# Excellent health of a mother doesn't guarantee/ increase her chances to have a healthy baby?



## olstep (Jan 9, 2009)

How true is this statement? Obviously, the better a mom takes care of herself the better start her babies will have. Is it a rule? How common are the exceptions?
Even though the birth is considered unpredictable, is it possible to predict the outcome for the baby with more or less small error? Or are there too many factors that need to be taken into consideration to make any grounded judgement?


----------



## tessie (Dec 6, 2006)

I imagine it depends on what you mean by health problems in the baby.


----------



## olstep (Jan 9, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tessie* 
I imagine it depends on what you mean by health problems in the baby.

Mainly complications during the birth which would require medical intervention.


----------



## Lousli (Nov 4, 2003)

As the mother of two premature babies (for unexplained reasons) I would have to say that of course the statement is not true. Honestly, there is nothing that guarantees a healthy baby. There are plenty of things that can be done to improve your chances, and plenty of things that can be done to really make you at much higher risk of having an unhealthy baby, but no guarantees.

The prematurity rate in the US is I think greater that 10% right now, and I think a good amount of those premature births are for unknown reasons. Plus you have to figure in things like genetic abnormalities, birth defects, birth trauma, etc.

I'm not trying to say that birth/pregnancy is dangerous or that the mother's health doesn't matter, just that guarantee pretty much means there is NO chance of something bad happening, and that just isn't realistic.


----------



## CI Mama (Apr 8, 2010)

Birth comes with risks. Life comes with risks. Sometimes we do all the right things and terrible things happen. Sometimes we screw things up right and left and it all turns out OK anyway. That's just how it is.

There are certainly plenty of things that we can do to minimize risk, but there is always the element of luck/randomness/fate. If something unexpected and tragic happens, it's not much of a consolation that our risk for that event was very small. That's why we have religion and art and philosophy...to help us find the courage to live with the reality that there are a lot of things that we can't control, no matter how much we try.

Knowing that there are no guarantees, and that there is a big mystery around some tragic things that occur, gives me greater awe for the majority of times when things go just right (sometimes for equally mysterious reasons). That can be a source for deep, deep gratitude.


----------



## MsBlack (Apr 10, 2007)

I like to say--the closest thing we get to a guarantee of a healthy pregnancy, birth and baby, is by pro-actively pursuing/attaining good health.

But no, no guarantees.

It's certainly better for mom and baby both if mom is healthy throughout pregnancy (and beyond). Certainly true that healthy babies are *usually* the outcome--by far. Can't give you any stats on that, though.


----------



## liz-hippymom (Jul 17, 2003)

yeah. being healthy does not garuntee a good outcome. i have been an organic perfect pregnancy mama for all mine. but my last birth resulted in a dead baby.
i foster pregnant teens, and you would be amazed how perfect thier babies are when all they want to eat is chips and candy. it's a crap shoot


----------



## sharr610 (May 14, 2008)

Health is also a relative thing. I think people will define being "healthy" in lots of different ways. For some people thats avoiding fats and meats, for others its low stress and avoidance of chemicals in their diet. I think it just depends on so many things. And then there are the things that were done when WE were in the womb and children that have a huge impact on our endocrine system's health, but that we have little control over.

But yes, healthy mom should generally mean healthy mama...


----------



## cappuccinosmom (Dec 28, 2003)

Complications happen.

Mom and baby can be in perfect health, and still have birth end in complications or tragedy.


----------



## MyFillingQuiver (Sep 7, 2009)

For some people, it comes down to a perspective on these "big" things, as well.

For example, I believe I'm not ultimately in charge of what happens in my life. I'm supposed to be responsible, treating my body as a temple-while relying on God's wisdom to guide my choices, as well as His wisdom to choose for me the outcome He sees fit-as only He sees the big picture.

Others believe in some part of divinity or destiny or fate..some believe in karma, etc.

Therefore, in my belief and faith, I am charged with a great responsibility of doing all I can to protect the life growing within me through eating healthfully, living a healthful life, having faith and praying. I believe, ultimately, that no matter what choices I make, the fate of this child (and all my children, born or not) is in God's hands....but that doesn't excuse me from making educated, informed and healthful choices.

It's a great responsibility when we understand (and most here do) the gravity of what it means to be a parent. For me, it means I've been charged with the biggest responsibility in this world-to care for and raise a family. I do not turn this responsibility over to doctors (in the case of our day-to-day health and illnesses, and now I am turning this way with birth) unless God shows me that it's too great of a situation for me to handle.

Anyway, I know that was a big rant! I apologize! I am trying to be respectful of all aspects of birthing and how outcomes are affected by health...sometimes, as PP have said, we can do all things right, be healthy, plan for safety and a future for our babes, and have empty arms. This is true of m/c (which I've had) or birth loss. Sometimes, as we also know, the crack addicts, alcoholics and irresponsible take home a baby-or CPS does. Sometimes, these things just don't make sense. For some people, it's because we see that we don't have the entire big picture-though that doesn't offer the comfort, but it's an explanation for the unexplainable, some like me believe in.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Of course. What???

I had a textbook perfect pregnancy with my first, ate really well, exercised and thought sweet thoughts. That certainly didn't stop the umbilical cord from getting around her neck. Nor does the health of a mother have to do with shoulder dystoxia, etc.

That's not to mention premature labour - which is often a mystery - incompetent cervix and all the rest of it.

Life just doesn't come with that kind of control. Of course we all want to do the best for our babies and deal with what we can control. But most things, we can't.

I think that's one of the most dangerously pervasive myths in the NFL community. Of course I believe in the benefits of NFL. But I don't believe it is a blanket protection against disease, disorders or accidents.


----------



## expatmommy (Nov 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
I think that's one of the most dangerously pervasive myths in the NFL community. Of course I believe in the benefits of NFL. But I don't believe it is a blanket protection against disease, disorders or accidents.









And when the myth fails you, it is catastrophic.

A healthy mama offers no guarantees, not even that the mother will ultimately stay healthy over time. I was healthy & still my baby died. I had faith and an understanding of the bigger picture; didn't save my baby and still doesn't make any sense.


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
I think that's one of the most dangerously pervasive myths in the NFL community. Of course I believe in the benefits of NFL. But I don't believe it is a blanket protection against disease, disorders or accidents.

