# I don't know where this should go but it just pissed me off!



## Sara Badger (Jul 31, 2006)

I'm beyond words for this! The last sentence just sickens me!
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...731904,00.html


----------



## Collinsky (Jul 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sara Badger* 
I'm beyond words for this! The last sentence just sickens me!
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...731904,00.html

So annoying. I agree that women shouldn't feel defensive about their choices, and that women should have any and all choices available to them. But the article is so one-sided seeming, minimizing the risks of Cesarean whle focusing on the risks of vag birth. There's a reason that the maternal mortality rate in the US is going up and up... and it's not because of vaginal birth.

Women should have all the facts, so that they can make a really truly informed decision that meets their physical, emotional, and spiritual needs (and their baby's)... and glossing over the risks of abdominal surgery isn't all that upfront. And it would help if drs didn't have a vested interest in promoting the "safety and ease" of C-sections!!


----------



## barefoot mama (Apr 30, 2006)

Quote:

. In an increasingly technological and medicalized society, maybe even childbirth is losing some of its magic and becoming less about the miracle of life and more about simply getting a baby out safely and without incident.
This is one of the saddest things I have ever read.


----------



## accountclosed3 (Jun 13, 2006)

the assumption in that quote, Jen, is amazing!

The assumption is that medical methods are there to get the baby out safely without incident, and yet interventions cause incidents and are not necessarily getting the baby out safely.

what an assumption!


----------



## wombjuice (Feb 22, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *barefoot mama* 
This is one of the saddest things I have ever read.

Me too.







:


----------



## CherryBomb (Feb 13, 2005)

I feel a lot of pity for that woman, really. So terrified of her own body, you know?


----------



## kalisage (Mar 15, 2008)

that was just.... horrible. I do think women should have every right to make their choices, but last I checked when you stub your toe you don't just cut off your foot to avoid the pain


----------



## laoxinat (Sep 17, 2007)

This reminds me of one of the things Michel Odent said in the Business of Being Born- that medicalized birth interferes in bonding and therefore, affects ALL of us. Mamas who don't get that 'after birth' rush have a harder time bonding, and sometimes never do. In my own small sample of two, this was exactly my experience. DS - hospital birth, no rush of oxytocin, poor bonding and lots of heartache. DD - homebirthed, awesome birth high, bonded deeply, we get along great. It is a societal issue. I would be most interested in seeing stats to get a feel for how birth intervention correlates with bonding issues and problems later in baby's life.


----------



## logcabinmomma (Jan 31, 2008)

So sad. My DH works in the health insurance industry and he'll find this fascinating. Add to the numbers of people who are having planned inductions, and it seems no one is having a "normal" birth anymore. Someone mentioned in passing the other day not to schedule anything for Wednesday, that his wife was having a baby that day, but Tuesday would be fine for the meeting... DH was taken aback! Poor guy's not used to birth being fooled around with! Ick.

-Kristi


----------



## Joezmom (Apr 1, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *laoxinat* 
This reminds me of one of the things Michel Odent said in the Business of Being Born- that medicalized birth interferes in bonding and therefore, affects ALL of us. Mamas who don't get that 'after birth' rush have a harder time bonding, and sometimes never do. In my own small sample of two, this was exactly my experience. DS - hospital birth, no rush of oxytocin, poor bonding and lots of heartache. DD - homebirthed, awesome birth high, bonded deeply, we get along great. It is a societal issue. I would be most interested in seeing stats to get a feel for how birth intervention correlates with bonding issues and problems later in baby's life.

Michel Odent has no facts to back up his claim that mothers who don't get "the birth cocktail" have a harder time bonding with their babies. I think that kind of comment is a huge insult to any woman who has not had a baby "naturally". No CS, no IV of any kind, no NICU, no ADOPTIVE mothers?

Pure woo


----------



## Joezmom (Apr 1, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *laoxinat* 
This reminds me of one of the things Michel Odent said in the Business of Being Born- that medicalized birth interferes in bonding and therefore, affects ALL of us. Mamas who don't get that 'after birth' rush have a harder time bonding, and sometimes never do. In my own small sample of two, this was exactly my experience. DS - hospital birth, no rush of oxytocin, poor bonding and lots of heartache. DD - homebirthed, awesome birth high, bonded deeply, we get along great. It is a societal issue. I would be most interested in seeing stats to get a feel for how birth intervention correlates with bonding issues and problems later in baby's life.

Michel Odent has no facts to back up his claim that mothers who don't get "the birth cocktail" have a harder time bonding with their babies. I think that kind of comment is a huge insult to any woman who has not had a baby "naturally". No CS, no IV of any kind, no NICU, no ADOPTIVE mothers?

Pure woo


----------



## wombjuice (Feb 22, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Joezmom* 
Michel Odent has no facts to back up his claim that mothers who don't get "the birth cocktail" have a harder time bonding with their babies. I think that kind of comment is a huge insult to any woman who has not had a baby "naturally". No CS, no IV of any kind, no NICU, no ADOPTIVE mothers?

Pure woo

Unless you believe that humans are completely different than all other mammals on the planet, then Michel Odent does indeed have facts to back up his claim that mothers who don't get "the birth cocktail" have a harder time bonding with their babies. Nowhere does he say that it's impossible for mamas to bond with their babies if they do not get a normal birth, he just says it's more difficult.


----------



## laoxinat (Sep 17, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Joezmom* 
Michel Odent has no facts to back up his claim that mothers who don't get "the birth cocktail" have a harder time bonding with their babies. I think that kind of comment is a huge insult to any woman who has not had a baby "naturally". No CS, no IV of any kind, no NICU, no ADOPTIVE mothers?

Pure woo

It would make a lot more sense if you said it was a huge insult to the people perpetrating the abuses, but how is it an insult to the women who are victims of these practices?







:
And for the record, it IS hard for adoptive moms to bond sometimes. If you don't think so, please please go read about reactive attachment disorder. And he is indeed, NOT saying it is impossible, just harder. My SIL had a CS, and she is as bonded with her DD as I was with my homebirthed DD. Michel Odent has been a birth advocate very likely longer than you've been alive. I think he knows of what he speaks.


----------



## Unoppressed MAMA Q (Jun 13, 2004)

Goodness, that article sucks! Is anyone really walking around being nasty to people who've had sections?


----------



## CherryBomb (Feb 13, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *feminine_earth* 
Unless you believe that humans are completely different than all other mammals on the planet, then Michel Odent does indeed have facts to back up his claim that mothers who don't get "the birth cocktail" have a harder time bonding with their babies. Nowhere does he say that it's impossible for mamas to bond with their babies if they do not get a normal birth, he just says it's more difficult.

But it isn't _always_ true, and a lot of natural birth advocates seem to portray it that way (intentionally or not). Some moms might have a harder time. Believe it or not, some moms have 100% "mdc approved" natural pregnancies, labors, and births, and STILL have trouble bonding. Some moms have totally medicalized pregnancies, labors, and births, and bond instantly.

The problem is when it gets portrayed as an inevitability.

I've had 2 c/s, a 2 week NICU stay, and a VBAC with no epidural (though I was "bad" and had one small shot of nubain 4 hours before she was actually born) and while obviously the last birth experience was more pleasant, I don't feel that I bonded "better" or easier or quicker with dd3. Actually I'd say I bonded the fastest and easiest with dd2, who was in the NICU for 2 weeks and whom I didn't get to hold until she was 5 days old, who didn't get to nurse until she was 11 days old. My protective instincts went crazy and I still feel *very* closely bonded to her.


----------



## wombjuice (Feb 22, 2007)

Obviously there are exceptions to every rule. I don't believe anyone said there wasn't. As with any experience specific to you, YMMV.


----------



## honeybunch2k8 (Jan 14, 2008)

*shakes head*

Although I don't like it, I can understand where she and others who choose c-cections are coming from. I would bet that it will happen more and more b/c women want to save themselves from other birth traumas- being probed, prodded, given episiotimies,people sticking their hands inside you quite often, denied food and water but still expected to push and labor for hours,being in a cold,brightly lit room for hours, or very little one on one attention. I wouldnt be suprised if she were afraid of ruining her vagina and sex life. In all honesty, the way most women give birth is hard and not good for the pelvic floor. Also, maybe the fact that women have very limited maternity leave and want to have baby ASAP or at a predictable time is a factor.

It's all really sad.

While I think humans are a bit more flexible than other mammals and that mothers who have c-sections can bond as well as those who don't, that doesn't mean I'm going to choose to have one like the lady in the article without medical justification. Nope!

ETA: Wait a minute, I wonder how many women are given the choice to deny EFM, were able to choose their birth position? Last time I went to a hospital they were pretty adamant that women be on their backs with legs spread. But more and more doctors are allowing patients to have elective c-sections? Doesn't make much sense to me.


----------



## Intertwined (Jun 29, 2005)

It's unbelievable to me that they portray c-section as the "less messy" option. Uh, have they actually SEEN a section? Verses a normal, non-messed with vaginal birth? At my two home births one chux pad was needed for the 'mess'.


----------



## honeybunch2k8 (Jan 14, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Intertwined* 
It's unbelievable to me that they portray c-section as the "less messy" option. Uh, have they actually SEEN a section? Verses a normal, *non-messed with vaginal birth?* At my two home births one chux pad was needed for the 'mess'.

What's said is that they probably haven't. I didn't see one until I was 20.

I read in Pushed that some women think it's not so messy because they wouldn't want to ruin their vaginas.

I don't think people quite grasp the fact that a c-section is major abdominal surgery.


----------



## Joezmom (Apr 1, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *laoxinat* 
It would make a lot more sense if you said it was a huge insult to the people perpetrating the abuses, but how is it an insult to the women who are victims of these practices?







:
And for the record, it IS hard for adoptive moms to bond sometimes. If you don't think so, please please go read about reactive attachment disorder. And he is indeed, NOT saying it is impossible, just harder. My SIL had a CS, and she is as bonded with her DD as I was with my homebirthed DD. Michel Odent has been a birth advocate very likely longer than you've been alive. I think he knows of what he speaks.

I believe VERY FEW laboring women are victims of abuse in a hospital setting (abuse is a strong term that should not be used in reference to common "interventions" in hospital IMO). And yes, I believe it IS insulting to suggest that any kind of birth other than a "natural" birth, preferably at home, is somehow tainted, opening the door to all kinds of problems down the road.

For the record, I am well aware of reactive attachment disorder, and it must be devastating for families who have that experience. I have several friends and relatives who have adopted, and they all have experienced close, well-bonded relationships with their children (anecdotal).

I won't say anything more about Odent, other than I personally put very little stock in much of what he says. Extra large egos hold no appeal for me, and older doesn't mean wiser.


----------



## wombjuice (Feb 22, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Joezmom* 
I believe VERY FEW laboring women are victims of abuse in a hospital setting (abuse is a strong term that should not be used in reference to common "interventions" in hospital IMO).

