently letters in words seem to disappear). She has seen several doctors and no one seems to know what's wrong or think much of it. Meanwhile, every day she struggles with her health. As she spoke I wondered why she has not seen a health care provider outside the traditional medical model of care - these days acupuncturists and chiropractors seem almost mainstream medicine! - but the response I got was this: "my husband doesn't believe in that kind of stuff."
Oh boy, I thought, I've heard that line before. That's the classic line so many mothers told me when I wrote my play of why they did not make the choice to have a a midwife or a doula.
I'm often surprised when people don't get that there's a childbirth crisis because there clearly a health care crisis in America (if you've seen Michael Moore's film SICKO you know what I mean). But the deeper issue in all of this seems to be fear and how people make choices entrenched in the culture of fear.
How is it possible that a mother is unable to see and can barely get out of bed in the morning and she's not going to see an acupuncturist, chiropractor, energy healer and every other care provider who can provide a different model of care from the one that is clearly not helping her?
Why do we have so much faith in fear, but little faith in ourselves?
As Americans head into Inauguration Weekend, with the promise of hope upon us, my hope is that fear can begin to take a backseat to hope, that women can access their true selves once again and reclaim their innate sisterhood - in childbirth and life.
Once childbirth choices are no longer made from a place of fear the revolution will have begun.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Birth stats finally out
Official 2006 statistics in the United States for childbirth are out. Cesarean rate is officially 31.1%. But remember, these are 2006 STATISTICS. It's now 2009. I'm wondering how long it's going to take before we see 2007! Hmmm...
Check it out: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_07.pdf
Check it out: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_07.pdf
Monday, January 12, 2009
Happy BIRTH-day
to my youngest son...and me! Eight years ago I gave birth at home to a beautiful little boy at 3.34am on January 12th. Wow, how time flies!
Tonight we went out for Indian food for my son's birthday - his favorite food (see photo above!). After I got home my husband and I watched his birth on video as we do every year on his birthday. But this year I gave a chuckle that we went for Indian food, remembering that eight years ago on the night I gave birth to him my husband, myself and our oldest son went out for Indian food. It all made sense!
Friday, January 09, 2009
Washington Post doesn't get it
Well, I had high hopes yesterday when I saw the front-page piece in the Washington Post titled, "Early Repeat C-Sections Increase Risks, Study Finds." Finally, a study was on the front page informing women that having a repeat C-section increases risks to their babies especially if the section is done before 39 weeks. These are new findings in the recent New England Journal of Medicine.
But no...the article completely missed the point when it comes to mothers and their birth choices. First off, how can you mention repeat c-sections and not at the very LEAST mention the volatile VBAC (vaginal birth after cesarean) issue? The Washington Post explains the reasons for the rise in repeat cesareans as a "subject of intense debate" (right!) but then goes on to list some of the reasons and never mentions that ACOG (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) issued guidelines several years ago on repeat cesareans that have resulted in many hospitals denying women who have had one cesarean the right to try to have a vaginal birth for their next birth. So the Washington Post's simple statement, "once a mother has a C-section, she is much more likely to deliver subsequent children the same way" is misleading at best. The more accurate way of putting it would be, "once a woman has a C-section, she is typically not allowed or strongly encouraged to have another C-section despite evidence that does not support this."
Here's my point: to even mention a study about repeat C-sections we have to tell the truth and face the fact that women in America are not given the option to do anything but another C-section. So the statistic given in this article that "13,258 (C-sections) were clearly elective" is wrong. If your hospital or doctor doesn't allow VBAC for women who are low risk and meet the standards to have a VBAC that's NOT an elective C-section to me. That's a human rights abuse on women.
If this wasn't bad enough the Washington Post goes on to tell us this study can help women make decisions about timing their C-sections. WAIT! Maybe this study should also make us reflect on whether ACOG and others are putting low risk women and their babies in physical danger by denying them VBAC? Sure, some women need C-sections, I get it - but many women do not and this needs to be addressed. The risks of C-sections, and especially repeat C-sections, are so clear that to encourage women to have them smells like a human rights abuse to me.
Okay, and finally, the piece of course had to end on the "birth as illness" note. The real kicker which was predictable but sad to read was the quote at the end of the piece from a doctor who warns women, "how many babies may have died waiting to get to 39 weeks." Come on...stop scaring women (and their friends and family). If you make a statement like that give us some evidence and especially give us some evidence of in how many low risk pregnancies babies died waiting to get to 39 weeks." Put women's interests first, not the medical community.
Beam me up to Planet Normal Birth - right now!