I think the whole idea of a healthy baby being guaranteed is one of the most dangerously pervasive ones in the entire birth/pregnancy world - both NFL _and_ mainstream. OBs (I'm talking in general - the culture) strongly imply, without ever quite saying it, that they can guarantee you a healthy baby if you just do whatever they tell you. I gather that a lot of midwives operate in a similar fashion. It's crap. It's complete and total crap. They can increase your odds, but there are no guarantees. There's no guarantee that I'm not going to get killed by someone running a stop light when I go to pick up my van this afternoon. Since we can't guarantee that crossing a street or having a bath will end in _survival_, the belief that we can guarantee good health in unborn baby is pure arrogance...unbelievable arrogance, really.


----------



## olstep (Jan 9, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
There's no guarantee that I'm not going to get killed by someone running a stop light when I go to pick up my van this afternoon.

There is no guarantee in life in general. Period. We can do something to be better prepared, control some things but not everything depends on us..

What pps talking about is complications during birth. Childbirth does involve some risks. Nobody can guarantee a safe outcome. Still the chances of a safe outcome are much higher

The % of complications is not high in general. It is lower for uneventful pregnancies. Should be significantly lower for mom who have excellent health.
It is not only about eating organic or watching your fat. It is also what you genetically inherited, how much you can take without straining yourself. It is not only how you feel and how you look, it is what in your medical records - unbiased information.

Of course, it takes more than excellent health to have a safe birth outcome - educated mom, skillful practitioner, right/ safe environment, etc) . But providing other conditions are the same the chances that these moms will have complications during birth/ pp are much lower.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Storm Bride* 
I think the whole idea of a healthy baby being guaranteed is one of the most dangerously pervasive ones in the entire birth/pregnancy world - both NFL _and_ mainstream. OBs (I'm talking in general - the culture) strongly imply, without ever quite saying it, that they can guarantee you a healthy baby if you just do whatever they tell you. I gather that a lot of midwives operate in a similar fashion. It's crap. It's complete and total crap. They can increase your odds, but there are no guarantees. There's no guarantee that I'm not going to get killed by someone running a stop light when I go to pick up my van this afternoon. Since we can't guarantee that crossing a street or having a bath will end in _survival_, the belief that we can guarantee good health in unborn baby is pure arrogance...unbelievable arrogance, really.

Absolutely agreed.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *olstep* 

Of course, it takes more than excellent health to have a safe birth outcome - educated mom, skillful practitioner, right/ safe environment, etc) . But providing other conditions are the same the chances that these moms will have complications during birth/ pp are much lower.

Um - WHICH complications are you talking about?

Because having a cord around the baby's neck, for example, has nothing - ZERO - to do with maternal health.

I'm really angry at your statement. Certainly there are conditions where diet, exercise, and health are a factor. But there are MANY MANY complications that have NOTHING to do with any of that.


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
Um - WHICH complications are you talking about?

Because having a cord around the baby's neck, for example, has nothing - ZERO - to do with maternal health.

I'm really angry at your statement. Certainly there are conditions where diet, exercise, and health are a factor. But there are MANY MANY complications that have NOTHING to do with any of that.

I'll preface by saying no, I don't think a really healthy mom guarantees a healthy baby or good outcome. But this made me wonder...is it possible that low amniotic fluid would make a baby more likely to get tangled in the cord? I have read that *sometimes* low amniotic fluid can be related to dehydration in mom. So perhaps that might account for *some* cases of cord around the neck?

And I know of at least one case here (well actually one mom, two births) where shoulder dystocia WAS related to the health of the mom, specifically an eating disorder during teenage years led to a very narrow pelvis.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, it seems to me it might be too blanket of a statement to say that there are some complications that absolutely don't have anything to do with mom's health in any case. Does that make sense?


----------



## laohaire (Nov 2, 2005)

Strange, I've never heard this myth. I mean, of course we talk all the time about how important it is to eat healthy foods and exercise and avoid toxins and all that, but I've never heard anyone say there was anything like a guarantee that healthy mom equals complication-free birth. Which doesn't surprise me, of course, since it obviously isn't true.

Besides what others have also said, let's not forget that we don't even know what perfect health is. Almost everyone claims to be healthy - but it's not so. Even someone who everyone agrees might be healthy might be missing some essential nutrient or ingesting some toxin that nobody is really attuned to.

Let's also not forget genetics. I absolutely do believe that genetics are not entirely a crapshoot - it seems that the health of not just the parents but the grandparents, and probably so on, have an effect on the health of the genes. But sometimes things just "are." (Also you can have a very healthy mother but if her mother was unhealthy, that affects her baby - don't forget our eggs formed while we were still in our mothers' wombs). Anyway, if a healthy mother has a baby with certain conditions, that can lead to birth complications.

It is interesting to hear so many people say they've heard this myth, this is my first time (and I've obviously been on MDC for almost 5 years so I'm not completely new to the NFL community).


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *caedmyn* 
I'll preface by saying no, I don't think a really healthy mom guarantees a healthy baby or good outcome. But this made me wonder...is it possible that low amniotic fluid would make a baby more likely to get tangled in the cord? I have read that *sometimes* low amniotic fluid can be related to dehydration in mom. So perhaps that might account for *some* cases of cord around the neck?

And I know of at least one case here (well actually one mom, two births) where shoulder dystocia WAS related to the health of the mom, specifically an eating disorder during teenage years led to a very narrow pelvis.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, it seems to me it might be too blanket of a statement to say that there are some complications that absolutely don't have anything to do with mom's health in any case. Does that make sense?

No, it really doesn't make sense to say that.

There are lots of cord accidents that are NOT related to low amniotic fluid. Cord compression can relate to amniotic fluid levels, but a tight 2x nuchal cord is a problem regardless. (A recent review of the literature suggests that the deciding factor in nuchal cord deaths isn't the nuchal cord, but the amount of slack left in the cord.)

Just because low amniotic fluid can be a risk factor in some kinds of cord accidents it *does not follow that you can avoid cord accidents by drinking a lot*. Your risk might go down for the _particular_ kind that occur with low amniotic fluid, but your risk will not go down for the _random_ kind.

And even for other complications, I think people mistake lowering your risk factor, or the idea that sometimes a cause can be pinpointed, with protection. This is not the case. You can not have risk factors and still develop problems.