Have you been to the Birth and Beyond forum recently? I might be inclined to agree that the word "abuse" should not be used in reference to common intervention in hospital _if doctors and nurses weren't forcing open legs and holding women down while conducting these "interventions"._

No means no. If a laboring woman does not consent to an "intervention" and is held down and forced to undergo said "intervention", that is ALWAYS abuse.


----------



## Sara Badger (Jul 31, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Joezmom* 
I believe VERY FEW laboring women are victims of abuse in a hospital setting (abuse is a strong term that should not be used in reference to common "interventions" in hospital IMO). And yes, I believe it IS insulting to suggest that any kind of birth other than a "natural" birth, preferably at home, is somehow tainted, opening the door to all kinds of problems down the road.

For the record, I am well aware of reactive attachment disorder, and it must be devastating for families who have that experience. I have several friends and relatives who have adopted, and they all have experienced close, well-bonded relationships with their children (anecdotal).

I won't say anything more about Odent, other than I personally put very little stock in much of what he says. Extra large egos hold no appeal for me, and older doesn't mean wiser.

I 'm going to agree to disargee with you on your first and third point.If you have not meet and talked with Odent then I think you should reserve pulibc comment on him! I think articles like this are lessening womens right slowing and that putting these ideas out there will not only cause more harm it is very miss leading to women who have no other ideas shared with them! If C sec were so great I~Can would not be so popular! And a Vbac would never be considered! The truth is that many women learn about birth after their first babe and that is the biggest problem I see facing birthing women! It is abuse of power to not tell a patient their full rights and that IS happening in Ever hospital in the USA. That Is something that really needs to be address in a very public way! I also think that women need to find a voice and say NO more often! This subject just gets me so disjointed!


----------



## selena_ski (Jun 16, 2006)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Intertwined
It's unbelievable to me that they portray c-section as the "less messy" option. Uh, have they actually SEEN a section? Verses a normal, non-messed with vaginal birth? At my two home births one chux pad was needed for the 'mess'.

posted by honeybunch2k8
What's sad is that they probably haven't. I didn't see one until I was 20.

i have never seen or heard on a non-messed with vaginal birth until i had my own, furthermore i still only know one woman who has had natural births. (and happened to have them at home.)


----------



## honeybunch2k8 (Jan 14, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Joezmom* 
*I believe VERY FEW laboring women are victims of abuse in a hospital setting (abuse is a strong term that should not be used in reference to common "interventions" in hospital IMO*). And yes, I believe it IS insulting to suggest that any kind of birth other than a "natural" birth, preferably at home, is somehow tainted, opening the door to all kinds of problems down the road.

For the record, I am well aware of reactive attachment disorder, and it must be devastating for families who have that experience. I have several friends and relatives who have adopted, and they all have experienced close, well-bonded relationships with their children (anecdotal).

I won't say anything more about Odent, other than I personally put very little stock in much of what he says. Extra large egos hold no appeal for me, and older doesn't mean wiser.

I can't say I agree. IMO abuse is pretty rampant, but a lot of it is considered normal,unfortunately. I would definitely consider doctors who give unwarranted c-sections and episiotomies as abusive. Judging as how the safe limit is 15% and our national rate is an average 30%, I wouldn't call that few and far between.

Even from my own experiences, I would definitely say there are some doctors out there who are cold, almost uncaring, and just plain mean. Although I wasn't full term, I was a laboring woman and I came out feeling violated and abused. I'd definitely consider some of the doctors I dealt with abusive. I didn't appreciate being drugged without my permission.


----------



## honeybunch2k8 (Jan 14, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *selena_ski* 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Intertwined
It's unbelievable to me that they portray c-section as the "less messy" option. Uh, have they actually SEEN a section? Verses a normal, non-messed with vaginal birth? At my two home births one chux pad was needed for the 'mess'.

posted by honeybunch2k8
What's sad is that they probably haven't. I didn't see one until I was 20.

*i have never seen or heard on a non-messed with vaginal birth until i had my own, furthermore i still only know one woman who has had natural births.* (and happened to have them at home.)

I wish I could say that much. The only reason I've seen a normal, physiological birth in entirety is because of youtube.


----------



## A_Random_Phrase (Mar 27, 2008)

I, personally, think anyone is nuts to choose a c-section if they've experienced both kinds of births (obviously, the lady in the article hadn't). The gas pains, for me, were as bad or worse than the contractions. Having a catheter stuck inside of me when I'm able to feel it sounds really bad. And the IV and all of that. On purpose?

Other than that rant, I am concerned. Our society can't last forever. Name me one that has. I look at what's going on in society, in our country specifically and I worry. What if those women get used to elective c-sections and then what the economists say are going to happen, happens (major depression). Are any of them going to be able to afford a c-section? How terrified will they be then? I, personally, am very glad to have discovered UC communities. I think if bad things happen to our society then the UC'ers will be more prepared than those who keep going down the trail of more and more being done to them and less and less autonomy. I worry about this lady more than I judge her.


----------



## franjapany (Oct 23, 2007)

What really scares me is that this lady is a child psychiatrist!!!









Maybe it's just me, but from someone in that line of work I would expect a little more reflection and openness to deal with her own trauma in a nother way than 'avoiding' it...
But I can only take a guess that she is one of the mainstream text-book psychiatrists who 'solves' problems with pills. Sorry for being judgemental. I'll shut up now.


----------



## Collinsky (Jul 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *feminine_earth* 
No means no. If a laboring woman does not consent to an "intervention" and is held down and forced to undergo said "intervention", that is ALWAYS abuse.









Absolutely.


----------



## Joezmom (Apr 1, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *feminine_earth* 
Have you been to the Birth and Beyond forum recently? I might be inclined to agree that the word "abuse" should not be used in reference to common intervention in hospital _if doctors and nurses weren't forcing open legs and holding women down while conducting these "interventions"._

No means no. If a laboring woman does not consent to an "intervention" and is held down and forced to undergo said "intervention", that is ALWAYS abuse.

I read Birth and Beyond regularly, and I fail to see story after story of rampant ABUSE, as though the medical establishment's main agenda is to punish and damage women! Can we at least refrain from exaggerating the negatives and stating opinions as though they are facts (like a famous French doc)?


----------



## kalisage (Mar 15, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Joezmom* 
I read Birth and Beyond regularly, and I fail to see story after story of rampant ABUSE, as though the medical establishment's main agenda is to punish and damage women!

I don't believe it is their agenda to punish women. I think these OBs honestly think they are doing "what is best" - that however does not negate them from making HORRIBLE choices with regards to women & birth.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:

And yes, I believe it IS insulting to suggest that any kind of birth other than a "natural" birth, preferably at home, is somehow tainted, opening the door to all kinds of problems down the road.
So we'll just pretend that the effect doesn't exist? That hormonal release isn't affected by environment?

Look, Odent himself is perfectly forthright about the fact that human beings have psychological coping mechanisms and support systems that can mitigate the negative effects of an incomplete or disturbed hormonal process. And it's no secret that some women's bodies are so efficient that they can give birth easily and be flooded with the hormones they're meant to have in the most adverse of circumstances. But this is a very real effect for many women. It's rational, it's scientific, and it was extremely valuable for me to know regarding my own births, in understanding why I had difficulty bonding with my first children (i.e. not my fault) and in creating a plan to avoid that with my last.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Joezmom* 
I believe VERY FEW laboring women are victims of abuse in a hospital setting (abuse is a strong term that should not be used in reference to common "interventions" in hospital IMO).

Talk about insulting. That's dismissive of an awful lot of women's experiences. Maybe we're defining 'abuse' differently. I define it as serious harm done unnecessarily from a position of power. Doesn't need to be any malice involved; apathy, desensitization, and ignorance are often enough to allow abuse. Of course perpetrators and victims are going to reframe it as 'care' -- it's awfully painful to look at is honestly. But it doesn't change the reality that it's damaging. As just one example of many, I consider it abuse to cut a woman's genitals because she's not allowed to labor normally. What would you call it?


----------



## 104356 (Mar 10, 2008)

"Pretty tidy way to conduct the often messy business of childbirth."

this is the quote that got to me. so c/d are "tidy"? scars, infection risk, not being able to get out of bed for days, being dependent on percocets for weeks, not being able to breastfeed nearly as easily, post-partum depression, etc. that's all tidy??

after vaginal delivery, you clean up the blood, sweat, and happy tears, and cuddle. that's all there is to it.


----------



## Joezmom (Apr 1, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds* 
So we'll just pretend that the effect doesn't exist? That hormonal release isn't affected by environment?

Look, Odent himself is perfectly forthright about the fact that human beings have psychological coping mechanisms and support systems that can mitigate the negative effects of an incomplete or disturbed hormonal process. And it's no secret that some women's bodies are so efficient that they can give birth easily and be flooded with the hormones they're meant to have in the most adverse of circumstances. But this is a very real effect for many women. It's rational, it's scientific, and it was extremely valuable for me to know regarding my own births, in understanding why I had difficulty bonding with my first children (i.e. not my fault) and in creating a plan to avoid that with my last

Talk about insulting. That's dismissive of an awful lot of women's experiences. Maybe we're defining 'abuse' differently. I define it as serious harm done unnecessarily from a position of power. Doesn't need to be any malice involved; apathy, desensitization, and ignorance are often enough to allow abuse. Of course perpetrators and victims are going to reframe it as 'care' -- it's awfully painful to look at is honestly. But it doesn't change the reality that it's damaging. As just one example of many, I consider it abuse to cut a woman's genitals because she's not allowed to labor normally. What would you call it?

I haven't seen any study by Odent regarding oxytocin and better/easier bonding - just his opinion. Can you cite?

I don't intend to insult, and while the term 'abuse' may mean different things to people, *I* don't equate the term with apathy, insensitivity or ignorance. If I DID, then I might feel abused (instead of just insulted!) by some previous PP's comments about unnatural birth.

Oh, I would call it an episiotomy.


----------



## SevenVeils (Aug 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Joezmom* 
I won't say anything more about Odent, other than I personally put very little stock in much of what he says. Extra large egos hold no appeal for me, and older doesn't mean wiser.

Wow. Just wow. I've been reading Odent for at least 18 years, and I find him to be quite humble and respectful of women and their power. He is an acclaimed OB, yet has chosen to step out of the birthing room and to vocally recommend that other males do the same. He has been very outspoken about the power of a birthing woman, and the fact that the presence of someone such as himself can diminish that power even if unintentionally. He chooses to remain on the premises, within easy access in the very infrequent event that he is needed, while saying that a midwife sitting quietly in the corner knitting is the best attendant.

He is adamant that women will instinctively be able to healthily birth their babies with no intervention, as long as they are allowed to access their inner selves. With few but definite exceptions, thus the midwife and the access to an OB.

Strongly stated opinions do not equal ego to me.

