Forgot Password?

Jennifer Margulis

Mothering Outside the Lines

The Right to Refuse

April 29th, 2010

My kids and I like to role play. Sometimes I pretend to be a bad guy and I drive by them in my “car,” slowing down and crying out, “Hey kids! Come with me! My dog had puppies and they’re really cute. I’ll take you to go see them. Get in…”

Etani, who’s six, shouts “NO WAY! GET AWAY FROM ME!” and runs in the other direction.

Saying no is a lot harder for Athena, who’s nine. She stops walking and politely declines, “No thank you, sir. I do not want to see a puppy right now, but thank you anyway for asking…”

We teach our children to follow directions, to “be good,” and to do what grown-ups tell them to. That’s not a bad thing. Unless the grown-up in question does not have our child’s best interests in mind.

We teach ourselves to do the same. Most of us are rule followers. We don’t want to be noticed. We don’t want to make waves. We want people to like us. We want to say yes and do as we are told.

So when an authority figure tells us how to take care of our children, we try to follow their advice. That means when a hospital includes Pamper diapers in their gift bag, that is the brand we will use. And when a dentist gives our child fluoride, we accept it.

As adults, we are expected to follow our doctor’s recommendations without question. Healthcare practitioners are often busy and overworked. Most do not have the time to talk to you and when they do they do not expect to have a discussion: they expect you to listen to them and do as they tell you. Even if we intuit that what the doctor’s suggesting is not in our best interests, usually we say little or nothing. We leave the office and seek a second opinion. Or we follow their directions even though it niggles at us, giving in to their authority over our bodies, our health, and our children.

But what if what the doctor recommends is not in the best interest of our child? Last year Harvard University medical students realized they were being duped by their professors, who belittled them in class when they asked about the side effects of different drugs. When a little digging revealed that many of the Harvard Medical School professors were actually working for major drug manufacturers and had a conflict of interest, the students began protesting. (Read the New York Times article on this subject here.) Gone are the days of the American doctor who makes house calls, has dinner with you, and cares deeply about your health and your child’s health, not only because you are paying him but because he knows your family in a personal way. Though I would like to believe that most doctors care about their patients, I also think our healthcare practitioners are more often swayed by financial and political interests, including a huge amount of pressure from drug companies and their peers.

Which brings us back to vaccines. Some of the vaccines given today should not be on the CDC schedule. You cannot keep loading up children with new vaccines, continue giving them the old (and now obsolete) vaccines, and expect this overload of vaccinations to be safe.

With all due respect to the readers who commented yesterday on this blog, it’s ridiculous to argue that it is unethical to do a scientific study with unvaccinated children as a control group. There is nothing unethical about it. These studies absolutely can be done because the unvaccinated or very selectively vaccinated children are already out there. Dr. Jay Gordon, whose interview was deleted from the PBS Frontline documentary, has noticed after thirty years practicing medicine, that it is these unvaccinated children who are the healthiest and most robust.

We don’t know exactly why or exactly how, and the debate about autism is still very much on the table, but I think it is clear that the current CDC vaccine schedule is making our children sick. If you don’t think so, fine. Keep vaccinating your children the way the government has told you to. Since you believe that the vaccines are safe and effective, you can sleep easily at night knowing that following the CDC will keep your child protected and healthy. (At the same time, I invite you to submit yourself to the same schedule as your infant and start going to the doctor every few months to get loaded up on vaccines. Do it as an experiment and see how it makes you feel in both the short term and the long-term.)

But if you have concerns about the vaccine schedule and you believe in the right to refuse having your child injected with a pharmaceutical product that makes drug companies very wealthy, you are not alone.

Despite the way it was depicted on PBS, this is not a fringe movement of hippie dippie woo woo Ashlanders and flighty celebrities. There’s a groundswell of parents in the United States who want to see the guidelines changed, though most of them prefer to stay safely in the closet (which is where I wish I were when people attack me on the Internet and send me hate mail) and keep their choices private.

One such parent is Louise Kuo Habakus, founder of Life Health Choices, who is organizing the American Rally for Personal Rights.Picture 9

When: May 26, 2010 3:00 p.m. – 5:00 p.m.

Where: Grant Park, downtown Chicago

What: A rally with an impressive line-up of speakers to champion vaccination choice and parental consent

For more information: American Rally for Personal Rights

Louise called me yesterday after watching Frontline. There are satellite rallies being planned in several other cities. If you care about the vaccine debate, consider hosting a party or a rally on May 26 in your town.

“Athena,” I say. “Try again. You can say ‘thank you’ but you need to be more forceful. ‘NO! I will NOT go with you.’”