This kind of thinking is simply blame-the-victim thinking. Bad things happen even if you do everything '"right." Obviously women should try to be healthy and reduce their risks for certain things, but it's a very very very big leap to make from 'reduce risk factors' to 'achieve healthy baby.'


----------



## CherryBomb (Feb 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 

This kind of thinking is simply blame-the-victim thinking. Bad things happen even if you do everything '"right." Obviously women should try to be healthy and reduce their risks for certain things, but it's a very very very big leap to make from 'reduce risk factors' to 'achieve healthy baby.'











Quote:

It is interesting to hear so many people say they've heard this myth, this is my first time
It's rare that I hear someone say outright "if you do xyz, you're guaranteed a healthy baby" but I hear it implied often. My first two were c/s and my second baby was born seriously brain damaged, so if it comes up, invariably I get a bunch of leading questions where the person is obviously trying to figure out what I did "wrong" that caused the "bad thing" to happen. The implication is that if I hadn't done xyz and had done abc instead, everything would have been fine. Some things might be avoidable. But often there's really nothing that could have been done to predict or prevent. You can look at "risk factors" but they really don't mean much other than "these people that had this problem usually had these things in common." I had no "risk factors" for ectopic pregnancy, but I still had one (and it very nearly killed me). You just can not predict with certainty who's going to have the massive PPH, who's going to abrupt, who's going to have a cord accident, etc.

Being healthy just means you're _probably_ going to avoid complications associated with poor maternal health. It does not, in anyway, mean you're going to avoid complications _in general_.


----------



## AlexisT (May 6, 2007)

Yep. I've heard people say that if I'd just done X (eaten a particular diet, taken supplements, even had midwifery care instead of obstetric) I would not have had high blood pressure and preeclampsia. The fact is, no one knows why I got sick, and if you don't know why it happens you can't prevent it. There is a trend I see where so much emphasis is placed on the mother's actions that she becomes responsible for the outcome, good or bad. There is so much that is not dependent on anything we do.


----------



## philomom (Sep 12, 2004)

No, unfortunately it doesn't. I was 26 years old, had an excellent diet and was in the best shape of my life and only took long walks for exercise while carrying..... and I had a stillbirth close to term. No drugs, no alcohol... not even cough syrup or Tylenol. Nothing.

Sometimes these things are not in our control.


----------



## caedmyn (Jan 13, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
No, it really doesn't make sense to say that.

There are lots of cord accidents that are NOT related to low amniotic fluid. Cord compression can relate to amniotic fluid levels, but a tight 2x nuchal cord is a problem regardless. (A recent review of the literature suggests that the deciding factor in nuchal cord deaths isn't the nuchal cord, but the amount of slack left in the cord.)

Just because low amniotic fluid can be a risk factor in some kinds of cord accidents it *does not follow that you can avoid cord accidents by drinking a lot*. Your risk might go down for the _particular_ kind that occur with low amniotic fluid, but your risk will not go down for the _random_ kind.


That's not quite what I was saying. I got the impression that some of the earlier posters were saying that the mother's health NEVER has anything to do with certain types of complications (like shoulder dystocia or cord issues). I was pointing out that that just isn't true. It's likely RARE for mother's health to play a part in some complications, but I don't think you can say it NEVER plays a part. I just don't think it's accurate to speak in absolutely (this is ALWAYS caused by something mom did, nor this is NEVER caused by...). I'm not trying to blame the victim at all. Really the only thing I can think of off the top of my head that probably has nothing at all to do with anything mom does is placenta previa (and for all I know it's been shown that a previous D&C increases risk or something else).


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CherryBomb* 
It's rare that I hear someone say outright "if you do xyz, you're guaranteed a healthy baby" but I hear it implied often.

This, exactly.

Outside the natural childbirth community, it plays out a little differently, but it's still there. All through my third pregnancy when I was arguing with my OB and GP, who were both insisting that I _had_ to have a c-section, because I'd already had two, I got the same two same phrases over and over again. Those phrases were "all that matters is a healthy mom and a healthy baby" and "we just want you and your baby to be safe". My GP also threw in a "I'm so worried about you that I can't sleep", just for good measure.

There is no way to look at those statements without realizing there's an implied promise there. They were telling me, not _quite_ in so many words, that if I just did what they told me, and scheduled the section when they told me, I would be healthy, and my baby would be healthy. The GP wouldn't be worried once I scheduled, because the risks would be gone. If I just stopped fighting, I'd be healthy, and the baby would be healthy. If I just did what I was told, baby would be "safe".

They never flat out said "do this, and we guarantee your baby will be healthy", but that was their _entire_ argument for the c-section.

It's prevalent here, too. Lots of "what did you do wrong?" when things don't turn out well. That also carries a strong implication that mom must have done something (eaten something, taken something, _felt_ something - whatever), because if there were nothing wrong with her, then her baby and birth would have been _perfect_.

Oh - and fwiw, I know a woman who has had two stillbirths. After autopsy, it turned out that there's some kind of genetic problem on the _father's_ side, and she's basically never going to have a living girl, unless she goes elsewhere for the sperm. She's healthy as can be, and her _boys_ have been healthy, happy babies. I didn't meet her until after her second stillbirth, so I have no idea how many people piled guilt on her shoulders for the death she couldn't have possibly prevented...but my experience says that it's almost certain _someone_ did.


----------



## expatmommy (Nov 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *caedmyn* 
I'm not trying to blame the victim at all. Really the only thing I can think of off the top of my head that probably has nothing at all to do with anything mom does is placenta previa (and for all I know it's been shown that a previous D&C increases risk or something else).

Have you known many people who have had losses? Really? You seem to be trying very hard to find some reason, some explanation to prove that stillbirth or loss has definable reason. You know what the crappiest part of stillbirth and loss is? That most medical people don't know why it happened, can't explain it, and money isn't spent to research it. It is this great big unknown that well meaning people then try to explain away by some ill informed "it must be because of X or because of Y". It can't just happen for no reason at all. Someone or something must be to blame.

My son might have died because of how his placenta formed. He might have died because of how the umbilical cord inserted. He might have died because of a blood clot. He might have died because of some unknown unexplainable reason. I could and have spent a long time, as part of my grief process, trying to figure out the why. The reality is, no matter how hard one tries to be healthy and to do all things right, bad things can and do happen to good well intended people. It is a false notion that we have any sure measure of control over the outcome, be it a large or small potiential that something may go wrong.