And a traditional backpedaling American OB, who says "sometimes" and "maybe" and cushions his/her words but ends up with an over 90% episiotomy rate and an over 60% c-sec rate is perfectly fine? Who sees birth as a dangerous event requiring intervention and close monitoring, strapping women down when they request otherwise (to monitors routinely), performing episiotomies and pressuring pitocin and putting time limits on labor- that is preferable to someone who firmly states his belief in the normality of birth?

I don't understand.

I don't even know how to address the claims that women are not being routinely abused during birth. As a PP said, if a woman says no, that means NO. That does not mean "coerce me by lying to me". That does not mean "treat me as a hostile party and do what you can to make me feel powerless so that I'll submit". The episiotomy rates and c-sec rates are so far over the rate at which they are necessary that it is completely insane.

Although the inventor of the EFM has clearly stated that it is not to be used routinely, and both his words and subsequent studies have shown that to use EFM routinely directly causes fetal distress (not just detects it), American OBs and hospital protocols consider it to be too risky for a laboring woman not to be monitored.

Although c-sec is known to present many health risks for baby and mother over vaginal birth, women are allowed to choose this as an *option* yet are not allowed to choose to forgo EFM.

Not to mention all of the many women who are being pressured into elective c-sec for 'dates', even *on their supposed due date*. Despite the studies which show that dates alone are not reason for induction, much less c-sec.

As for c-sec being seen as more tidy, yes it is. In our culture, we consider even the messiest surgery with the messiest recovery to be less 'messy' or even disgusting, than hours of various, maybe somewhat mysterious, substances coming out of our vaginas. An incision can't be helped if you have surgery. The seepage and pain and other facts of recovery can't be blamed on you. But just going around with *stuff* coming out of your body? Gross. Even shameful.


----------



## Mama Poot (Jun 12, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *laoxinat* 
This reminds me of one of the things Michel Odent said in the Business of Being Born- that medicalized birth interferes in bonding and therefore, affects ALL of us. Mamas who don't get that 'after birth' rush have a harder time bonding, and sometimes never do. In my own small sample of two, this was exactly my experience. DS - hospital birth, no rush of oxytocin, poor bonding and lots of heartache. DD - homebirthed, awesome birth high, bonded deeply, we get along great. It is a societal issue. I would be most interested in seeing stats to get a feel for how birth intervention correlates with bonding issues and problems later in baby's life.


ITA with this. My relationship with my homeborn child is admittedly stronger and healthier than my relationship with my first child who was born in a hospital under very bad conditions. I've worked extremely hard to overcome the damage done by that medicalized birth experience, but there's always a small part of me that knows things will never be the same between me and DS1 or at least things won't be like they are between me and DS2. It seems like such a taboo or even crazy thing to admit all this, and I'm glad I'm not the only woman out there whose relationship with one of her children was marred by this.


----------



## SevenVeils (Aug 28, 2006)

It isn't crazy, it is physiological. I wish that it weren't taboo, but it makes people very defensive. If I say anything negative about my (homebirth transfer) c-sec, I get people coming out of the woodwork to defend their c-secs whether they were planned or not. Or people who were born c-sec, now adults, and are "just fine". Well, of course they are just fine, but there is a loss there which I wish could be acknowledged.

A healthy baby and mama are the ultimate goal in birth, but the intervention rates are hurting that, not helping it. Also, there IS more to birth than the extraction of a baby.

And certain midwife/OB skills are being lost, not even taught anymore. Birth of a breech baby for instance. Listening with a fetoscope rather than a doppler. Reading other cues for progress, above and beyond (or instead of) pelvic exams and clocks.


----------



## sunkissedmumma67 (Jul 9, 2007)

That article is sad


----------



## thefragile7393 (Jun 21, 2005)

Thank you skyastara & fourlittlebirds, your words summed it up for me. There are exceptions to every rule, my friends who've had epidurals haven't had problems bonding...that dosn't mean that it dosn't happen. Most people realize that there are always exceptions and take things with a grain of salt.

After reading Odent's books, I amazed that everything he says is all opinion and nothing backed up. Never saw that in any of them but hey.....even if it was nothing but opinion at least it's one that I know reflects the current research that I've seen. Even if it was all opinion only, I fail to see what makes it wrong. ANd yet somehow a doc's view of natural birth that goes against the grain of popular society's views today means there's ego and bs? He's old, so he knows NOTHING?! Wow. That's a pretty narrow-minded view Unless his books (and there are quite a few!) are actually _read_, it's pretty hard to say that. Very few laboring women are abused by the system? I say look up Fyrestorm's story for a start. Or hey, just ASK how many women feel that way, you'll get quite a few responses. Sorry Joezmom, your views are not backed up with any research or facts. Just opinions.


----------



## UnassistedMomma (Jan 24, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Mama Poot* 
ITA with this. My relationship with my homeborn child is admittedly stronger and healthier than my relationship with my first child who was born in a hospital under very bad conditions. I've worked extremely hard to overcome the damage done by that medicalized birth experience, but there's always a small part of me that knows things will never be the same between me and DS1 or at least things won't be like they are between me and DS2. It seems like such a taboo or even crazy thing to admit all this, and I'm glad I'm not the only woman out there whose relationship with one of her children was marred by this.

I have had a similar experience, only I never realized the damage that had been done until my last one was born UC. The difference in the depth of our bonding was astounding, and far, far different from the children born in difficult hospital circumstances. I never even knew it!

That is something that makes me sad for my friends who are staunchly pro-hospital... I wish they could experience that difference. Of course they love their children deeply and are bonded to them, but there's just something different that's hard to put a finger on or to explain to someone who hasn't experienced it for themselves.


----------



## Joezmom (Apr 1, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thefragile7393* 
Thank you skyastara & fourlittlebirds, your words summed it up for me. There are exceptions to every rule, my friends who've had epidurals haven't had problems bonding...that dosn't mean that it dosn't happen. Most people realize that there are always exceptions and take things with a grain of salt.

After reading Odent's books, I amazed that everything he says is all opinion and nothing backed up. Never saw that in any of them but hey.....even if it was nothing but opinion at least it's one that I know reflects the current research that I've seen. Even if it was all opinion only, I fail to see what makes it wrong. ANd yet somehow a doc's view of natural birth that goes against the grain of popular society's views today means there's ego and bs? He's old, so he knows NOTHING?! Wow. That's a pretty narrow-minded view Unless his books (and there are quite a few!) are actually _read_, it's pretty hard to say that. Very few laboring women are abused by the system? I say look up Fyrestorm's story for a start. Or hey, just ASK how many women feel that way, you'll get quite a few responses. Sorry Joezmom, your views are not backed up with any research or facts. Just opinions.

I have no issue with anyone deciding to UC or homebirth as long as they have all the facts. It's a personal decision, and I agree that MOST of the time everything turns out fine. I guess my peeve is the insistance that a homebirth or UC is somehow 'better' than a birth center or hospital birth. It may be the ultimate for most women on boards like MDC, but IRL most women seem to be satisfied with their hospital births, or wouldn't we see HB rates increasing by leaps and bounds? Obviously there is room for improvement in the hospital, but (I believe) Fyrestorm's horrific story is not the norm - she even managed to settle a lawsuit with a hospital and everyone involved - how rare is that?

And Dr. Odent? I bet even HE would admit to having a big ego! And I didn't say "he's old so he knows nothing". I said "older doesn't mean wiser".

*JUST MY OPINION!*


----------



## amberskyfire (Sep 15, 2007)

That's just horrible!

It's so irritating how they always use the "birth is messy" card to convince women not to give birth vaginally or at home. I've seen cesarean sections and they are FAR more bloody and messy than natural birth. I gave birth at home on a towel. Afterward, hubby just threw the towel in the wash, hit rinse, and washed it with the rest of the laundry. No big deal







:


----------



## Collinsky (Jul 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amberskyfire* 
That's just horrible!

It's so irritating how they always use the "birth is messy" card to convince women not to give birth vaginally or at home. I've seen cesarean sections and they are FAR more bloody and messy than natural birth. I gave birth at home on a towel. Afterward, hubby just threw the towel in the wash, hit rinse, and washed it with the rest of the laundry. No big deal







:

I know! Oozing abdominal wound doesn't sound all that tidy to me. I've seen women healing from Cesareans and uterine surgery, and it boggles me that it is seen as an easier, neater choice. What the heck is going on with vaginal births that that's the perception??? Are all hospital vaginal births explosive fluid filled body ripping horror shows?

Actually, they are. Episiotomies and purple pushing, talk of decelerating heartrates and "stuck baby"... the uncertainty and the unpredictability are seen as dangers, as messiness. It's _that_ that folks are trying to avoid, rather than a fear of bodily fluid or of fallen bladders - Because there is definitely the same fluids involved in a Cesarean, plus a couple of others along the way, and Cesareans lead to just as much, if not more, pelvic prolapse as vaginal birth - plus adhesions, which isn't a threat with vag birth.

And women really aren't aware of the risks. The fact that Cesarean quadruples a woman's risk of dying after giving birth is either not known or considered exaggerated... less problematic and less likely things like"stuck/big baby" is still a greater concern, because that's what's hyped, that's what the drs sell them. Not lies... but half-truths that serve their overall purpose rather than exactly what's best for mama and baby.


----------



## SevenVeils (Aug 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Joezmom* 
IRL most women seem to be satisfied with their hospital births, or wouldn't we see HB rates increasing by leaps and bounds?

No. Most women that I have heard talk about their birth experience are dissatisfied (at best) but think that is what they have to put up with in order to have a live baby. This, in part, is why elective c-sec rates are so astronomical. If women are thinking that major surgery, and healing from such while mothering a newborn, is a preferable choice to vaginal birth in a hospital... how bad have things gotten?


----------



## Joezmom (Apr 1, 2008)

So.....why don't more women birth at home?


----------



## wombjuice (Feb 22, 2007)

Because most women don't even know that homebirth is an option. And most that do know are so convinced that they and their baby will die without modern medicine, that they don't even consider it as an option.

Of course homebirth is not for everyone. But it could be for many, many more women if only there was more knowledge about and validation for it.


----------



## barefootpoetry (Jul 19, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *feminine_earth* 
Because most women don't even know that homebirth is an option.









: I had never even heard of homebirth when I was pregnant with my first. I didn't even know people still "did that." Then, after I had the textbook hospital experience complete with C-section, I dug a little deeper than the mainstream books I'd been reading and learned a WHOLE lot. I felt like screaming, "Why didn't anyone tell meee?!?!"

The info is there, but you have to actively go searching for it, and most women don't even know how to do that. They just go see their friendly neighborhood OB, do what he says, and show up at the hospital when it's time. Because that's "how it's done." And I'm not damning them for not knowing any better, because I was once a mom who did things because that's "how it's done." It takes a LOT for us pack-mentality humans to break free and think outside the box!

And let's not forget that just because homebirth rates are practically nonexistent in the U.S. doesn't mean that it's not a very favorable choice in other countries. In TBOBB I believe they quoted the Netherlands as having a 30% homebirth rate!