Grown-ups need to learn this lesson as much as children: we all have the right to refuse.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

[ 7 comments ]

Of Mainstream Media, Hate Mail, and Vaccines

April 28th, 2010

Hannah called just a few minutes after the PBS Frontline “Vaccine War” ended.

“I can’t get the baby to stop crying,” she said.

“I’ll be right home,” I cried, saying a hasty goodbye to my friends and jumping on my bicycle.

Although I think the producers of “Vaccine War” did their best to present both sides, I was a little disappointed with the show.

Here’s why:

1. Although you would not know it from the episode, I am pro vaccine and my children are selectively vaccinated. I think vaccines may be responsible for saving hundreds of thousands of lives. But I’m against the current CDC recommendations and I have deep reservations about what the government is currently recommending for children. They are mandating too many vaccines against too many illnesses. I think they are wrong, for example, to give the Hepatitis B vaccine to newborns whose mothers do not have Hepatitis B.

If you do a risk analysis and you see that many of the vaccine-preventable diseases have been eradicated in America, it makes little to no sense to vaccinate against diseases that no longer exist in America because of the theoretical danger of these diseases being imported from other countries. Yes, Paul Offit is right that polio and diphtheria were once serious illnesses in this country. But now they are so rare that the risk of contracting them may be less than the risk of doing damage to your child’s body and immune system by getting the vaccines.

2. The PBS documentary concentrated on the question of vaccines and autism instead of presenting all the other reasons why some parents choose to selectively vaccinate. Whether vaccines somehow cause autism is only one reason to be wary of vaccines. There are so many more. Although downplayed in the documentary, we know that vaccines can cause serious side effects in some children. But there’s a bigger question about vaccines and the immune system: vaccines may have long-term negative consequences on a person’s immune system. An article in Pediatrics, for example, showed that people who contract measles are less likely to get allergies. What if one of the reasons that auto-immune disorders are on the rise is because we have co-evolved to get certain illnesses and without wild exposure our bodies turn against themselves? I raised this question during the hours of interviews but I guess it was too complicated for a mainstream audience? In general, I feel like the documentary dumbed down the debate.

3. PBS did not include any footage of interviews with any mainstream doctors who are against the current CDC vaccination guidelines, despite the fact that there are hundreds of mainstream medical professionals in practice in America today who disagree with the nation’s vaccination schedule. I’ve interviewed both doctors and nurses who do not vaccinate their children according to CDC guidelines and who disagree with how vaccines are being used today. For more on this, read How to Raise a Healthy Child … In Spite of Your Doctor, which talks about how many doctors administer vaccines to their patients because they are required to follow public health guidelines but privately do not use them with their own children.

4. I think it’s a disservice to the thinking public to talk about “vaccines” and not to discuss each vaccine individually. Again, perhaps PBS was dumbing things down for a mainstream audience. But you have to look at each vaccine on a vaccine by vaccine basis. If I decide not to vaccinate against tetanus, there is no way that I am putting any other child at risk by my decision. Tetanus is a bacterial infection found in the soil and contracted by doing things like stepping on a dirty needle. My child cannot give your child tetanus.

5. I wish the point that if vaccines really work, parents who do not vaccinate are not putting vaccinated children at risk was made a little more clearly. I’ll say it again for clarity’s sake: If vaccines work as well as public health officials claim they do, unvaccinated people do not ever put vaccinated people at risk for anything. Period. But vaccines do not always work. Some vaccines, like the one for pertussis, have more than a 20 percent failure rate.

6. No scientific studies have been conducted with a statistically significant group of completely unvaccinated children. That means that all the studies that have been cited as “proving” or “disproving” the autism connection (or any other vaccine issue) are inherently flawed. You need a control group. That’s Biology 101.

7. Paul Offit calls people interested in investigating the damage done by vaccines “pseudo scientists” because they keep looking for other aspects of the vaccines that may be causing autism. When you try a hypothesis and it fails, you try another hypothesis. That’s not pseudo-science. That’s the scientific method. Again, I wish PBS had interviewed a conventionally educated doctor or other health care practitioner to provide a counterpoint to Offit.

8. The producers chuckled when I made this point on camera (and did not use this footage) but I do believe that we all need to act for the greater good. More children die in traffic and car-related accidents than anything else in America. Our family has one (compact) car for six people and we drive it as rarely as we can. If Americans really care about keeping each other’s children safe, we would all dust off our bicycles, scooters, skateboards, and walking shoes. If we want to stop endangering children we need to get out of our cars.