----------



## Jane (May 15, 2002)

I think that for populations of people, it works. For these 10,000 "healthy" women and those 10,000 "unhealthy" people (we could argue over the definitions) the "unhealthy" people will have more bad outcomes, whether we're dealing with babies, heart disease, etc.

But for individuals, it doesn't work out that way. What holds true for populations doesn't hold true for any one individual. Certainly, using crack cocaine increases the risk of placental separation and death of mom and/or baby. But not all crack smokers will have catastrophic outcomes. By far, most will be "fine". But on one would recommend smoking crack, unless they had a big life insurance policy on you.
I have certainly seen a lot of shit happen to good people. Miscarriages, as the foremost example, are shockingly common. 1 in 4 pregnancies end in the death of the fetus. There's really no way to make sure it doesn't hit you. Stillbirth is rarer, but devistating and many time, completely unable to be explained.


----------



## flitters (Sep 18, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CherryBomb* 
Being healthy just means you're _probably_ going to avoid complications associated with poor maternal health. It does not, in anyway, mean you're going to avoid complications _in general_.

I really like your wording above.


----------



## MsBlack (Apr 10, 2007)

Just for perspective here....

In research I conducted a couple years back on stillbirth, I discovered that 70% of cases of stillbirth have no known/knowable cause (even on autopsy w/cellular studies). Apparently healthy babies die, either late in pregnancy or during labor, and a solid reason cannot be found. Often the ones who show no actual cause, are written down as 'cord accident'--but in most cases this is basically a guess (yes, *sometimes* 'cord accident' is true, can be seen, but mostly NOT). We just hate to have no idea why this happens--'cord accident' is the most common diagnosis when another COD can't be discovered.

Just saying--health of mothers in these births is not necessarily implicated.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *caedmyn* 
That's not quite what I was saying. I got the impression that some of the earlier posters were saying that the mother's health NEVER has anything to do with certain types of complications (like shoulder dystocia or cord issues). I was pointing out that that just isn't true. It's likely RARE for mother's health to play a part in some complications, but I don't think you can say it NEVER plays a part. I just don't think it's accurate to speak in absolutely (this is ALWAYS caused by something mom did, nor this is NEVER caused by...). I'm not trying to blame the victim at all. Really the only thing I can think of off the top of my head that probably has nothing at all to do with anything mom does is placenta previa (and for all I know it's been shown that a previous D&C increases risk or something else).

Excuse me, but a nuchal cord has nothing to do with what the mother does.

It is accurate in some cases to say that.


----------



## laohaire (Nov 2, 2005)

I see, so this is an implied myth.

OK, so we're basically looking at a backlash here.

You have the mainstream line of thought that goes like this:
"I'm pregnant and I'm following doctor's orders. I'm all set because I have a doctor and he'll tell me if anything is wrong or if I have to do anything. If something actually goes wrong, which surely it won't because I'm in good hands, then it will just be completely random and unavoidable. I'm not worried because my doctor will take care of everything."

And now you have us NFL crunchies coming around saying this:
"Stop putting all your trust in the doctor! Your OB knows how to do surgery but he doesn't know or care about diet, exercise, avoidance of toxins or anything like that. Not only that, birth without a doctor (with midwife or even unassisted) is safe! It's safe for a lot of reasons, but among them is that an informed, proactive mother is less likely to have complications!"

Unfortunately, like probably ANY countermovement, we go too far. In our efforts to show that we mothers have a lot of impact on the success of the pregnancy and birth, we may imply that she has ALL the impact.

Homebirth is broadly as safe as hospital birth (though of course the details are different for both places) but in our efforts to convince everyone of this, we may go too far and imply we're COMPLETELY safe. Which we're not.

I think this is totally about the countercultural aspect. If everyone had the same assumptions we did, then there would be no need to exaggerate ("if you are informed and proactive you can avoid all the complications") to counteract the exaggerated assumptions of the mainstream ("if you have a homebirth without a doctor, you and your baby will die").

I think it behooves us all, in every way, to try to look for the truth and express our findings in a fair and accurate manner. Implying that the excellent health of a mother guarantees a healthy baby puts mothers and babies at risk, and undermines the message we're trying to put out.


----------



## wombatclay (Sep 4, 2005)

*~~~~~~moderator moment~~~~~~~~*

I'm so sorry for the losses, pain, and regrets that have formed the basis for this thread. I think the idea of a "guarantee" is, indeed, a myth that needs to be explored and expanded on.

When writing your posts, please keep in mind that every person here has a different story... some mamas know first hand the personal pain (emotional, physical, spiritual) that can be caused by the myth of an implied "guarantee". Others have never even thought about it, have never had the myth fail them.

PLEASE KEEP IN MIND that the mdc user agreement asks members to disgree gently, to discuss the ideas and not the person sharing those ideas, and to choose our language carefully so as to share information/understanding instead of offending/alienating members who have different stories to tell.

I realize it can be hard when the topic is so potentially painful, and I'd like to thank everyone for taking the extra time to share their experiences and take in others' experiences as respectfully as you all have!

Please let me (or any moderator) know if you have questions or concerns.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *laohaire* 
I think this is totally about the countercultural aspect. If everyone had the same assumptions we did, then there would be no need to exaggerate ("if you are informed and proactive you can avoid all the complications") to counteract the exaggerated assumptions of the mainstream ("if you have a homebirth without a doctor, you and your baby will die").

I think it behooves us all, in every way, to try to look for the truth and express our findings in a fair and accurate manner. Implying that the excellent health of a mother guarantees a healthy baby puts mothers and babies at risk, and undermines the message we're trying to put out.

Well as personal experience, I also think it's about people in general (often mothers) being unwilling to accept that if X bad outcome can just happen to anyone then it could happen to them. There is a certain kind of thinking that is self-protective like "if I don't do that, I'll be ok."

After my daughter died I was pretty surprised at the number of people -- many of them about my age and in their main childbearing/rearing stage -- who just had to find a reason, whether it was grounded in reality or not. One person speculated that the cord got around my daughter's neck because I took aquafit classes and she was really glad she hadn't.

We're just in an era where people -- read, _mothers_ -- are supposed to be able to control our kids' environments to the point where risks become zero. But that is just not the case.

I also think there is a _lot_ of misunderstanding outside of scientific and medical communities (and sometimes within them) about how research and risk factors work.