----------



## SevenVeils (Aug 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Joezmom* 
So.....why don't more women birth at home?

Because it has been pounded into their heads that birth is dangerous, in fact if it isn't fatal at home it's a miracle.

Fear is a powerful tool.


----------



## thefragile7393 (Jun 21, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *skyastara* 
Because it has been pounded into their heads that birth is dangerous, in fact if it isn't fatal at home it's a miracle.

Fear is a powerful tool.

Exactly. Like a pp said it truely isn't for everyone, but many women are simply brainwashed that if you are birthing outside a hospital that's crazy and dangerous and "what if something happened?" Women hear of (or see) birth stories that are usually filled with interventions and in the end docs get the credit for "saving the baby's life." Talking of non-emergency situations here....situations that are pretty much routine now. Once they see and hear these stories they get freaked out understandably and don't even think twice about going to a hospital. Also, many women want epis and you can't have those at home.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Joezmom* 
I haven't seen any study by Odent regarding oxytocin and better/easier bonding - just his opinion. Can you cite?

The reason you haven't seen any study by Odent is because he doesn't do studies. He reads studies and reports their implications.

And yes, I can cite. I'm not going to for two reasons: first, there are literally hundreds of studies, and I don't know which ones you're likely to find relevant or convincing for your own purposes. Two, I'm a little irritated that you come in here guns blazing and make absolutist statements ("Michel Odent has *no* facts to back up his claims" and "*pure* woo") when clearly you haven't done a lick of work to actually find out whether this is true (because if you had you would know that it is not.) Given that attitude, which feels awfully trollish, I'm not going to put myself out to do your work for you. Do an internet search for "oxytocin" and "bonding", and then go to Blackwell-Synergy and do the same search, and maybe PubMed while you're at it.

Finally, Odent did not invent the idea, and he is certainly not the only one drawing these conclusions. As well as we can know that anything is scientifically true, we know that hormones affect feelings and behavior. Common sense would dictate that the more hormones flooding through ones system, then, the more of an effect. This holds true for falling in love, ecstatic sex, and spiritual experiences. And the time when a woman is most flooded in the hormones of ecstasy is at birth, as long as nothing has inhibited that hormonal release. The activity of the neocortex suppresses the activity of the mammalian brain and therefore hormonal release. Oxytocin has been implicated as the "hormone of love", although it does other things too. It's not the only hormone involved in bonding. Beta-endorphins act as an opiate, and opiates create a state of feeling of dependency -- a longing for the loved one. There's also prolactin, "the mothering hormone", which engenders nurturing behaviors. These levels normally (i.e. if not inhibited) peak at birth and the hour or so following, and then begin to fall off. Oxytocin and prolactin are both produced with breastfeeding, which is why breastfeeding is important for continued bonding.

Quote:

I don't intend to insult, and while the term 'abuse' may mean different things to people, *I* don't equate the term with apathy, insensitivity or ignorance. If I DID, then I might feel abused (instead of just insulted!) by some previous PP's comments about unnatural birth.
I didn't say that I equate abuse with apathy, insensitivity, or ignorance. What I said was that these things create conditions that make is far easier for abuse to occur.

Quote:

Oh, I would call it an episiotomy.
Cute. So let me rephrase: I consider it abus_ive_ to cut a woman's genitals unnecessarily.


----------



## kalisage (Mar 15, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Joezmom* 
So.....why don't more women birth at home?

Years & years of being convinced that birth is a bad/horrible/messy/dangerous experience. Watch discovery health channel & shows like Birth Story, a Baby story, etc and almost all of them are "emergency" situations. Tell someone the sky is purple all their lives and they will believe it is purple.

Add to that many women don't even know about other options. Some women don't even think to question their doctors at all. "This is what has to happen" is the WORD, end of story. I think as other options become more noticed, there will be a rise in these other options.


----------



## LotusBirthMama (Jun 25, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *laoxinat* 
. Michel Odent has been a birth advocate very likely longer than you've been alive. I think he knows of what he speaks.

Uh, isn't he also the guy who think men should be barred from ever seeing their babies being born?

And I second the woo. I bonded quite quickly and easily with my NICU baby. If anything I felt more bonded to him b/c we had to fight to be together.


----------



## LotusBirthMama (Jun 25, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LotusBirthMama* 
Uh, isn't he also the guy who think men should be barred from ever seeing their babies being born?


Why, yes, yes he was. Article


----------



## hipmummy (May 25, 2007)

no woman should be allowed to choose a cs. elective cs should be against the law. unless there is a real med or psych reason it should never be an option. I am so sick of this too posh to push thing an doc's CYA attitude. Enough is enough.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *skyastara* 
It isn't crazy, it is physiological. I wish that it weren't taboo, but it makes people very defensive. If I say anything negative about my (homebirth transfer) c-sec, I get people coming out of the woodwork to defend their c-secs whether they were planned or not. Or people who were born c-sec, now adults, and are "just fine". Well, of course they are just fine, but there is a loss there which I wish could be acknowledged.

Yes.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *thefragile7393*
After reading Odent's books, I amazed that everything he says is all opinion and nothing backed up.

Really? What books of his have you read? The only one that I can think of that doesn't list sources is Birth Reborn, which is just an account of the making of a birth clinic.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Joezmom*
I guess my peeve is the insistance that a homebirth or UC is somehow 'better' than a birth center or hospital birth.

Are you similarly peeved that most people insist that hospital birth is better than homebirth? Because really, the homebirth movement is much more tolerant of the choice to birth in the hospital than the other way around. From homebirth advocates you'll hear a lot of, "Yes, sometimes medicalized birth is necessary and sometimes institutionalized birth is prudent, and in any case a woman should birth where she feels most supported and comfortable." From most doctors and most of mainstream society you'll hear, "Homebirth is dangerous, foolish, and selfish! Do you want your baby to _DIE?"_

I really don't understand why you feel the need to come here and complain that some people think homebirth is best for them. What is it to you? That their choice is different from yours is not inherently a condemnation of your choice. Trust me.

Quote:

So.....why don't more women birth at home?
Why don't more people recycle? Why do people continue to buy crap food to put in their bodies? Why do people hit their kids? Why do they whine about poor people getting socialized assistance, but seem oblivious to the astronomically higher cost of corporate welfare? Why do people stay in abusive relationships? Why do women accept our culture's claim they aren't valuable unless they look like the photoshopped women in the magazines, buy all the latest fashions, and have vaginas that smell pretty? Why do people go along with the school system's enforcement of meaningless busywork and uesless rote memorization and teaching to the test and yet more busywork to do at home because six hours a day clearly isn't enough? Why is there an epidemic of postpartum depression, hell, depression in general in this society? Why do people unquestioningly let themselves be led to be a cog in the wheel that leads to the depression? Why why why why? Gee, I don't know... because there's such a thing as herd behavior? Because most people are terrified of rocking the boat, of not fitting in, of being ostracized? So many people are not really happy in their lives, and they know it probably has something to do with doing meaningless work and self-medicating with meaningless activities. And yet they just keep on doing what they're told.

Sure, some women do the research and they make a very careful choice to birth in the place they believe is best for them, which is sometimes a hospital. If the general trends evident in internet forums and the media could be said to be representative of the majority, most are just getting in line like lemmings, without really having thought about it. Most people I've met in my life -- that I've met from living in a middle class suburb to inner city, in a variety of schooling and social and work environments -- have been scared to question the opinion of any authority figure. Choices outside of the mainstream are routinely vilified simply because they threaten the status quo, and backed up with arguments riddled with logical fallacies like implying that someone's ego or perception of them as wise has anything to do with the validity of the information itself (because there is nothing better to base them on.) This is just social pyschology.

Quote:

Obviously there is room for improvement in the hospital, but (I believe) Fyrestorm's horrific story is not the norm - she even managed to settle a lawsuit with a hospital and everyone involved - how rare is that?
Successful lawsuits are exceedingly rare, because juries are made up of the general public, and the general public still believes in the sacred godhood of the medical establishment. I have a good friend who was given an episiotomy, not for a medical reason as the baby's vitals were great, against her consent. In fact, she was screaming at the doctor _"I do not consent"_ and he did it anyway. After months of depression and shame and incontinence and inability to have sex without pain, she consulted a lawyer, and was told that it wasn't a winnable case, because 1) she had put herself under this doctor's care and signed consent forms for whatever medical procedures he found "necessary", and 2) because episiotomy is still considered by many people to be not only not a big deal, but a _good_ thing. It protects the pelvic floor, dontcha know. Stories like this are all over MDC. They're also all over the more mainstream boards, only the women telling those stories still believe that their episiotomies were necessary, and whatever other degrading and damaging things were done to them, and so they suppress their suffering. There are really efficient coping mechanisms for those who can't afford to be raging against the terrible acts committed against them, either because it's too emotionally painful or because they know that those around them would not support it.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LotusBirthMama* 
Why, yes, yes he was. Article

Actually, no he wasn't. Please read this thread: http://www.mothering.com/discussions...d.php?t=881682


----------



## barefootpoetry (Jul 19, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds* 
I really don't understand why you feel the need to come here and complain that some people think homebirth is best for them. What is it to you? That their choice is different from yours is not inherently a condemnation of your choice. Trust me.

This. I was just saying on a different forum yesterday that not every positive statement needs to be met with a negative one just because you'd make (or made) a different choice. It's OKAY. And....

Quote:

Why don't more people recycle? Why do people continue to buy crap food to put in their bodies? Why do people hit their kids? Why do they whine about poor people getting socialized assistance, but seem oblivious to the astronomically higher cost of corporate welfare? Why do people stay in abusive relationships? Why do women accept our culture's claim they aren't valuable unless they look like the photoshopped women in the magazines, buy all the latest fashions, and have vaginas that smell pretty? Why do people go along with the school system's enforcement of meaningless busywork and uesless rote memorization and teaching to the test and yet more busywork to do at home because six hours a day clearly isn't enough? Why is there an epidemic of postpartum depression, hell, depression in general in this society? Why do people unquestioningly let themselves be led to be a cog in the wheel that leads to the depression? Why why why why? Gee, I don't know... because there's such a thing as herd behavior? Because most people are terrified of rocking the boat, of not fitting in, of being ostracized? So many people are not really happy in their lives, and they know it probably has something to do with doing meaningless work and self-medicating with meaningless activities. And yet they just keep on doing what they're told.
I think I'm in love with you now. Marry me?


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LotusBirthMama* 
And I second the woo. I bonded quite quickly and easily with my NICU baby. If anything I felt more bonded to him b/c we had to fight to be together.

So. You feel you experienced adequate or ideal bonding under adverse circumstances, and therefore there can be no connection for anyone at all between hormones and bonding. That seems reasonable and logical to you, does it?