I’ve heard back from several friends, including Peggy O’Mara, that the episode was more fair than almost any other mainstream coverage of the vaccine debate. This is a difficult and controversial topic fueled by enormous financial and political interests on the side of the vaccine manufacturers and the medical establishment. Though I’m sorry it wasn’t less biased, I guess PBS did the best it could. And, as an LA Times writer pointed out, the pro-vaccine side probably feels that too much coverage was given to the vaccine hesitant folks.

I’m already getting hate mail.

This email message (from someone who choses to loathe me anonymously) was titled: “You’re living proof…”

that brains are not a requirement to get a Phd in English Lit. I live in Ashland and I must say I was embarrassed for my community when I saw you make an ass of yourself on the Frontline special. I was also embarrassed to learn that almost 30% of the stupid hippie population of Ashland aren’t getting their children vaccinated for MMR and other childhood diseases. Please keep your kids away from mine.

“If you’re going to take a stand on controversial topics, people are going to hate you,” my husband says. “You should know that by now.”

By the time I bicycled home the baby had calmed down. A few minutes after Hannah left my son woke up and vomited all over the carpet in the hallway. I’m writing this in bed with the baby on one side snoring and her big brother on the other (and a bowl on the floor in case he gets sick again). This isn’t really a war. We are all parents. We all care deeply about keeping our children safe and healthy. Name calling and blaming each other are unproductive. Whichever side of the vaccine debate you come down on, we are actually all in this together.

You can access the full program on-line by clicking here.

Related post:
The Right to Refuse

If you watched PBS tonight, what did you think of the show? Which side are you on in the vaccine debate? Why do you choose to vaccinate your children? Why do you choose not to? What do you think we can do to help the two armies in the vaccine “war” stop fighting and find common ground?

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

[ 63 comments ]

Difficulties at the Dentist

March 31st, 2010

stuffedToothbrushI waited two months to get my children an appointment with a new dentist. She is one of two who takes the Oregon Health Plan, a state-funded insurance program for kids who qualify.

We’ve really been feeling the pinch of the recession and our family, unfortunately, more than qualifies.

I was so glad that OHP includes dental coverage. It’s been a year since the kids have seen a dentist.

The appointment was for 2:20 p.m and I called around 1:00 p.m. to confirm. We arrived early. The receptionist handed me some paperwork. Included in the paperwork was a consent form. You’re supposed to put your initials by the various treatments, including “any necessary radiation” and “fluoride treatments.”

Unless there’s a problem, I don’t believe in X-raying a child’s mouth. We know that the negative affects of X-rays accumulate in a child’s body. Though the dentist (or doctor) will insist that the amount of radiation a child is exposed to in an X-ray is harmless, every time a child is exposed to X-rays you are damaging more cells and doing more harm. The effects are cumulative. So I think it’s a good policy to avoid X-rays. I skirted the issue on the forms, though, by writing I would bring them the X-rays done by their previous dentist.

I also suspect fluoride treatments are unnecessary. None of my children has ever had a cavity. Our water is not fluoridated. And they have not had any fluoride treatments, except once when James took them to the dentist and forgot to ask the hygienist not to do it.

So in the box where it asks to initial your consent, I wrote a note that I did not want fluoride treatments.

A hygienist came out to talk to me. She said fluoride was perfectly safe. She said the dentist recommended fluoride. I said I had concerns about it and asked to speak to the dentist.

Forty minutes went by. The receptionist called me over.

“The dentist insists on fluoride,” she said quietly. “She thinks you should take your children to another practice that’s more in keeping with your philosophy.”

“We’ve been waiting for a long time,” I said. I wasn’t angry but I was baffled and frustrated. “I waited two months to get this appointment. Could you see the girls today and then we’ll find a new dentist?”

The receptionist looked pained.

“I’ll try,” she said.

An hour and twenty minutes after we arrived, the hygienist and dentist looked at the girls’ teeth. The hygienist called me over to show me a better way to brush Athena’s gums. The dentist, who was examining Hesperus, did not look up.

“Could you take five minutes to talk to me about fluoride?” I asked the dentist.

She did not take her face mask off.

She did not agree to sit down with me somewhere private.

Instead, she spoke in front of her staff and in front of my kids, who were both lying on their backs with their mouths uncomfortably open.

“Fluoride does no damage whatsoever to the human body,” the dentist said. “It doesn’t cause cancer.” Here the hygienists giggled, as if the idea that fluoride might be carcinogenic was actually funny, it was so preposterous. “I believe in prevention: good diet, good hygiene, and fluoride. I will treat problems if I have to but that should be a last resort.”

“It sounds like we do agree,” I said, relieved. “I believe in prevention too. My kids eat well. They don’t drink soda and rarely have candy. And we are trying to improve our oral hygiene. Other than my concerns about fluoride, we’re on the same page.”