Just because one study or even 5 show that something may be a factor in an outcome doesn't mean it's the defining cause and that avoiding that will avoid the bad outcome. There is a serious difference between lowering risk factors and achieving outcomes. *

The cord accident discussion is a perfect example. Cord accidents are badly understood and understudied. There are at least 30 different "standard" types of cord accidents so lumping them together is kind of sketchy if you're trying to find causes.

For some of those there have been studies that looked at a few maternal factors. However, because cord accidents are not well reported, nor well studied, even those few areas where there have been some differences in something to do with the mother are pretty much speculation - the kind of thing where it's "this is interesting but more research is needed." And even in those cases those factors haven't been very significant. It's nothing like, for example, the link between HPV and cervical cancer which has not only had better information but where the percentages are startlingly high.

I kind of feel like we live in an age where everyone is chasing the latest study to do everything "Right" whereas in the past people may have spent their time in prayer or sacrificing goats.

There definitely are outcomes that are impacted by maternal health and I'm just as into no drinking or smoking or toxins and eat healthy and exercise and don't eat raw fish and deli meats and clean the cat box as everyone else.

But the OP specifically said "Mainly complications during the birth which would require medical intervention." and there I really don't think the answer can possibly be yes, you can control meconium and baby's heart rate and baby's delivery position and whether the cord is around baby's neck in a dangerous way by maternal health.

* remember there's a strong correlation between birth rates and storks, in certain areas. http://books.google.ca/books?id=QySy...page&q&f=false


----------



## bri276 (Mar 24, 2005)

I'm perfectly "healthy" but I happen to have a chromosomal disorder. It doesn't affect me at all, but when I reproduce, it can affect the chromosomes of the baby and cause them to have birth defects, developmental delays, etc (like my DD has) or a miscarriage because their defects are incompatible with life (several of those, too). This is something that was determined at the moment of my own conception by a healthy mother and what I eat, drink, exercise doesn't matter. In fact, the baby I'm carrying now is the first "healthy" baby -at least concerning her chromosomes- and she was conceived while I was drinking plenty of alcohol, eating plenty of sugar (holiday season, hello!) and even started smoking cigarettes for the first time in nearly a decade!


----------



## laohaire (Nov 2, 2005)

You're right. I think what you're describing and what I tried to describe are probably two sides of the same coin. My side is about convincing others - your side is about convincing oneself. But your side is the more profound one and I didn't really consider it when I wrote my post.

We have a belief. Something is said or even happens that challenges this belief. This causes us pain and confusion and worry. So we reframe the event rather than challenging the belief.

From what I said, being countercultural makes this worse. "Everyone" believes that giving birth in a hospital is the only safe and rational choice (and that it's entirely safe and entirely rational). Defensively, we explain away any homebirth complications to protect our beliefs and choices. More, we attack hospital birth complications for the same reason.

And as this movement increases, mainstream people do the same - defend hospital complications and attack homebirth complications.

Admitting that your position is not unassailable is difficult enough when you're just talking academically or theorectically. I can't imagine how it would be when it's personal.


----------



## MyFillingQuiver (Sep 7, 2009)

I agree with the backlash theory, as well...

I know, for a fact, that if I were to lose this baby or any future children, as a result of my choices to homebirth, it would be blamed on me by most people we know, for making "risky" decisions. They likely laugh at all our choices now-to eat healthfully, not to vaccinate, to supplement and avoid doctors, etc., but if a loss occurred, those would be the very "healthful" choices that led me to the nut job ideas that resulted in death for a baby.

Rather, what isn't understood, is that there is an implicit desire for health and good outcomes by most mama's-it's often just based on different theories of what health is, due to life experiences and personal ideas. I haven't come across a single mama on MDC who isn't striving for good health. It's implied-particularly by those who are mindful, and taking responsibility for their bodies and birth choices.

I also haven't come across a single mama on MDC who, if they lose a child, has done so by neglecting some facet of their health. Full term babies of healthy mama's die sometimes and that's a horrible realization I've recently faced through reading the nightmares of others here. The idea that these tragedies only happen to poor, uneducated, high risk groups is a fallacy.

It's as if we are expecting those with life-long uncontrolled diabetes, or being in other high risk categories to lose their babies..and somehow that's just OK..but a mom who lives on water and high protein, and exercise and NFL-she's just invincible? I guess it comes down to Who we believe is in ultimate control.

I think as humans, we just don't like to admit _we can't always have all the answers, and sometimes no one is to blame._ Of course, _when there is someone to blame_, that is a particularly cruel addition to the situation.

Nevertheless, any of the mama's I've read who've had birth loss, and myself and others who've experience pregnancy loss, ALL were healthy and doing the right thing for their babies.


----------



## lalemma (Apr 21, 2009)

My husband calls this the "Shoulda had a doula" view of the universe.

I had a super-healthy pregnancy and consider myself a sturdy, healthy person. I am almost never sick. I am just - I don't know, I am very healthy. I was swimming laps the night before I had my baby - in the morning I woke up and went into eclamptic convulsions. There was no warning for this. Nothing I did caused it.

It's very hard to accept that (even for me!) because there's something really comforting about the idea that the universe is non-random. If bad things only happen to bad people, then if I just avoid doing bad things, nothing bad will ever happen to me. And if that mom's baby died at birth - well, because the universe is non-random, that obviously means that she did something to deserve that terrible outcome. How sad for her, but what a relief to know that that can't possibly happen to me as long as I color inside the lines.

I agree with PP that natural-living people can go completely overboard in their attempts to normalize birth or women's bodies or breastfeeding or whatever:

"Every single woman can breastfeed!"

"Every C-section is unnecessary and you could have avoided it if you had a doula."

"You only had pre-eclampsia because you didn't follow the Brewer Diet."

But I think this worldview is nigh-on universal to humans. Not just crunchy moms, not even just moms.

My husband is a soldier; before we were married he went to war. Once he told me a story about how soldiers will be mean about their fellow soldiers - guys from their unit - getting killed.

"He wouldn't have gotten shot in the face if he was a better soldier. I did not get shot in the face, ergo I am a better soldier than he is. Because I am a good soldier, nothing bad will ever happen to me. I will make it through this and go home."

It's very hard to accept the fact that life isn't fair, I think. Some people get through it with hard introspection or with faith in God. Other people just can't get through it, and cling to this idea that nothing bad will ever happen if they just follow the rules. For myself, I wish I had come by this life-isn't-risk-free insight in an easier way, but hey, an insight is an insight!