Really, has anyone anywhere _ever_ said that bonding is entirely dependent on one factor? Because I must have missed that. Everything I've read about bonding makes crystal clear that humans have evolved complex and often remarkably effective social and mental workarounds for disturbances to early physiological bonding. It's also obvious that individuals are differently affected by different circumstances. People have different body chemistries, different mental states, different levels of sensitivity and resiliency. It's not black and white, where we can just say, "oh, nobody will bond at all at the hospital and everyone will bond perfectly at home." Aside from the fact that actual experience does not bear this out, it's just absurdly simplistic. Which is _why no one is saying it._ What people _are_ saying is that it's a factor, with the significance and degree of its effect dependent on the individual.

And, if you believe that the hormonal process really does have nothing to do with bonding, what then do you conclude about women who do have difficulty bonding with their babies? Are they just bad people? Do they really just not want their babies bad enough? I had difficulty bonding with my firstborn and to varying other degree with another two out of my four children (who were all, incidently, born at home.) I guess there's just something wrong with _me,_ huh?


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *barefootpoetry* 
I think I'm in love with you now. Marry me?









Now, now, none of that. Because that might inflate my ego, which would certainly invalidate all my arguments.









(You are a sweetheart, thank you.







)


----------



## tjjazzy (Jan 18, 2007)

oh my goodness, i hope there doesn't come a time "when mothers make the vaginal-or-caesarean decision in the same way many now make the breast-or-bottle decision", although in some parts of the world, it's too late to say that.


----------



## tjjazzy (Jan 18, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds* 
Yes.

and have vaginas that smell pretty?

i know this is off-topic but could you explain what you're referring to for me? thanks


----------



## barefootpoetry (Jul 19, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds* 

And, if you believe that the hormonal process really does have nothing to do with bonding, what then do you conclude about women who do have difficulty bonding with their babies? Are they just bad people? Do they really just not want their babies bad enough? I had difficulty bonding with my firstborn and to varying other degree with another two out of my four children (who were all, incidently, born at home.) I guess there's just something wrong with _me,_ huh?

Some people think that.







Like not bonding with your baby is "punishing" it because you had a "bad experience."

I throw a wrench in the black-and-white scheme too, because I had a rotten C-section birth and yet my son and I bonded like Krazy Glue. There's exceptions to every rule, no one would be arrogant enough to say that there's not. At least I HOPE they wouldn't.


----------



## LotusBirthMama (Jun 25, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hipmummy* 
no woman should be allowed to choose a cs. elective cs should be against the law. unless there is a real med or psych reason it should never be an option. I am so sick of this too posh to push thing an doc's CYA attitude. Enough is enough.

Oh.my.freaking.word.

Yes..._no one_ should be allowed to choose how they birth....if it goes against what I personally believe to be right and morally superior.









Why on earth would it ever be a good thing to take away choice?


----------



## kimbie (Nov 21, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *hipmummy* 
no woman should be allowed to choose a cs. elective cs should be against the law. unless there is a real med or psych reason it should never be an option. I am so sick of this too posh to push thing an doc's CYA attitude. Enough is enough.

Why are statements like this allowed on MDC?


----------



## LotusBirthMama (Jun 25, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *kimbie* 
Why are statements like this allowed on MDC?

Because, dontcha know, c-sections are the devil and its perfectly ok to bash anyone who ever even thought about having one, *no matter* the circumstances leading up that choice.


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

I always think of the story I read on an OB website, about whether to allow a patient an elective c-section because her baby was anencephalic and she wanted to be able to hold him while he was still alive. The consensus among the OBs was not to let her have the section. I think that's tragic, and it's tragic that anyone here might agree it's not her choice to make.


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Unoppressed MAMA Q* 
Goodness, that article sucks! Is anyone really walking around being nasty to people who've had sections?

"Walking around" maybe not .... hanging around message boards like this one? Oh, yes. Very much so.


----------



## wombjuice (Feb 22, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LotusBirthMama* 
Oh.my.freaking.word.

Yes..._no one_ should be allowed to choose how they birth....if it goes against what I personally believe to be right and morally superior.










Why on earth would it ever be a good thing to take away choice?

Because elective cesareans (not medically necessary cesareans) HURT BABIES. They hurt babies, they hurt mothers, and they hurt society. They line the pockets of the wealthy and cost the poor in taxes.

I would go as far to say that elective cesareans are akin to plastic surgery, only far, far more dangerous.

Of course women should be allowed to choose where to birth. But choosing major abdominal surgery that risks all kinds of complications including DEATH TO MOTHER AND BABY for NO MEDICAL REASON should not be allowed to continue. It is NOT the norm in many, many other countries, and it should not be the norm here.

C-sections are no laughing matter, people. They are incredibly important when medically necessary and have saved many babies and mothers...but they are NOT normal and should NOT be seen as a normal way of giving birth. They are simply much too dangerous.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

No one is attacking people for medically necessary c-sections. This is about *elective c-sections* which Mothering doesn't support.

Quote:

Mothering.com is the website of natural family living and advocates natural solutions to parenting challenges. We host discussion of nighttime parenting, loving discipline, natural birth, homebirth, successful breastfeeding, alternative and complementary home remedies, informed consent, and many other topics from a natural point of view. We are not interested, however, in hosting discussions on the merits of crying it out, physical punishment, formula feeding, *elective cesarean section,* routine infant medical circumcision, or mandatory vaccinations. We do not tolerate any type of discrimination in the discussions, including but not limited to racism, heterosexism, classism, religious bigotry, or discrimination toward the disabled. We will not host discussions that involve explicit sexual references and are cautious about discussions on volatile topics such as abortion, religion, and race.
No one is bashing everyone who had a c-section.

It is permitted to discuss the c-section rates and promote vaginal birth on Mothering. If people are taking offense just because posters on Mothering of all places are discussing vaginal birth maybe that is something they need to work out on their own.

Mothering promotes babies coming out of vaginas.

That doesn't mean anyone is saying anyone who has had a c-section has failed and it doesn't mean that it is saying that anyone who has had a c-section is a bad mom or doesn't belong here.

Crap happens. That doesn't mean suddenly it isn't ok to promote vaginal birth.

I had a c-section







I am also currently having complications with this pregnancy and if the cord prolapses I will take whatever interventions necessary to save this child. I am not going to flip out just because people are saying babies should normally come out of vaginas.


----------



## wombjuice (Feb 22, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel* 
I always think of the story I read on an OB website, about whether to allow a patient an elective c-section because her baby was anencephalic and she wanted to be able to hold him while he was still alive. The consensus among the OBs was not to let her have the section. I think that's tragic, and it's tragic that anyone here might agree it's not her choice to make.

I would consider this a medically necessary reason to have a cesarean birth. I don't understand how anyone wouldn't.

Now, a mother who wants a cesarean section because she doesn't want to be pregnant for her best friend's wedding...a whole nother ball game.


----------



## Sara Badger (Jul 31, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tjjazzy* 
oh my goodness, i hope there doesn't come a time "when mothers make the vaginal-or-caesarean decision in the same way many now make the breast-or-bottle decision", although in some parts of the world, it's too late to say that.

I was think that too! Help us if it comes to that!


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *feminine_earth* 
I would consider this a medically necessary reason to have a cesarean birth. I don't understand how anyone wouldn't.

Because technically, a c-section that is not done in an emergency situation is _always_ an "elective c-section." That's how doctors define it. It's all well and good for you to say that scheduling a c-section to plan your vacation days is wrong, but if you get an actual law passed which bans "elective c-sections," you will affect not just women who are "too posh to push," but also those who just want to spend a few extra minutes with their dying babies. The law can't make a distinction between good elective c-sections and bad ones, so if you ban some, you'd have to ban them all.

If you want to reduce elective c-sections, you have to convince women not to have them - you shouldn't do it by taking their choice away.


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *abimommy* 
No one is attacking people for medically necessary c-sections. This is about *elective c-sections* which Mothering doesn't support.

Can you answer something for me? I've never been clear on Mothering's definition of "elective c-sections." Obviously, you're against c-sections for the hell of it. But scheduled c-sections for medical reasons are often classed as "elective c-sections" as well. My scheduled repeat section was an ERCS even though my OB said I wasn't a VBAC candidate; was that elective or wasn't it? Where does Mothering draw the line?

I would hope, also, that a discussion of whether elective c-sections should be _legal_ isn't construed as a promotion of them, any more than a discussion about decriminalizing drugs is a promotion of drug use.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel* 
*Because technically, a c-section that is not done in an emergency situation is always an "elective c-section."* That's how doctors define it. It's all well and good for you to say that scheduling a c-section to plan your vacation days is wrong, but if you get an actual law passed which bans "elective c-sections," you will affect not just women who are "too posh to push," but also those who just want to spend a few extra minutes with their dying babies. The law can't make a distinction between good elective c-sections and bad ones, so if you ban some, you'd have to ban them all.

If you want to reduce elective c-sections, you have to convince women not to have them - you shouldn't do it by taking their choice away.

That isn't how it is defined here.


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *abimommy* 
That isn't how it is defined here.

"Here" being Mothering, or US law, or what?

My point was that, AFAIK, US doctors class all non-emergent c-sections as "elective." So if you pass a law saying "elective c-sections may not be performed," doctors will not be allowed to perform c-sections which we all agree are reasonable.


----------



## wombjuice (Feb 22, 2007)

I did not say they should be banned. I said they should not be the norm here. Please do not put words in my mouth.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel* 
Can you answer something for me? I've never been clear on Mothering's definition of "elective c-sections." Obviously, you're against c-sections for the hell of it. But scheduled c-sections for medical reasons are often classed as "elective c-sections" as well. My scheduled repeat section was an ERCS even though my OB said I wasn't a VBAC candidate; was that elective or wasn't it? Where does Mothering draw the line?

I would hope, also, that a discussion of whether elective c-sections should be _legal_ isn't construed as a promotion of them, any more than a discussion about decriminalizing drugs is a promotion of drug use.

They are defined as "c-sections for the hell of it" or planned c-sections for NO reason.

MDC doesn't qualify planned c-sections for a medical reason to be "elective"


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *feminine_earth* 
I did not say they should be banned. I said they should not be the norm here. Please do not put words in my mouth.

Sorry, looking back I see it was hipmummy who said that. It's her argument I have a problem with.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel* 
"Here" being Mothering, or US law, or what?

My point was that, AFAIK, US doctors class all non-emergent c-sections as "elective." So if you pass a law saying "elective c-sections may not be performed," doctors will not be allowed to perform c-sections which we all agree are reasonable.

We keep cross posting.









By "here" I meant "Mothering"


----------



## LotusBirthMama (Jun 25, 2005)

Wow. Ok. I guess I am just shocked that a forum dedicated to unassisted childbirth, which is statistically not as safe as attended childbirth, home or otherwise, would be so agreeable to legislation to limit choice and freedom in birth.


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *abimommy* 
We keep cross posting.









By "here" I meant "Mothering"

Yeah, I decided I was just going to stop until you were done responding, to sort things out.







I was mostly trying to make a point about US law and how banning "elective c-sections" doesn't mean what people here would think of it as meaning.