“We can’t see you here,” the dentist said. “I am leading the campaign to fluoridate the water. If you won’t do fluoride, I won’t treat you. Besides, the insurance you have requires it.”

I honestly don’t know as much about fluoride as I should. But does it matter whether the dentist is right that fluoride is an absolute necessity (which, since my children have no cavities, it obviously is not) or whether my cautious, I’d-prefer-not-to stance is correct? Should a dentist have the right to kick your child (or you) out of their practice because you refuse an optional treatment?

Tags: , , , , , , ,

[ 20 comments ]

Why You Should Question Vaccines For Your Children

March 22nd, 2010

Vaccine safety is back in the news today, because the FDA has asked doctors to temporarily suspend giving the newest incarnation of the vaccine against rotavirus, Rotarix.

This vaccine is currently scheduled on CDC guidelines for infants in two doses between ages six weeks and 24 weeks.

Picture 5Independent researchers found the vaccine to be contaminated with fragments of a virus of pigs, porcine circovirus 1 (PCV1).

There are several unfortunate things about today’s news:

1. Although the contamination was communicated to vaccine makers and the FDA in early February, the FDA has only now stopped doctors from giving a vaccine they knew to contain a foreign virus.

2. We do not know how this swine disease agent got into the vaccine.

3. We do not know what the effect of ingesting PCV1 is on human health.

But there’s a bigger issue here. This vaccine is useless in America. Rotavirus itself cannot definitively be shown to have killed any American children. Rotavirus is the most common cause of diarrhea in children, and essentially all Americans have gone through it by age three.

An older version of the rotavirus vaccine, RotaShield, was withdrawn from the market in 1999 because one of its side effects was a severe and life-threatening intestinal blockage. This side effect has also been reported with the new vaccine, but not in high enough numbers for public health officials to act on it.

Give a vaccine for a harmless illness to an infant that can cause a life-threatening emergency? No thank you.

The human immune system evolved to be exposed to diseases like rotavirus, adapt to them, and fight them off. To vaccinate against a benign disease like this and circumvent natural exposure may have negative long-term health consequences.

The health authorities have not been protecting our children’s health by mandating this vaccine in the first place.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

[ 18 comments ]

A Rant Against the Overuse of Antibiotics

March 3rd, 2010

Athena, who just turned 9, has never taken an antibiotic

Athena, who just turned 9, has never taken an antibiotic

When Athena was a baby she got an infection on her face. I ignored it for several days but finally took her to our favorite doctor in Massachusetts, whose office was in Hadley.

“So, what’s wrong with the baby?” He asked me, as he scrubbed his hands in the sink in the examining room.

“That’s what I came here to ask you,” I said.

“Tell me what you think.”

“Okay,” I took a deep breath and realized I was genuinely glad he was asking. “I think she has a bacterial infection. I think it’s probably staphylococcus but I’m not sure.”

“Right!” Dr. W. slid the rolling chair close to Athena, who was on my lap, and looked carefully at her face. “So what should we do about it?”

“That’s what I came here to ask you,” I laughed.

“You tell me,” Dr. W. said.

“Okay,” I took another deep breath and felt sorry that Dr. W. was already married. “I think, honestly, that it might not need to be treated but I’m not sure. It’s too far gone to respond to a topical medication so to treat it we would have to give the baby an oral antibiotic and I’m not sure I want to do that, especially since I’m allergic to penicillin.”

“Right again,” Dr. W. said. “Here’s what we are going to do. I’m going to write you a prescription for a broad-spectrum antibiotic. You decide if you want to fill it or not but you’ll have the prescription. I feel comfortable waiting 48 hours. If the infection gets worse or if the baby gets a fever or if you find you’re just too worried, I want you to put her on this antibiotic. But maybe–and I’m not sure about this so don’t quote me–it will clear up by itself.”

He ripped the script off the pad and handed it to me. I took the prescription and left. I filled it at the pharmacy on the way home. Somehow I felt better having the medicine in hand.

But we didn’t give the antibiotic to Athena. We waited. The infection did not get worse. We waited another day. I fretted and wondered if I should start feeding the pink syrupy medicine to her. But after two days the infection still had not worsened and Athena did not have a fever. A few days later the skin that had been so red and angry started to dry out. It turned brownish and started to flake off. Her face looked terrible, like she’d been eating chocolate and smeared it on her cheeks. But slowly, with only the help of her own immune system, the baby healed.

The overuse, overprescription, and misuse of antibiotics has become such a problem that Western medicine seems to actually be breeding deadly bacterial infections that are immune to treatment. A New York Times article by Andrew Pollack, “Rising Threat of Infections Unfazed by Antibiotics,” which appeared on February 27, 2010, reports that tens of thousands of hospital patients may be dying each year from antibiotic-resistant bacterial infections.