But no...the article completely missed the point when it comes to mothers and their birth choices. First off, how can you mention repeat c-sections and not at the very LEAST mention the volatile VBAC (vaginal birth after cesarean) issue? The Washington Post explains the reasons for the rise in repeat cesareans as a "subject of intense debate" (right!) but then goes on to list some of the reasons and never mentions that ACOG (American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists) issued guidelines several years ago on repeat cesareans that have resulted in many hospitals denying women who have had one cesarean the right to try to have a vaginal birth for their next birth. So the Washington Post's simple statement, "once a mother has a C-section, she is much more likely to deliver subsequent children the same way" is misleading at best. The more accurate way of putting it would be, "once a woman has a C-section, she is typically not allowed or strongly encouraged to have another C-section despite evidence that does not support this."
Here's my point: to even mention a study about repeat C-sections we have to tell the truth and face the fact that women in America are not given the option to do anything but another C-section. So the statistic given in this article that "13,258 (C-sections) were clearly elective" is wrong. If your hospital or doctor doesn't allow VBAC for women who are low risk and meet the standards to have a VBAC that's NOT an elective C-section to me. That's a human rights abuse on women.
If this wasn't bad enough the Washington Post goes on to tell us this study can help women make decisions about timing their C-sections. WAIT! Maybe this study should also make us reflect on whether ACOG and others are putting low risk women and their babies in physical danger by denying them VBAC? Sure, some women need C-sections, I get it - but many women do not and this needs to be addressed. The risks of C-sections, and especially repeat C-sections, are so clear that to encourage women to have them smells like a human rights abuse to me.
Okay, and finally, the piece of course had to end on the "birth as illness" note. The real kicker which was predictable but sad to read was the quote at the end of the piece from a doctor who warns women, "how many babies may have died waiting to get to 39 weeks." Come on...stop scaring women (and their friends and family). If you make a statement like that give us some evidence and especially give us some evidence of in how many low risk pregnancies babies died waiting to get to 39 weeks." Put women's interests first, not the medical community.
Beam me up to Planet Normal Birth - right now!
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
BOLD 2009 registration starts January 15th
Here's the plug: want a groovy way to raise awareness about childbirth and make it better for mothers? Organize a BOLD event! Registration begins January 15th. Request an application to do a Performance or Red Tent.
Yes you CAN!
Yes you CAN!
Monday, January 05, 2009
20/20 on childbirth - ugh!
Well, I don't know about you, but I was disappointed when I watched 20/20's show on childbirth on Friday, January 2. First of all, it was called EXTREME MOTHERHOOD. Now I get that most women aren't having orgasmic births and home birth is also rare, but calling it "EXTREME"? And then sandwiching between these two segments a truly extreme story about women who buys dolls and mother them instead of real babies? Come on...
And that's not all. Could the correspondents who did the childbirth pieces on Orgasmic Birth and Home birth be any more judgmental in their tone of voices? I was appalled at how biased these correspondents were. Yes, filmmaker Debra Pascali-Bonaro and Ricki Lake made some fabulous points, but when right after they make those points the 20/20 correspondent puts down their points I felt like I was watching a tabloid entertainment show.
And finally (yes, the hair on my back really rose with this next point!) the home birth piece was completely, utterly misleading. They interspersed Laura Shanley, a well-respected pioneer in the unassisted birth community, with Ricki Lake who was not talking about unassisted birth at all. I nearly fell off my couch when Elizabeth Vargas talked about women who decide to have their babies at home with no medical care provider present and then proceeded to talk about home birth without making the CRUCIAL distinction that home births are attended by medical care providers while unassisted home births are not. I might have thought I was crazy and misheard something if it wasn't for my mother calling me at the end of the segment and she too felt it was totally misleading and made home birth sound even more extreme than it is.
I hope someone out there who didn't know about childbirth walked away thinking they might want a home birth or an orgasmic birth, but quite honestly 20/20's take would have had me running from these experiences...and my mother most definitely wouldn't be in my court.
What a way to start off the new year.
And that's not all. Could the correspondents who did the childbirth pieces on Orgasmic Birth and Home birth be any more judgmental in their tone of voices? I was appalled at how biased these correspondents were. Yes, filmmaker Debra Pascali-Bonaro and Ricki Lake made some fabulous points, but when right after they make those points the 20/20 correspondent puts down their points I felt like I was watching a tabloid entertainment show.
And finally (yes, the hair on my back really rose with this next point!) the home birth piece was completely, utterly misleading. They interspersed Laura Shanley, a well-respected pioneer in the unassisted birth community, with Ricki Lake who was not talking about unassisted birth at all. I nearly fell off my couch when Elizabeth Vargas talked about women who decide to have their babies at home with no medical care provider present and then proceeded to talk about home birth without making the CRUCIAL distinction that home births are attended by medical care providers while unassisted home births are not. I might have thought I was crazy and misheard something if it wasn't for my mother calling me at the end of the segment and she too felt it was totally misleading and made home birth sound even more extreme than it is.
I hope someone out there who didn't know about childbirth walked away thinking they might want a home birth or an orgasmic birth, but quite honestly 20/20's take would have had me running from these experiences...and my mother most definitely wouldn't be in my court.
What a way to start off the new year.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)