----------



## olstep (Jan 9, 2009)

I did not mean to touch the painful subjects like stillbirth or miscarriage.
The only intention I had was to hear some encouragement that one can *kind of prepare* herself to have a positive outcome.
I am tempted to go UCed but find it difficult to block my brain that tells me that it may be unsafe.
I do not argue that things happen no matter how hard we try (in childbirth or life in general) but fatalism is not my philosophy. I do believe that we have responsibility and certain control for what happens in our lives.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *olstep* 
How true is this statement? Obviously, the better a mom takes care of herself the better start her babies will have. Is it a rule? How common are the exceptions?
Even though the birth is considered unpredictable, is it possible to predict the outcome for the baby with more or less small error? Or are there too many factors that need to be taken into consideration to make any grounded judgement?

I do think the health of the mother has an impact on the health of her child.

I also think that even healthy moms have complications and losses.

Being healthy isn't a garauntee but it does help. Obviously someone that is drinking, using drugs, or smoking is more likely to see issues in her baby than someone who does not.

My first pregnancy was extremely easy and I was in good shape. I had no complications until labor. My dd's cord was too short and in a true knot. Shortly after my daughter was born my SIL had a stillbirth due to an umbilical cord issue. Two umbilical cord issues in young healthy women in the same family (we are not related, our husbands are brothers) within weeks. It was a lightening strike we couldn't possibly have avoided.

Umbilical cord accidents lead to more losses than SIDS, but like SIDS there is little certainty of cause or prevention.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *olstep* 
I did not mean to touch the painful subjects like stillbirth or miscarriage.
The only intention I had was to hear some encouragement that one can *kind of prepare* herself to have a positive outcome.
I am tempted to go UCed but find it difficult to block my brain that tells me that it may be unsafe.
I do not argue that things happen no matter how hard we try (in childbirth or life in general) but fatalism is not my philosophy. I do believe that we have responsibility and certain control for what happens in our lives.

Well with all due respect -- and if you want to UC go for it -- if all you want to hear is "if you are healthy and responsible you will be fine!" then don't ask a group of real women with real experiences about it, because statistically you are likely to find that is not the case.

And frankly, it wouldn't serve you well to ONLY hear that if you're healthy everything will be fine. I have been there and it wasn't true. Part of having an empowered birth experience is understanding what can go wrong as well as what can go right, and to be prepared to make decisions on that basis.

The advice that I would give any woman no matter which choices she is making in how and where she will labour is to be aware that there are risks and there are no guarantees. What is important is that you are able to live with the risks you choose to take.


----------



## CI Mama (Apr 8, 2010)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
The advice that I would give any woman no matter which choices she is making in how and where she will labour is to be aware that there are risks and there are no guarantees. What is important is that you are able to live with the risks you choose to take.

Great advice.

All I would add is...no matter how or where you give birth and what the outcome is, you won't be alone.

One of the benefits of sharing our real experiences...all of them...with each other is that we start to realize the huge variety of experiences that women have during labor & delivery. The sharing leads us to others who can celebrate with us and help us find our way through grief, whatever we need.

That's why I think we have a responsibility to share our stories and to listen to each other. There are no guarantees, but at the very least we can reach out to each other and help each other through the tough parts.


----------



## CI Mama (Apr 8, 2010)

I thought your original questions were good ones, basically asking about how we should think about risk when it comes to child birth. Your original questions focused on risk, and so that is where the conversation has gone.

Now you are asking (I think) about things that a mother can do to have a better birth experience/outcome. I see that as a different question.

But, to tie both conversations together, I would say that preparing for birth has both a physical & an emotional component. A big part of the emotional preparation is to figure out how we want to think about and deal with the risks, unknowns, and lack of guarantees that birth presents.

One option, of course, is to deny that they exist and/or to try to control everything in hopes that nothing bad will happen. I agree with PPs that this approach does not ultimately serve women or children well. Those who are sharing their perspective have earned it at great cost and I believe are sharing their POV from a sincere wish to spare someone else the pain caused by the "deny/control" approach.

I am sorry that you see that perspective as "negative".

Another way to approach risk, unknowns, and lack of guarantees is to face them, to learn about them, and to learn from those who have survived the harshest realities that they present. I suppose that if all one does for birth preparation is to focus on the worst case scenarios, that's not helpful. But I would say that a well-rounded preparation would consider both the best possible outcomes and the worst ones...and a lot in between...and would include some thought about how to manage a variety of situations that might arise, including some un-ideal ones.

I'd also add that when I was preparing for birth, I was overwhelmed by the number of things to think about, and there didn't seem to be enough time to process and prepare for everything. For me there was a definite leap of faith...the realization that no matter how much I prepared or what I tried to anticipate, ready or not the moment would come and birth would happen. Surrender has been a big part of my journey, before, during, and after the fact.


----------



## MsBlack (Apr 10, 2007)

Since it's about UC at base, I'll return to my earliest statement: for mom to be pro-active in achieving/maintaining excellent health--and for her to have full emotional support from her partner in this--is the closest thing to a guarantee that we get, when it comes to birth. Yes, your chances of a healthy baby and healthy birth/pp time are greatly enhanced by taking excellent care of yourself--with confidence in yourself and the process, working through any fears as you go, becoming more informed about 'good signs and bad signs' of birth/baby--and willing to get help if it turns out you or baby do need it.

And Olstep--not to pretend I know you all that well (and certainly nothing about your partner/home situation), but as a UC mom, grandmom and general UC supporter/observer for lo these many years, from what I've 'seen' of you here on MDC...I'd say you are an excellent candidate for UC, attitude-wise, general-mindset-wise, self-confidence-wise.

Not that you asked for my assessment!
And not that anyone gets any guarantees in this life.


----------



## bandgeek (Sep 12, 2006)

I was mostly healthy and my child had significant brain damage from oxygen deprivation sometime in the womb or during birth (we don't know when). The only issue I had was constant sickness (as I did with my first...actually worse with him and he's healthy). It did prevent me from eating the healthiest, but I gained an acceptable amount of weight. Otherwise no pregnancy complications.

Cord accidents can happen to ANYONE. And you aren't necessarily able to intervene in time even if you check yourself with a doppler every 10 minutes of your pregnancy.