Pollack writes: “[Acinetobacter baumannii] is one of a category of bacteria that by some estimates are already killing tens of thousands of hospital patients each year. While the organisms do not receive as much attention as the one known as MRSA — for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus — some infectious-disease specialists say they could emerge as a bigger threat.

That is because there are several drugs, including some approved in the last few years, that can treat MRSA. But for a combination of business reasons and scientific challenges, the pharmaceuticals industry is pursuing very few drugs for Acinetobacter and other organisms of its type, known as Gram-negative bacteria. Meanwhile, the germs are evolving and becoming ever more immune to existing antibiotics.”

An incompetent doctor once prescribed an antibiotic for Hesperus for an ear infection she did not have. Hesperus was crying and fussy from missing her nap while we waited for more than an hour for a Well Baby visit. The doctor saw that her ears were red–from crying–so she told me, “I think Miss Hesperus has an ear infection,” and prescribed an antibiotic and “something for the pain.” That was the last Well Baby visit we’ve ever taken a child to.

Doctors are way too quick to prescribe antibiotics and parents are way too quick to give them to their children when they’re completely unnecessary.

There are so many healthy ways to boost a child’s immune system. We need to make sure our children get enough rest. We need to breastfeed our children for as long as possible (I’d say three years is a good minimum). We need to feed our children healthy food instead of giving them the pesticide-laden, Red-Dye-#40-tainted, nutrition-less crap advertised on TV and served up in most school cafeterias. We need to drink raw, unpasturized milk and make raw, organic vegetables a good part of our diets. We need to hug our children and make sure they get lots of affection every day, and that they have lots of grown-ups in their lives who tell them they love them and take the time to listen to their fears and their dreams.

While the overuse of antibiotics is a boon for drug company profits and for organisms with unpronounceable names like Acinetobacter baumannii and methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, it is deadly for us humans.

Giving any medication to a child, especially antibiotics, should be a last resort.

Related posts:
Why I Don’t Take My Children to Well Baby Visits
In America We Are Forcing Women To Have C-Sections
If You’re Pregnant, The Swine Flu Vaccine May Not Be Safe

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

[ 10 comments ]

Study in Monkeys Suggests Dangers of Hepatitis B Vaccine For Newborns

February 11th, 2010

You may not have heard about a study published in September in the Journal of Neurotoxicology about what happens to newborn rhesus macaques after they are given a single dose of a thimerosal-containing Hepatitis B vaccine.

Nine scientists co-authored the study.

In the introduction, they explain that in 1991 Hepatitis B was recommended for all newborns, regardless of gestational age or birth weight, within twelve hours of life, even if their mothers test negative for Hepatitis B.

“We were unable to identify pre-clinical or prospective neurotoxicity studies that assessed the safety of this policy,” the authors write.

Translation: the vaccine was recommended for newborns without anyone in the government, the medical, or the scientific community establishing in advance or afterwards that the vaccine was safe.

It’s absurd.

It was a “routine” Hepatitis B vaccine that made me first question the CDC vaccine schedule.

When a nurse in the hospital bustles in and tells you to give your baby a vaccine against a SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE you know you don’t have and your husband does not have, it gives you pause. When that same nurse becomes angry because you decline to inject your little frog-legged creature with a combination of possibly toxic chemicals that may well be completely unnecessary, you start to get suspicious.

Why would anyone in the medical establishment get upset at the parents of a healthy baby who simply ask for a few days to consider a suggestion and read up on it?

Perhaps because the nurse had already prepared the vaccine and my refusal meant the hospital could no longer charge me for it?

Perhaps because the nurse thought it is appropriate to scare parents, bully parents, vilify parents who want to be sure what a hospital is recommending is safe?

The truth is there is a lot about vaccinations that we do not know.

The truth is vaccinations are pharmaceutical products made by a multi-billion dollar industry that are injected intramuscularly into a baby’s body.

The truth may well be that 90 percent of the vaccines we are giving our children are unnecessary.

The truth may well be that the exponential number of vaccines we are now giving children (four times as many as when I was growing up in the 1970s) may well be harmful to our children’s long-term health.

Back to the study.

The scientists found that infant monkeys given the vaccine had delayed sucking, rooting, and snouting reflexes:

Infants were raised identically and tested daily for acquisition of 9 survival, motor, and sensorimotor reflexes by a blinded observer. In exposed animals there was a significant delay in the acquisition of three survival reflexes: root, snout and suck, compared with unexposed animals.

They conclude that more study is necessary:

In summary, this study provides preliminary evidence of abnormal early neurodevelopmental responses in male infant rhesus macaques receiving a single dose of Th-containing HB vaccine at birth and indicates that further investigation is merited.