Thank you for clarifying the MDC definition; I've never been sure whether it was acceptable to talk about my ERCS here.


----------



## wombjuice (Feb 22, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LotusBirthMama* 
Wow. Ok. I guess I am just shocked that a forum dedicated to unassisted childbirth, which is statistically not as safe as attended childbirth, home or otherwise, would be so agreeable to legislation to limit choice and freedom in birth.

Oh my. This thread is going dangerously off topic.


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LotusBirthMama* 
Wow. Ok. I guess I am just shocked that a forum dedicated to unassisted childbirth,

*looks at forum header*

Whoops, I didn't see we were in the UC forum. Sometimes I just see things pop up in New Posts. Didn't mean to invade.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LotusBirthMama* 
Wow. Ok. I guess I am just shocked that a forum dedicated to unassisted childbirth, which is statistically not as safe as attended childbirth, home or otherwise, would be so agreeable to legislation to limit choice and freedom in birth.

I don't believe I used the word "legislation" in my post


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel* 
*looks at forum header*

Whoops, I didn't see we were in the UC forum. Sometimes I just see things pop up in New Posts. Didn't mean to invade.









Yeah the New Posts function is fun like that.









This really belongs in B&B though.


----------



## LotusBirthMama (Jun 25, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *abimommy* 
I don't believe I used the word "legislation" in my post

Back up. Did I say "Abimommy said...?" No. I am referring to the poster who said elective c/ses should be illegal. Which involves legislation, no?


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LotusBirthMama* 
Back up. Did I say "Abimommy said...?" No. I am referring to the poster who said elective c/ses should be illegal. Which involves legislation, no?

You said

Quote:

Wow. Ok. I guess I am just shocked that a forum dedicated to unassisted childbirth, which is statistically not as safe as attended childbirth, home or otherwise, would be so agreeable to legislation to limit choice and freedom in birth.
Which implies a consensus. I only saw one person state that, but I did skip a page.









Oh and I am moving this to B&B


----------



## LotusBirthMama (Jun 25, 2005)

And I only saw one other person say that limiting someone else's birth choice may not be the wisest move for birth freedom in general.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel* 
Yeah, I decided I was just going to stop until you were done responding, to sort things out.







I was mostly trying to make a point about US law and how banning "elective c-sections" doesn't mean what people here would think of it as meaning.

Thank you for clarifying the MDC definition; I've never been sure whether it was acceptable to talk about my ERCS here.

Even if you did have an elective c-section you could discuss it, it would really depend on the context.

I don't mean you have to run around kicking yourself for it but you could post your birth story and such. It wouldn't be good to run amok suggesting everyone have a c-section for no reason (oh and get a tummy tuck at the same time!!) but a c-section doesn't mean you have to wear a scarlet letter of vagina failure on your profile.

Even Ina May Gaskin has transferred people, it doesn't always go perfect. That doesn't mean anyone fails.


----------



## pookel (May 6, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *abimommy* 
but a c-section doesn't mean you have to wear a scarlet letter of vagina failure on your profile.


----------



## felix23 (Nov 7, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Unoppressed MAMA Q* 
Goodness, that article sucks! Is anyone really walking around being nasty to people who've had sections?

Yes. I've had to cut ties with several crunchy friends because of how nasty they were about my c-section and the fact that due to the type of cut I have I am not comfortable (and neither is my dr) having a vbac. Even mainstream people go on and on about how it "must of been the worst experience in my life". Um, no and calling the birth of my child the worst experience is kind of insulting. Actually having my wisdom teeth removed was the worst experience in my life. But for some reason most people don't want to believe that I wasn't traumatized by my c-section.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *felix23* 
Yes. I've had to cut ties with several crunchy friends because of how nasty they were about my c-section and the fact that due to the type of cut I have I am not comfortable (and neither is my dr) having a vbac. Even mainstream people go on and on about how it "must of been the worst experience in my life". Um, no and calling the birth of my child the worst experience is kind of insulting. Actually having my wisdom teeth removed was the worst experience in my life. But for some reason most people don't want to believe that I wasn't traumatized by my c-section.











I wasn't traumatized by mine either.

Far more traumatizing is those moments of terror before I heard dd cry.


----------



## barefootpoetry (Jul 19, 2007)

I personally am against, let's call them "vanity C-sections" instead of elective, since I know how fuzzy that terminology can get. But would I ever back legislature to ban them? Hell no. I think it's appalling that more and more women are choosing them, but they have every right to do so, just like I have every right to birth my baby at home even with no one present if I want to. Although true medical evidence is technically against the women who choose vanity C-sections (and very much in favor of vaginal birth), there are just as many - if not many many more - women who think homebirth (let alone UC!) is just as dangerous and awful and selfish as there are women who think that about vanity C-sections. So really, it's not helping the birth movement at all if you ban any kind of choice. It's bad enough that homebirth with a midwife is already illegal in some states. I'd hate to see that trend continue.

If women as a whole deserve the freedom to birth wherever, however, and with whoever we want, then that includes vanity C-sections. Yes, I think they're a bad choice, but it's that woman's bad choice to make. Just like it's my choice to stay the hell out of the hospital to avoid having another C-section myself.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *barefootpoetry* 
I personally am against, let's call them "vanity C-sections" instead of elective, since I know how fuzzy that terminology can get. But would I ever back legislature to ban them? Hell no. I think it's appalling that more and more women are choosing them, but they have every right to do so, just like I have every right to birth my baby at home even with no one present if I want to. Although true medical evidence is technically against the women who choose vanity C-sections (and very much in favor of vaginal birth), there are just as many - if not many many more - women who think homebirth (let alone UC!) is just as dangerous and awful and selfish as there are women who think that about vanity C-sections. So really, it's not helping the birth movement at all if you ban any kind of choice. It's bad enough that homebirth with a midwife is already illegal in some states. I'd hate to see that trend continue.

If women as a whole deserve the freedom to birth wherever, however, and with whoever we want, then that includes vanity C-sections. Yes, I think they're a bad choice, but it's that woman's bad choice to make. Just like it's my choice to stay the hell out of the hospital to avoid having another C-section myself.

I am not sure how I feel about that.

It isn't *just* a birth method it is major surgery and carries risks. Various techniques to save time and money are often chosen over what is safer for the mother. For example, double suturing is going out of style, despite evidence that shows a single layer of sutures to be more dangerous.

The entire system needs to be revamped. Something has to be done, I don't think attacking c-sections by choice is the answer, because then we get down the slippery slope of what is "choice" and what is "elective" and people having to prove things when they may have psychological reasons.

IMO, all women should join together and insist on safer medical care whether they choose vaginal birth or a c-section.


----------



## Turquesa (May 30, 2007)

Terms like "vanity" and even "elective" are too loaded. (To a degree, isn't all surgery elective?) I would simply call them non-medical, as in done without medical indication. And I would not allow insurance to cover them. Appallingly, there's a book out there, _Girlfriend's Guide to Pregnancy_, that coaches women on how to dupe their insurance providers if they *want* a cesarean delivery.

But this issue, both in the book and the Time article, is moot. We know from research by Childbirth Connection that fewer than 1% of women will choose non-medical cesareans.

Bringing this back to the OP, I've read a lot of rebuttal letters to the article (and even submitted one that didn't end up published) but this is my favorite







:
http://www.nowpublic.com/health/rebuttal-time-magazine


----------



## barefootpoetry (Jul 19, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *abimommy* 
I am not sure how I feel about that.

It isn't *just* a birth method it is major surgery and carries risks. Various techniques to save time and money are often chosen over what is safer for the mother.

I know. That's why I frown on it. But like you said, it brings out that slippery slope of what we have the right to choose. I don't agree with it whatsoever, but if that choice is taken away, then that's just one step closer to regulating birth as a whole and there are just too many kinds of women who would like to be able to select from a variety of different kinds of birth for us all to be squeezed into one box.

I agree with you that the whole system needs a major overhaul. How could it not, when dangerous surgery is often seen as more appealing in the mother's eyes than a normal vaginal birth? Frankly, if all I had to go on was the crap pregnant women are spoonfed these days and the only choice I knew of was birthing in a hospital, I might indeed fall for the appeal of a "quick-and-easy" C-section. Isn't that awful?

Turquesa, I like your phrasing - "non-medical" does seem to be best. And I agree that maybe insurance companies shouldn't cover it. (I applaud Medicaid for not covering circumcisions! More insurance companies need to follow that lead!) The only ones left choosing C-sections because they want the baby born on its grandma's birthday will be celebs, because I don't know any normal people who can foot a $25,000 hospital bill.


----------



## NettleTea (Aug 16, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LotusBirthMama* 
unassisted childbirth, which is statistically not as safe as attended childbirth, home or otherwise

How's that?


----------



## A_Random_Phrase (Mar 27, 2008)

My goodness, I've missed a lot being gone for only a few days. I wanna have my say - A nurse was telling a group of expectant parents that the hospital had only had X amount of emergency C-sections during a certain period of time, which had included mine. My spouse asked if ours was one of them, expecting to be told yes. The nurse said that ours was an emergency section but was not included in their tally. I can only think it was because it was a "failed home birth." Weird.


----------



## Collinsky (Jul 7, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *pookel* 
Can you answer something for me? I've never been clear on Mothering's definition of "elective c-sections." Obviously, you're against c-sections for the hell of it. But scheduled c-sections for medical reasons are often classed as "elective c-sections" as well. My scheduled repeat section was an ERCS even though my OB said I wasn't a VBAC candidate; was that elective or wasn't it? Where does Mothering draw the line?

I would hope, also, that a discussion of whether elective c-sections should be _legal_ isn't construed as a promotion of them, any more than a discussion about decriminalizing drugs is a promotion of drug use.

Yeah, that. I was thinking, that alcohol hurts mothers, it hurts children and families and society... but making it illegal - taking away the choice - isn't prudent. Or "right" IMO.

Also, we've seen just how many situations are considered to be "emergencies" and a Cesarean is done. Now - sometimes that is absolutely necessary, don't get me wrong! But other times... how many times do women have a C-section for breech, for a "big baby," for CPD and dystocia, and fetal distress? All these are considered to be emergencies. I think if elective cesarean were illegal that drs would simply widen the "emergency net" and THEN women who were going to escape with a vaginal birth would find themselves falling into the "medically necessary" category. I think the c-section rate could potentially go UP... defeating the purpose of that law. For cases now considered "medically necessary elective C-sections" like VBAC, either that would be permitted under the law (can't see them outlawing that) *OR* drs would be doing "emergency" c-sections on VBAC women and writing on their chart: Signs of imminent uterine rupture.

It's so difficult. I would like to see it be the social norm to have homebirths...but I do NOT like stigma attached to women who have hospital births or Cesareans. I hate that women who had what were truly medically necessary Cesareans feel looked down on or that that is seen as a failure. I hate that women who had a Cesarean that may or may not have been necessary, but was the best choice they could make with the information they had at the time, feel looked down on.