----------



## wombatclay (Sep 4, 2005)

*~~~~~~~~~Moderator Moment~~~~~~~~*

Heyla!

Several posts have been removed to bring this thread back on topic and within the MDC User Agreement Guidelines. *Please review the User Agreement and then your post prior to hitting the "submit" button so that we can keep the information and discussion provided by this thread on the boards!*

If you have ANY questions or concerns about the thread, or about individual posts on the thread, please contact a moderator via the "report" button.

Thank you! And a big "Thank You" for taking the time and effort to share your experiences in a gentle, responsible, and respectful manner. It's members like you that help us keep MDC both informative and welcoming.

*~~~~~~~~~~~~now back to the thread~~~~~~~~~~~~~~*


----------



## JTA Mom (Feb 25, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *olstep* 
I did not mean to touch the painful subjects like stillbirth or miscarriage.
The only intention I had was to hear some encouragement that one can *kind of prepare* herself to have a positive outcome.
I am tempted to go UCed but find it difficult to block my brain that tells me that it may be unsafe.
I do not argue that things happen no matter how hard we try (in childbirth or life in general) *but fatalism is not my philosophy. I do believe that we have responsibility and certain control for what happens in our lives.*

It is not fatalism to see that in the aspect of pregnancy/birth, we really have very little control on outcome. You can eat supremely healthy, be healthy, active, etc, and still have a bad outcome. Can you increase your chances of a healthy birth/baby/etc? Sure. But we're talking about statistics, and well, with statistics, it doesn't matter that something is only a 1% chance if you happen to BE that 1%, kwim?

The major thing my own loss taught me, is to just stay in the moment. I cannot be guaranteed that tomorrow something will happen. But right now, my baby is kicking, therefore alive, so I am happy.

Am I preparing for his/her eventual arrival? Yes, of course.

Do I expect him/her to come home with me?

That question is harder to answer. Yes, a part of me fully expects it. However, another part, the part that is all too aware of loss, tells me to also not take it as a given. That if I am so lucky, and I do mean lucky, to bring home a living, healthy baby, I should count my blessings. I do not and can never, take a good outcome as a 'done deal'.

Like I said, I have been in that 1% chance bracket before. I do realize though, that the majority of women will end up with healthy babies--how else has the human race survived and expanded to today, kwim? And I repeat that to myself.

As for you not feeling completely comfy UCing, I don't think falling into the opposite 'fatalistic' belief of 'I am healthy, therefore everything will be fine' is the answer. There are risks to birthing in a hospital as well, such as infections.

What you have to do is find your acceptable risk level. If something were to happen in the hospital--how would you feel? If something were to happen in your UC--how would you feel? What do you think you can live with? Then go from there.

Ami


----------



## olstep (Jan 9, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JTA Mom* 
It is not fatalism to see that in the aspect of pregnancy/birth, we really have very little control on outcome. You can eat supremely healthy, be healthy, active, etc, and still have a bad outcome. Can you increase your chances of a healthy birth/baby/etc? Sure. But we're talking about statistics, and well, with statistics, it doesn't matter that something is only a 1% chance if you happen to BE that 1%, kwim?


It does matter *to me* whether it 1% or 10%. 1% wont' shake my belief - maybe groundless for some people - that everything is going to be fine. It is not that I do not want to see or be aware of negative outcome possibility. But for my sanity I have to put it (the negative) far back on my mind when
1)I see that chances it can happen are very low.
2) there is not much I can do to affect it.
I think our brain has very powerful impact on our live. As one of pps said excellent health is not only your physical but emotional condition as well.

Quote:

I don't think falling into the opposite 'fatalistic' belief of 'I am healthy, therefore everything will be fine' is the answer.
This belief let me have or think that I have a certain control: I can do or not do a few things that will affect the result. It puts responsibility on me not fate or some unknown power. Some may call it naive or ignorant but not fatalistic.
There are times when one needs to block negative information - even the valid one - to stay in the positive mind frame. I hope that nobody will question that the last one is very important for a smooth birth.

Like you said: let's deal with one thing in a time. Pregnancy, birth, then we deal with the outcome.


----------



## olstep (Jan 9, 2009)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MsBlack* 

Not that you asked for my assessment!
And not that anyone gets any guarantees in this life.

No I did not







but I appreciate it. I have sent you a PM about juridical part of UC.


----------



## triscuitsmom (Jan 11, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
The advice that I would give any woman no matter which choices she is making in how and where she will labour is to be aware that there are risks and there are no guarantees. What is important is that you are able to live with the risks you choose to take.

Yes. A million times over yes.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *JTA Mom* 
The major thing my own loss taught me, is to just stay in the moment. I cannot be guaranteed that tomorrow something will happen. But right now, my baby is kicking, therefore alive, so I am happy.

Am I preparing for his/her eventual arrival? Yes, of course.

Do I expect him/her to come home with me?

That question is harder to answer. Yes, a part of me fully expects it. However, another part, the part that is all too aware of loss, tells me to also not take it as a given. That if I am so lucky, and I do mean lucky, to bring home a living, healthy baby, I should count my blessings. I do not and can never, take a good outcome as a 'done deal'.

Like I said, I have been in that 1% chance bracket before. I do realize though, that the majority of women will end up with healthy babies--how else has the human race survived and expanded to today, kwim? And I repeat that to myself.

As for you not feeling completely comfy UCing, I don't think falling into the opposite 'fatalistic' belief of 'I am healthy, therefore everything will be fine' is the answer. There are risks to birthing in a hospital as well, such as infections.

What you have to do is find your acceptable risk level. If something were to happen in the hospital--how would you feel? If something were to happen in your UC--how would you feel? What do you think you can live with? Then go from there.

Ami

I totally agree with this too.


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *olstep* 
It does matter *to me* whether it 1% or 10%. 1% wont' shake my belief - maybe groundless for some people - that everything is going to be fine. It is not that I do not want to see or be aware of negative outcome possibility. But for my sanity I have to put it (the negative) far back on my mind when
1)I see that chances it can happen are very low.
2) there is not much I can do to affect it.
I think our brain has very powerful impact on our live. As one of pps said excellent health is not only your physical but emotional condition as well.