Fair enough. Very scientific and politic. Let’s continue studying whether this vaccine is harmful in monkeys. But since my job as a parent is to keep my baby safe and free from harm, I am not in the mood to be politic. Here’s the bottom line (CDC are you listening?): it’s time to STOP giving the Hepatitis B vaccine to human infants who are at no risk for Hepatitis B.

Vaccine advocates will tell you there is no longer thimerosal in the vaccine. That’s certainly an improvement. But it’s not enough to guarantee the vaccine is safe. And, since the vaccine is totally unnecessary in the first place, the thimerosal question is actually irrelevant.

If you’re pregnant and planning to have a baby in the hospital, you will be pressured into accepting this vaccine.

But if you do not have Hepatitis B and your baby does not need a blood transfusion, there is absolutely no reason for your baby to get the vaccine.

Just say no.

Tags: , , , , , , ,

[ 6 comments ]

PBS Frontline to Tackle the Question of Vaccines

February 1st, 2010

I don’t usually wear make-up.

If you don’t wear make-up you look washed out on TV.

Last weekend a PBS film crew was in town shooting footage for a Frontline documentary about the vaccine debate. They have been talking to people around the country on both sides of the issue, including Paul Offit, Jenny McCarthy, Bob Sears, Barbara Loe Fisher, J. B. Handley, and more.

They came to Ashland, Oregon because many parents here choose not to vaccinate at all, choose to selectively vaccinate, or choose to vaccinate fully but on a different schedule than the one recommended by the CDC.

At any given time in my house there’s a rambunctious 6-year-old pogo sticking in the living room, an 8-year-old reading on the couch, a 10-year-old practicing cartwheels, and a baby being a baby. So the producer, who wanted to interview me about our family’s decisions, suggested I come to their hotel room.

The first interview was Saturday morning. Since I don’t have make-up, our 17-year-old babysitter brought over her mom’s in the morning. Only she was late because the power blipped off in her house and the alarm didn’t go off and she overslept. Luckily I could blame the baby.

“You look horrible,” my 10-year-old said when I got back from being interviewed by PBS for three hours. “You look like you have bags under your eyes. Take that stuff off.”

“It’s awful,” her younger sister agreed.

Sunday afternoon Etani went to his friend Finn’s house. Baby Leone and I were to participate in a discussion about vaccines with Dr. Jim Shames, M.D., who is the Jackson County Health Officer. Finn’s mom put some eye shadow and mascara on me.

Then we walked in a rain storm with gusting winds. You can imagine how I looked by the time we arrived.

Monday they took B-roll of Hesperus doing gymnastics, Etani swimming at the Y, and me being spit-up on by Baby Leone. It was so hot in the swimming pool area that I felt like I was having early-onset menopause. No make-up Monday.

Tuesday before they left town they realized they needed more B-roll and stopped by to film the front of our house (think: uncut grass, untrimmed trees) and me in my office. I work at my computer sitting cross-legged on a couch. I was wearing a skirt, which kept riding up. “Uh, that’s NOT going to work,” the producer said. No make-up Tuesday.

The filmmakers shoot dozens of hours of footage and then spend 13 weeks editing it down to one hour. The film airs in April. We won’t find out until then if my made-up face makes the cut.

PBS producer Kate McMahon reviews her notes before the interview

PBS producer Kate McMahon reviews her notes before the interview


Camera man Mark Rublee sets up the microphone before the cameras start rolling

Camera man Mark Rublee sets up the microphone before the cameras start rolling

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

[ 19 comments ]

Why I Don’t Take My Children to Well Baby Visits

January 7th, 2010

When my oldest daughter, Hesperus, was a baby, I dutifully took her to “Well Baby” doctor visits.

We lived in Atlanta, Georgia, a city known for its searing summers, ice cold sweet tea, streets named after peaches, and harried doctors.

I would take my healthy baby into a waiting room full of sick people at the appointed time. Then Hesperus and I would wait, and wait, and wait.

After a wait time of at least 20 minutes and sometimes as much as an hour or more, the doctor would spend about three minutes with us.

When Hesperus was six months old, we went for a Well Baby visit. It was her nap time and by then she was used to napping in her crib in a quiet room in the dark. The doctor was running late that day and made us wait for an hour and fifteen minutes. So Hesperus did what I often feel like doing when I am in a doctor’s waiting room: she started howling. She howled and howled and howled.

By the time we went to see the doctor, my daughter’s face was beet red and her eyes were swollen from crying.

“I think Miss Hesperus has an ear infection,” the doctor said, looking into her ears.