----------



## Joezmom (Apr 1, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds* 
Yes.

Really? What books of his have you read? The only one that I can think of that doesn't list sources is Birth Reborn, which is just an account of the making of a birth clinic.

Are you similarly peeved that most people insist that hospital birth is better than homebirth? Because really, the homebirth movement is much more tolerant of the choice to birth in the hospital than the other way around. From homebirth advocates you'll hear a lot of, "Yes, sometimes medicalized birth is necessary and sometimes institutionalized birth is prudent, and in any case a woman should birth where she feels most supported and comfortable." From most doctors and most of mainstream society you'll hear, "Homebirth is dangerous, foolish, and selfish! Do you want your baby to _DIE?"_

I really don't understand why you feel the need to come here and complain that some people think homebirth is best for them. What is it to you? That their choice is different from yours is not inherently a condemnation of your choice. Trust me.

Why don't more people recycle? Why do people continue to buy crap food to put in their bodies? Why do people hit their kids? Why do they whine about poor people getting socialized assistance, but seem oblivious to the astronomically higher cost of corporate welfare? Why do people stay in abusive relationships? Why do women accept our culture's claim they aren't valuable unless they look like the photoshopped women in the magazines, buy all the latest fashions, and have vaginas that smell pretty? Why do people go along with the school system's enforcement of meaningless busywork and uesless rote memorization and teaching to the test and yet more busywork to do at home because six hours a day clearly isn't enough? Why is there an epidemic of postpartum depression, hell, depression in general in this society? Why do people unquestioningly let themselves be led to be a cog in the wheel that leads to the depression? Why why why why? Gee, I don't know... because there's such a thing as herd behavior? Because most people are terrified of rocking the boat, of not fitting in, of being ostracized? So many people are not really happy in their lives, and they know it probably has something to do with doing meaningless work and self-medicating with meaningless activities. And yet they just keep on doing what they're told.

Sure, some women do the research and they make a very careful choice to birth in the place they believe is best for them, which is sometimes a hospital. If the general trends evident in internet forums and the media could be said to be representative of the majority, most are just getting in line like lemmings, without really having thought about it. Most people I've met in my life -- that I've met from living in a middle class suburb to inner city, in a variety of schooling and social and work environments -- have been scared to question the opinion of any authority figure. Choices outside of the mainstream are routinely vilified simply because they threaten the status quo, and backed up with arguments riddled with logical fallacies like implying that someone's ego or perception of them as wise has anything to do with the validity of the information itself (because there is nothing better to base them on.) This is just social pyschology.

Successful lawsuits are exceedingly rare, because juries are made up of the general public, and the general public still believes in the sacred godhood of the medical establishment. I have a good friend who was given an episiotomy, not for a medical reason as the baby's vitals were great, against her consent. In fact, she was screaming at the doctor _"I do not consent"_ and he did it anyway. After months of depression and shame and incontinence and inability to have sex without pain, she consulted a lawyer, and was told that it wasn't a winnable case, because 1) she had put herself under this doctor's care and signed consent forms for whatever medical procedures he found "necessary", and 2) because episiotomy is still considered by many people to be not only not a big deal, but a _good_ thing. It protects the pelvic floor, dontcha know. Stories like this are all over MDC. They're also all over the more mainstream boards, only the women telling those stories still believe that their episiotomies were necessary, and whatever other degrading and damaging things were done to them, and so they suppress their suffering. There are really efficient coping mechanisms for those who can't afford to be raging against the terrible acts committed against them, either because it's too emotionally painful or because they know that those around them would not support it.

To quote Skyastara, "Wow. Just wow." Your lecture certainly tells me where you're coming from (no lack of hormones there!). I can appreciate your passionate defense of Odent, especially after reading your post about your experience at the "Trust Birth " conference, but I still don't feel the love. I'll read more though.

While I do understand the hormone thing, I still feel the emphasis on it, in terms of bonding, does a disservice to mothers who have not had a "natural" birth, for whatever reason, suggesting they are now at a disadvantage and will have to work harder to connect with their baby than the mother who gave birth undisturbed, in a darkened room, with a midwife/mother-figure "knitting" in the corner.

Anecdote: My friend has a toddler who was a full term breech, large baby, via CS on recommendation from her midwife (she had planned a homebirth). Recently, a (now ex) friend (BTW she posts on MDC and has had 2 homebirths and is planning a third) said to her after seeing "The Business of
Being Born", "*You* didn't get the love cocktail" (and by implication) "and
*I* did." Just an anecdote, but very hurtful.

For the record, I have never said hospital birth is better than at home. I _have_ said, several times, that I think it is a personal choice.


----------



## ferretbees (Feb 4, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Joezmom* 
So.....why don't more women birth at home?

Your own ignorance about homebirth should answer your question.

In today's society, women have no idea it's an option - "just do what the good doctor tells you to do, sweetie". How many of us have ever witnessed a homebirth IRL, let alone a birth sans interventions?

Most importantly, it's not a realistic option for the majority of women in the U.S. Depending on where you live, you may not be able to find a homebirth midwife, let alone afford one. I live in southeast PA, where homebirths are not highly accessible. However, I am lucky to have the means to afford a homebirth, regardless if insurance covers it - CPMs are much cheaper, yet they must fly under the radar due to the current legal atmosphere.

I've done the hospital "birth" and I want a better experience next time (read - no surgery). I want to choose every single person that is there during labor. While you may have met your OB a few times prior to birth, you have not met any of the L&D nurses, whom are responsible for your "care." The OB just shows up to "catch". How can anyone work through their labor like this? We do it because this is what society tells us is the norm, however, consensus does not mean that it is good for the mother and baby.

I want a practitioner who can recognize 'variations of normal', not pathology and for me that means a homebirth midwife.


----------



## barefootpoetry (Jul 19, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Joezmom* 
To quote Skyastara, "Wow. Just wow." Your lecture certainly tells me where you're coming from (no lack of hormones there!). I can appreciate your passionate defense of Odent, especially after reading your post about your experience at the "Trust Birth " conference, but I still don't feel the love. I'll read more though.

While I do understand the hormone thing, I still feel the emphasis on it, in terms of bonding, does a disservice to mothers who have not had a "natural" birth, for whatever reason, suggesting they are now at a disadvantage and will have to work harder to connect with their baby than the mother who gave birth undisturbed, in a darkened room, with a midwife/mother-figure "knitting" in the corner.

Anecdote: My friend has a toddler who was a full term breech, large baby, via CS on recommendation from her midwife (she had planned a homebirth). Recently, a (now ex) friend (BTW she posts on MDC and has had 2 homebirths and is planning a third) said to her after seeing "The Business of
Being Born", "*You* didn't get the love cocktail" (and by implication) "and
*I* did." Just an anecdote, but very hurtful.

For the record, I have never said hospital birth is better than at home. I _have_ said, several times, that I think it is a personal choice.

Your "friend" sounds like an exception to the norm, like the kind of woman who jumps down the throat of any mother who bottlefeeds in public and rants about how horrible formula is. Bad manners transcend both sides of any argument, it doesn't mean that the argument itself isn't legit.

If you had no trouble bonding with your baby, then don't take offense, because I don't think anyone (other than your rotten excuse for a friend) is trying to make it offensive. I "didn't get the love cocktail" either, yet as I said in an earlier post, I bonded with my son very easily and intensely. To compare it to breastfeeding again, I don't take offense when people talk about how awesome breastmilk is even though I did use formula from time to time. I know that breastmilk's awesomeness is a proven fact, just like the "love cocktail" is a proven fact. It doesn't mean that babies fall over dead if they don't get breastmilk, and it doesn't mean that mothers who don't get the love cocktail will hate their babies. It's just science, but even science has its exceptions.

P.S. As a woman, you ought to know better than to blame anything another woman does on "hormones."


----------



## colobus237 (Feb 2, 2004)

The "love cocktail" is an Odent hypothesis, not a proven fact, so far as I know.

It makes sense that bonding may be delayed after a cesarean, because of the physical recovery and the possible trauma of surgery. It can also be delayed after a completely natural vaginal birth of a very ill or premature baby, because of the need for recovery and the trauma of separation.

Love as hormonal cascade is a very reductive view of what love is. And it is an opinion - "love" is not a scientifically measurable quantity.


----------



## laoxinat (Sep 17, 2007)

:

Jeez, mamas, no one is saying c-section means you _can't_ bond with your babe, but as a pp said, bonding can be affected by any birth circumstance. I would rather see a mama have an epidural IF that resulted in less pain and more bonding. The trouble is that many times a simple intervention turns into a cascade of them, which can, and often does end in CS. My own (statistically insignificant) experience was just that, my own. I don't think for a minute it can or should be extrapolated to mean anything for anyone else. JME.
I love how some people suddenly become a (insert profession of convenience here) when they don't agree with posts







but that's another convo altogether.


----------



## barefootpoetry (Jul 19, 2007)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ccohenou* 

Love as hormonal cascade is a very reductive view of what love is. And it is an opinion - "love" is not a scientifically measurable quantity.

That's a very good point. But I guess it is easier to call it a "love cocktail" than an "estrogen-adrenaline-oxytocin-dopamine-seratonin cocktail."







Lots of others have studied this, though, not just Odent...Google "love cocktail" or "love hormones." And yeah, we can't say that releasing these hormones means you instantly fall in love with your baby (and that not releasing them means you never do!), but they are part of what stimulates the feeling of love in our brains. Just like eating chocolate stimulates that same part of the brain because of certain chemicals in it. It doesn't mean we're really "in love" with chocolate. It's just the same neurological reaction.

It makes perfect sense to me, because this is what is designed to keep us procreating. Oxytocin gets released when you breastfeed too, which makes us feel good. If breastfeeding didn't feel good, humans - in the most very primitive sense - might not want to do it. We still do, but all I'm saying is that nature put that hormone release there to encourage us to do it so we don't die out as a race. And I think it's the same with birth - which in general is a painful, strenuous affair, but you get the "birth high" afterwards, and that makes us want to keep doing it!


----------



## Joezmom (Apr 1, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ferretbees* 
Your own ignorance about homebirth should answer your question.

In today's society, women have no idea it's an option - "just do what the good doctor tells you to do, sweetie". How many of us have ever witnessed a homebirth IRL, let alone a birth sans interventions?

Most importantly, it's not a realistic option for the majority of women in the U.S. Depending on where you live, you may not be able to find a homebirth midwife, let alone afford one. I live in southeast PA, where homebirths are not highly accessible. However, I am lucky to have the means to afford a homebirth, regardless if insurance covers it - CPMs are much cheaper, yet they must fly under the radar due to the current legal atmosphere.

I've done the hospital "birth" and I want a better experience next time (read - no surgery). I want to choose every single person that is there during labor. While you may have met your OB a few times prior to birth, you have not met any of the L&D nurses, whom are responsible for your "care." The OB just shows up to "catch". How can anyone work through their labor like this? We do it because this is what society tells us is the norm, however, consensus does not mean that it is good for the mother and baby.