This belief let me have or think that I have a certain control: I can do or not do a few things that will affect the result. It puts responsibility on me not fate or some unknown power. Some may call it naive or ignorant but not fatalistic.
There are times when one needs to block negative information - even the valid one - to stay in the positive mind frame. I hope that nobody will question that the last one is very important for a smooth birth.

Like you said: let's deal with one thing in a time. Pregnancy, birth, then we deal with the outcome.

Olstep, I'm really not arguing with you.

I just want you to know that as someone for whom things went really, really wrong, the worst regrets I have are the points at which I did not ask questions about risk and where I too made the decision not to worry about the 1%. I went into my daughter's labour really quite sure that as a strong and healthy mother we would be fine. I wish that I had dispensed with that idea a little earlier...I don't especially blame myself in that way, because I just didn't know. And when I had a few concerns, I dismissed them as negativity.

I guess, gently, I sort of think if you have to put things out of your mind for your own sanity -- and I don't mean not _dwelling_ on them, which isn't necessarily good, but just making a decision based on "well that just won't happen" -- you could be at risk for a harsh experience. The risk is still small, of course. But your original thread title and question was pretty absolute. I hope the discussion has helped.


----------



## laohaire (Nov 2, 2005)

fatalism = _the acceptance of all things and events as inevitable_

Excellent health of mother guaranteeing (inevitible result) healthy baby = fatalistic


----------



## MsBlack (Apr 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
Olstep, I'm really not arguing with you.

I just want you to know that as someone for whom things went really, really wrong, the worst regrets I have are the points at which I did not ask questions about risk and where I too made the decision not to worry about the 1%. I went into my daughter's labour really quite sure that as a strong and healthy mother we would be fine. I wish that I had dispensed with that idea a little earlier...I don't especially blame myself in that way, because I just didn't know. And when I had a few concerns, I dismissed them as negativity.

I guess, gently, I sort of think if you have to put things out of your mind for your own sanity -- and I don't mean not _dwelling_ on them, which isn't necessarily good, but just making a decision based on "well that just won't happen" -- you could be at risk for a harsh experience. The risk is still small, of course. But your original thread title and question was pretty absolute. I hope the discussion has helped.

When I had my UCs (well really also including my dr-attended hb and mw attended one, too), I prepared for all eventualities, informing myself as much as possible about risks, and 'what to do IF such and such happens'. I had hospital back up plans, and named people for specific roles in case of transport (watch the other kids, help me communicate w/hosp staff, etc).

Then I put it out of my mind, feeling I'd done all I could to prepare, to be aware of and prepared for 'negative eventualities'. No point in further consideration--time to fully commit to my dream-birth with confidence. After 5 healthy happy homebirths, 3 of them UC, my last baby/intended UC became a transfer and eventual csec. I did not go into that birth any differently w/respect to prep and confidence, etc, and putting the risks out of my mind. And I did go into that birth ready, as ever, to deal with the reality that presented itself; was freely able to see that that reality was not conducive to UC (signs during labor), took myself to hospital. And I had a csec after more hours of labor there, by my OWN call--doc was willing to wait longer but I just knew it was needed and I was right. I add that being a mw helped in some respects--but for that csec call, it was, and could only have been (given mine/baby's issues that were not clear even w/internal monitor and all the rest) a purely *mother-instinctive* choice.

Just saying--putting the risks out of your mind does not mean pretending it can't/won't happen. It does mean choosing to focus attention, and one's power, on birthing normally and with awareness.

But you are right, GuildJenn--olstep's question was pretty absolute!


----------



## GuildJenn (Jan 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MsBlack* 

Just saying--putting the risks out of your mind does not mean pretending it can't/won't happen. It does mean choosing to focus attention, and one's power, on birthing normally and with awareness.

But you are right, GuildJenn--olstep's question was pretty absolute!

I think you're good to share your perspective.

But with all respect, having a c-section and getting a healthy baby is still a completely different outcome than having your baby die. When your baby dies and all you're left with is empty arms, that's when your choices truly come back to haunt you. Most women will not experience that, fortunately.

In my case I did not have a magical awareness of the cord around my daughter's neck; I don't think this is because I was lacking in connection or self-awareness but it was because I was not a professional and wasn't able to assess the difference between 'normal' labour fear/pain/effort and anything else.

I was coached by the women around me to trust labour and trust my body, from pre-birth classes right up to where my daughter's heart stopped and - that was a mistake. I will never 'just' focus on the positive again -- and not in a fearful and negative way, but because I have a better understanding of the finer points of biology and physics.

I think both perspectives are important, particularly when someone asks.


----------



## Quinalla (May 23, 2005)

All you can do is lower the risk of birth complications, you can never eliminate them completely. That is why it is so important to be informed on how risky certain things are so you can make informed choices. Well, actually you can eliminate your risk by never getting pregnant, but that sort of misses the point!


----------



## MsBlack (Apr 10, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *GuildJenn* 
I think you're good to share your perspective.

But with all respect, having a c-section and getting a healthy baby is still a completely different outcome than having your baby die. When your baby dies and all you're left with is empty arms, that's when your choices truly come back to haunt you. Most women will not experience that, fortunately.

In my case I did not have a magical awareness of the cord around my daughter's neck; I don't think this is because I was lacking in connection or self-awareness but it was because I was not a professional and wasn't able to assess the difference between 'normal' labour fear/pain/effort and anything else.

I was coached by the women around me to trust labour and trust my body, from pre-birth classes right up to where my daughter's heart stopped and - that was a mistake. I will never 'just' focus on the positive again -- and not in a fearful and negative way, but because I have a better understanding of the finer points of biology and physics.

I think both perspectives are important, particularly when someone asks.

I agree, both perspectives are important!

Maybe it wasn't obvious from my last post--but there *were* signs that brought me to the hospital for my last birth. Yes, in the end when choosing a csec, it was more a matter of instinctive knowing...but that knowing was certainly informed by some pretty clear signs. Signs a parent could see for herself at home w/out monitoring, and even more signs at the hospital. But the doc, I guess, did not see those signs *yet* as life-threatening or contra-indicating vag delivery...it was my instinct that went there, sooner than the doc was able to since he was only relying on the rational/quantitative interpretation of signs that med technologies could generate.

If those kinds of signs are not apparent to the casual observer during labor (such as meconium), nor discovered by monitoring (whether not done, or not done carefully enough), well, that's somewhat different.

Anyway--we do agree, all perspectives are important for everyone to see in a thread like this.


----------