The doctor prescribed me antibiotics for my baby’s ear infection. And drops “for the pain.”

Only, Hesperus wasn’t in pain. She wasn’t sick. She didn’t have an ear infection.

She was crying because she was tired. She was crying because doctors in America do not have the decency to stick to their schedules.

I was such an insecure and naive new mom that I stayed at the clinic for another hour to get the prescription filled. By that time, Baby Hesperus was happy again, sitting on the ground gurgling at strangers.

We drove home. She slept so soundly in the car that she didn’t wake when I brought her inside. I had recently bought Robert Mendelsohn’s, How To Raise A Healthy Child in Spite of Your Doctor. Mendelsohn claims that ear infections are one of the most overtreated illnesses in America and that if a child is crying his eardrums may look red and a doctor may mistakenly think he has a severe infection.

My baby did not have an ear infection. She was the victim of an incompetent medical system and an inept doctor.

That was the last “Well Baby” visit I have ever taken a child to.

What about you? Do you take your baby to the doctor regularly? Are you made to wait for inappropriate amounts of time? Have your kids been struggling with ear infections? Do you have other ways to treat them or do you rely on antibiotics? Please share your thoughts in the comment section below.

Tags: , ,

[ 16 comments ]

In America We Are Forcing Women to Have C-Sections

December 21st, 2009

KS002-1Joy Szabo got some bad news when she was seven months pregnant.

Because she had had a previous C-section, the hospital where she was planning to deliver would not let her have a vaginal birth with her fourth child.

Szabo’s story is written up on CNN’s Website (if you watch TV, you may have seen it on CNN as well): “Mom fights, gets the delivery she wants.”

But the title of the article is misleading. The hospital and the doctor did not change their policy after the Szabos insisted. Instead, Szabo and her husband had to move six hours away to Phoenix, Arizona (they live in Page) three weeks before the baby was due in order to go to a hospital that would let her deliver her baby vaginally.

I am so grateful to women like Szabo who refuse to let American doctors dictate what is best for them. But I’m sickened to think of all the women in this country who are being forced or coerced into having unnecessary C-sections.

Though a C-section can sometimes be a lifesaving measure, the vast majority of the time it is totally unnecessary. Yet almost one third of women in America are having C-sections.

The high C-section rate in this country is unacceptable, unfair, and unhealthy.

Some people in the medical establishment argue that a VBAC (Vaginal Birth After Cesarean), which is what Szabo wanted, is dangerous because of the increased risk of the uterus rupturing.

Yet hundreds of thousands of women have VBACs with no complications at all, in the hospital, in birthing centers, at home, and even at home unassisted. After explaining the different risks, doctors who attend hospital births need to let women and their families decide for themselves.

Instead, the medical establishment is trying to mandate C-sections. A C-section is a major surgery that is much more risky than vaginal labor and delivery and much harder to recover from. C-sections can lead to chronic pelvic pain, hemorrhage, blood clots, infection, and even maternal death.

If that’s not enough, most people don’t know that there is a new kind of surgery for stitching up the uterus that might be partially to blame for the increased risks associated with VBACS.

Called the “Misgav-Ladach method” or “single-layer suturing,” in this surgery the uterus is stitched up in a single layer instead of in two layers. According to Ina May Gaskin, two-layer suturing has been the standard of care for more than 75 years.

Single-layer suturing has been associated with placenta percreta, a once extremely rare condition where the placenta grows over the uterine scar and can sometimes grow into other organs like the bladder, as well. Single-layer suturing has also has been associated with unprecedented bleeding, failure to heal, and other post C-section complications.

Gaskin cites a study in Montreal of 2,142 women that found that single-layer suturing comes with a four-times higher risk of uterine rupture than double-layer method (Ina May’s Guide to Childbirth, page 284).

But HMOS and hospitals save money on the single-layer method because it is faster for the doctors and reduces the time a surgeon needs to spend in the operating room.

Is doctor convenience and HMO costs really how we make health care decisions for laboring women in our country?

Unfortunately the answer is yes.

It is impossible that one third of American women actually need C-sections.

Joy Szabo did not.

She delivered a healthy baby boy on December 5th after an uncomplicated labor.

Should two of these six pregnant women really need a C-section?

Should two of these six pregnant women really need a C-section?

Photos courtesy of Jenny Johnson.

Tags: , , , , , ,

[ 17 comments ]

Adventures in Lotus Birth

November 16th, 2009
Our newborn daughter with the cord and placenta still attached

Our newborn daughter with the cord and placenta still attached

When I first read about lotus birth—which is the term people use for not cutting the cord but instead letting the placenta detach naturally from the baby—I thought it sounded … kind of gross.