I want a practitioner who can recognize 'variations of normal', not pathology and for me that means a homebirth midwife.

While I have not had a homebirth, I _have_ researched it alot during the past 9 months - lots of reading (on-line and otherwise), and speaking with midwives, and homebirthers IRL. So...... I don't actually _feel_ ignorant, even though _you_ may disagree!

I have also done the hospital birth - twice - both completely natural (who knew?), and while neither may have perfect, they were certainly fine. Nobody in my face about IV's or epi's, or pushing, etc.

Midwives of all stripes are legal in my state. One the things I have been struggling with, however, is when does a midwife determine a 'variation of normal' is in fact an emergency?


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Joezmom, I would say you have been extremely fortunate to have had the experiences you have. I certainly didn't have similar experiences and I am sure many on here would say the same.

All midwives are legal in my state as well but just across the border from me in Missouri only CNMs may "legally" attend homebirths.


----------



## JessicaS (Nov 18, 2001)

Just posting a reminder that the article in the OP is not about homebirth and the intent of the OP was not to debate homebirth and midwifery.

Such discussion is off topic from this thread.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tjjazzy* 
i know this is off-topic but could you explain what you're referring to for me? thanks









Well, you know, perfumey-smelling douches and "feminine sprays" and the like.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *barefootpoerty*
I throw a wrench in the black-and-white scheme too, because I had a rotten C-section birth and yet my son and I bonded like Krazy Glue. There's exceptions to every rule, no one would be arrogant enough to say that there's not.

Yes. You know, what it seems like to me is that there are just people who want it to be either-or. Either hormones are crucial for bonding or they don't have any effect at all, and they assume that everyone who isn't at the extreme they're at must be at the other extreme. It's so frustrating to acknowledge that hormones have a role in feelings and behavior and then get jumped all over because someone infers from that that you're saying that they must have not bonded with their baby at all. It is so tiring. I'll offer the following disclaimer here: http://fourlittlebirds.blogsome.com/...-the-instinct/

We are all starting from different places. A long, long time ago I read a story here at Mothering about a woman who had been planning a homebirth, but they decided to transfer to the hospital via ambulance. The birth happened before they reached the hospital, and in an unfamiliar place, with strangers around, siren blaring, she had an orgasmic birth. That wouldn't have been me. My body would have shut up tight, I would have been tense, I probably would have been feeling sick and with a headache. I am ultra sensitive, which is one reason even a very mild intrusion and distraction interfered with my own hormonal release and therefore my bonding process. Not everyone is like that. But for those of us that are, _it is reasonable to take it into account._

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LotusBirthMama*
Because, dontcha know, c-sections are the devil and its perfectly ok to bash anyone who ever even thought about having one, *no matter* the circumstances leading up that choice.

I don't agree with hipmummy, but she didn't say "no matter the circumstances". And I'd really like to see you come up with a quote from anyone at MDC who has said or implied such a thing. It's just untrue, and adding unnecessary fuel to the fire.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LotusBirthMama*
I guess I am just shocked that a forum dedicated to unassisted childbirth, which is statistically not as safe as attended childbirth, home or otherwise, would be so agreeable to legislation to limit choice and freedom in birth.

The forum isn't agreeable, or not agreeable, to it. That was the opinion of an individual, who doesn't represent the forum or any other individual who has had an unassisted birth.


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Joezmom*
Your lecture certainly tells me where you're coming from (no lack of hormones there!).

Excuse me? Exactly how is my hormonal status relevant?

Quote:

I still don't feel the love.
Well, my responses to you weren't intended to get you to feel the love. I'm not concerned that people dislike Odent or think he has a big ego or whatever. I'm concerned with correcting misconceptions and inaccuracies.

Quote:

While I do understand the hormone thing, I still feel the emphasis on it, in terms of bonding, does a disservice to mothers who have not had a "natural" birth, for whatever reason, suggesting they are now at a disadvantage and will have to work harder to connect with their baby than the mother who gave birth undisturbed, in a darkened room, with a midwife/mother-figure "knitting" in the corner.
I understand what you're saying. But the solution to that is not to simply write it off altogether. Because that would be a disservice to those who _do_ have to work harder to connect with their baby and deserve to know that it's not their fault and that there are things than can be done to help the situation. The solution is to be honest, and at the same time not absolutist or dogmatic about it.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ccohenou*
Love as hormonal cascade is a very reductive view of what love is. And it is an opinion - "love" is not a scientifically measurable quantity.

Yes, it's reductive, and no, love is not a scientifically measurable quantity. And yet -- estrogen, adrenaline, oxytocin, dopamine, seratonin (thanks, barefootpoetry!,) prolactin, etc. -- do you really believe these chemicals have no effect on mood, feeling, and behavior?


----------



## A_Random_Phrase (Mar 27, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Collinsky* 
Yeah, that. I was thinking, that alcohol hurts mothers, it hurts children and families and society... but making it illegal - taking away the choice - isn't prudent. Or "right" IMO.

Also, we've seen just how many situations are considered to be "emergencies" and a Cesarean is done. Now - sometimes that is absolutely necessary, don't get me wrong! But other times... how many times do women have a C-section for breech, for a "big baby," for CPD and dystocia, and fetal distress? All these are considered to be emergencies. I think if elective cesarean were illegal that drs would simply widen the "emergency net" and THEN women who were going to escape with a vaginal birth would find themselves falling into the "medically necessary" category. I think the c-section rate could potentially go UP... defeating the purpose of that law. For cases now considered "medically necessary elective C-sections" like VBAC, either that would be permitted under the law (can't see them outlawing that) *OR* drs would be doing "emergency" c-sections on VBAC women and writing on their chart: Signs of imminent uterine rupture.

It's so difficult. I would like to see it be the social norm to have homebirths...but I do NOT like stigma attached to women who have hospital births or Cesareans. I hate that women who had what were truly medically necessary Cesareans feel looked down on or that that is seen as a failure. I hate that women who had a Cesarean that may or may not have been necessary, but was the best choice they could make with the information they had at the time, feel looked down on.









:

People should have freedom to choose even if we don't agree with them.

As for the bonding discussion. It seems like some people are really irked with each other. I expect some women would like everything to be as perfect as possible because it makes the bonding stronger, but that doesn't mean bonding is nonexistent otherwise. I nursed a friend's baby for a week and felt more bonded to that little girl than to any child that was not mine. There are many ways to bond. IMO, it doesn't hurt to go for the strongest, best bonding possible. If you "fall short" of the "perfect" experience, it's okay. No one is condemning you (at least they shouldn't be). I actually feel closest to the child I c-sectioned and not so close to the "natural" one - but if I'd been able to do a home birth or a UC, I may have a stronger bond now. I don't know because I have not experienced it, so I can't judge correctly. I still am closer to all of my children than some parents are to theirs. We usually get along great. My point is, do we need to argue? If we haven't personally experienced the "stronger bonding experience", how do we know what we have is as strong as it gets? We can say there is a bonding, but we can't say it couldn't be better. And those who have only had the "best" cannot say that bonding is impossible under lesser circumstances because they haven't experienced that.

We all agree that mothering is important and that we feel bonded to our own children, right? Well, then, let's put down the swords and unite in our oneness and allow the differences.


----------



## HerthElde (Sep 18, 2003)

Re: Freedom to choose.
This gets a bit sticky here in Canada, where it's MY tax dollars that are going toward vanity c-sections, but I have to pay for a homebirth midwife out of pocket (well, that was the situation a couple years ago - things are really bizarre at the moment)
However, I'm a huge believer in the effect the subconscious can have, and that means that many c-sections that might appear "elective" are really done for legit medical (psychological) reasons . . .

Re: Bonding
The love cocktail. Hmm, haven't seen the movie. But hormones can be released post-birth, or in adoptive situations, or whatever. Just because a woman might have a bit of an advantage if she has a natural birth doesn't mean that hormones don't play a part in bonding - for _anyone_
I had a completely natural homebirth with midwife with both my girls. With dd1, I bonded easily. With dd2, it was very difficult. I did NOT get the love cocktail. Was it because of the birth? No. It was surrounding circumstances. I was in a state of pure adrenaline prior to and during her birth. It interfered with the normal cascade of hormones. IMO, it would have been worse if in hospital. But for someone else, hospital might have been better for bonding in that case, due to the removal of the home situation that was causing the stress to begin with.


----------



## leafwood (Jun 15, 2004)

First, I haven't read through all the posts. However, I think the article is a sad reflection of how society views birth. The fact that, in general, women are becoming more and more disconnected from our bodies....told to live up to unrealistic societal standards and deny/quiet our inner voices that instinctually tell us what we need. Birth....the most natural of things, is portrayed as something to fear and escape instead of the beautiful rite of passage that it can be. Alsmost as if the process of birthing is a chore, a curse, or a horror that must be endured.

I get it...I really do becasue I was terrified to give birth the first time....however the thought of a c-section is WAY more scary to me than anything I imagined about birth. I have had both a medicated vaginal delivery and a completely intervention free hospital birth. I was not scared the second time, I was empowered and I truly feel lucky that I was able to experience birth the way millions of women throughout time have. I do wish more women felt safe, secure, supported, and capable regarding birth....and I think the article did a poor job of addressing this issue. It's sad, but I won't judge anyone who makes that decision as it is very personal. All I can do is offer my experiences if asked....in fact my cousin is considering an elective c/s. It saddens me that she would go that route, but it's her deal.


----------



## lifeguard (May 12, 2008)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *HerthElde* 
Re: Freedom to choose.
This gets a bit sticky here in Canada, where it's MY tax dollars that are going toward vanity c-sections, but I have to pay for a homebirth midwife out of pocket (well, that was the situation a couple years ago - things are really bizarre at the moment)

This is a big part of where I am with this issue. I really do think that it is an individual choice but does bother me that I'm paying for an unnecessary & VERY expensive procedure. I have a close friend who chose such a c-section & although she is unaware of it being the cause it has created a big rift in our friendship. I just think it is wrong. And know at the same time she thinks I am ridiculous for wanting a intervention free vaginal birth.

This has been a delightful thread to read. So many thinking women & some good brain food to chew on.

When it comes right down to it we are several generations out from natural, intervention, doctor free births. We are not receiving that kind of information easily from the medical community or our mothers (as they didn't receive it either). Women are making decisions that are highly uninformed & they do not even realize that is the case. Their doctors probably don't feel that is the case either. It is sad, but until that foundation underlying the choice is changed the decisions are not going to change.


----------



## thismama (Mar 3, 2004)

I am pro informed choice in childbirth. I have no objection to 'omgz my tax dollars paying for someone's c/s.' I DO object to the culture of fear and misinformation/lack of information re: birth which I think leads women to make choices they may not otherwise make. But I do not deny any woman's right to choose the method of birth she prefers, including elective c/s.


----------