I was dismayed with myself for having such a close-minded reaction. I decided I should challenge my own assumptions and find out more about why some people choose to do it.

One local midwife’s said it’s done for “spiritual reasons.” She mentioned that people usually salt the placenta and put herbs like lavender and rosemary on it to speed the drying process and keep it from smelling.

As I read more, I came to understand that one idea behind lotus birth is to help you slow down during the baby’s first days of life.

There’s no real reason to hurry to cut the cord. In fact, the longer you wait, the more likely the baby is to get back all its valuable blood and nutrients from the placenta.

It’s hard for me to do anything slowly. I’m from Boston where people talk fast, walk fast, eat fast, and live fast. We took our firstborn out when she was two days old (to buy a changing table and a crib) and I was bicycling to the bagel shop a day later (“baby and stitches be damned,” my friend Sue said.) Then my body forced me to slow down when I got a bad breast infection.

I know it’s better to be in a quieter space and I strive to find that space, so the more I read about lotus birth, the more the idea appealed to me.

Most mammals (even ruminants) eat the placenta but, apparently, some chimpanzees practice lotus birth, carrying the placenta with the baby chimp until it falls off naturally.

James and I agreed we’d try it. We wouldn’t cut the cord. Instead, we would clean the placenta, wrap it, and keep it with the baby. Maybe until it naturally severed (another name for lotus birth is nonseverance) or maybe just for awhile.

the placenta just after delivery: look how thick and white the umbilical cord is

the placenta just after delivery: look how thick and white the umbilical cord is

It wasn’t until more than an hour after the baby was born that I delivered the placenta. I sat up, holding the baby, and squatted by the side of the bed over a bowl. The placenta slithered out with a gushing plopping noise.

I was surprised how big the placenta was! And how interesting it looked!

The cord surprised me too—it was so thick and white, it felt cool and gel-like to touch. I’d never given much thought to an umbilical cord before but I found it fascinating, all twisted and white with dots of clotted blood that looked like brown beans inside it. Who knew that’s what the shriveled black stumps actually looked like once?!

James brought a bowl of warm salt water to soak the placenta, then we wrapped it in two cloth diapers and put it in a plastic bag and then inside a pillow case. The plastic bag part didn’t seem right somehow but we weren’t sure what else to do: Sue had promised to bring a cloth bag for it but she couldn’t come down for the birth so this makeshift contraption was the best we could do.

The only problem with all this was I felt worried about hurting the baby by accidentally pulling on the cord. But everything else about it felt right.

Doing it this way made me wonder why in the hospital and even at most home births there’s this almost urgent rush to separate the baby from the placenta. Keeping the cord and the placenta attached made me feel like the baby and I were still connected in a visceral way, since the organ that had grown inside my body was still attached to her.

We left the placenta on until the next afternoon. It had started to smell like roasted coffee (we forgot to actually salt and put herbs on it) and the long twisty white cord had started to blacken and dry up. Though I stopped worrying so much about it, I did find it a bit cumbersome. I tucked the pillow-cased placenta under or over the baby when I was holding her but it felt a bit awkward.

James and I were both glad we left it on for so long, and we also both felt ready to cut it off when we did.

We cut the cord with a sterile razor. We didn’t need to tie it because it was already dry and almost brittle. Then we cut it close to the placenta so we’d have a nice long piece of cord as a … keepsake?

“It’s mine,” my 6-year-old son shouted. “I want it! I want it! I call it!!”

The cut length of umbilical cord is still on the dresser. It looks like something from a different planet and in a way it is—it’s from a time when the baby and I were still living in the same body, sharing oxygen and nutrients, growing together and keeping each other company. Looking at the dried cord fills me with a strange nostalgia.

In the meantime, the placenta’s in our freezer. We’ll plant it in the spring. Maybe under the raspberry bushes.

Our new baby just after she was born, with her placenta and cord wrapped up with her

Our new baby just after she was born, with her placenta and cord wrapped up with her

Tags: , , , , ,

[ 9 comments ]






     DISCUSSIONS              JOIN NOW or SIGN IN
Help me battle the green eyed monster posted by greenmom4, Fri, 25 Nov 2011 14:38:01 +0000
need to know im not the only one :-( posted by totallyhadenuff, Thu, 24 Nov 2011 08:05:23 +0000
Made A Change And DH Is Loving The "New" Me posted by IwannaBanRN, Thu, 17 Nov 2011 11:59:54 +0000
addicted to MDC - support thread posted by kathymuggle, Sat, 12 Nov 2011 22:44:51 +0000
How do you handle criticism? posted by Snapdragon, Wed, 09 Nov 2011 03:04:45 +0000

Bottom Box